Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
Joe Hart wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Roberto C. S�nchez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:43:30PM -0400, Jim Hyslop wrote:
>>>> If I had immediately followed with some outrageous claim that Windows is
>>>> better and has fewer security holes because <insert some stupid reason>,
>>>> *THEN* you could accuse me of spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>> Windows *is* better, since Microsoft reports much fewer bugs than any
>>> Linux distribution :-)
>> Windows *is* better, since it has more users than any other OS, and
>> those simply can't be wrong. The same applies to M$ office.
>
>> Practically none of its users ever think of *why* this or that would be
>> better or worse than any of the alternatives.
>
> Your logic is flawed.
As noted in my other reply: this is not my logic and my way of thinking,
but that popular among window$ loosers, encouraged by heavy marketing on
the 'superiority' of the product.
> With Office, it is a compatibility issue. People use Office because
> their contacts use it, and it is a vicious circle of upgrades just to
> remain compatible, meanwhile generating a lot of income for MS.
It's about the same way of thinking that encourages persistent use of
Office and O$ choice. The O$ is also viewed more 'compatible' than
linux, because most hardware etc. is supported to work with it. It is
also based on closed standards and employs an update policy to force
users to upgrade. We still use proprietary hardware on Windows NT, but
these computers cannot be connected to the internet for security
reasons, and M$ would like to force us to buy new hardware and upgrade
to XP/Vista.
It's an interesting and popular misconception that M$ office is
considered 'compatible' despite the fact that their file formats are the
*one* example that is arguably least compatible with any other product.
Their software is also only available for Win32, pseudo-win64 and mac,
making it incompatible to other hardware or other OSes.
Johannes
Reply to: