Re: sad but true, Linux sucks, a bit
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:08:22 -0600, yaro wrote:
Yeah, well, all this bitching proves i should look harder for the off-
topic list.
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 04:53:15 PM Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:29:01 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>
>> I'm using a news-reader and could not find the off-topic mailinglist.
>>
>> Sorry to say so but your reply sounds more like rambling than anything.
>> I'll reply to the part i was able to comprehend.
>>
>> Expectations ? Man, get a good night sleep.
>>
>> Computers are cheap crap because they can be made to be cheap crap. The
>> production proces permits this.
>>
>> >> Most importantly this list is not an opinion. Almost every listed
>> >> point has links to appropriate articles, threads and discussions
>> >> centered on it, proving that I haven't pulled it out of my <
>> >> expletive
>> >>
>> >> >. And please always check your "facts".
>> >>
>> >> If you get an impression that Linux sucks - you are largely wrong.
>> >> If I had to create a list of Windows problems, it would be almost as
>> >> long as this one.
>> >
>> > -
>> > http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/
>>
>> why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
>>
>> > Unworldly!
>> >
>> > A lot of people think like you, not understanding that digital
>> > technology can't compare to analog technology. Sure, using a computer
>> > humans can do some things that can't be done manually or by analog
>> > technology, but most things are from much higher quality, when done
>> > with analog technology or manually. Multimedia, toolmaking, ... an
>> > endless list.
>> >
>> > We use computers, because analog technology and handcrafted things
>> > are to expensive, the complete philosophy of human kind did go a step
>> > in the wrong direction.
>> >
>> > I'm pro computers, already using Linux for more than 10 years, but
>> > started much earlier with computers in the late 80s.
>> >
>> > It's a misunderstanding to guess that computer technology is that
>> > progressed. Computers are cheap crap. If you are aware that they are
>> > nothing but cheap crap, you can use them from an relatively objective
>> > point of view.
>> >
>> > Less expectations = less disappointment
>> >
>> > High expectations = high disappointment
>> >
>> > IOW your opinion is subjective from an unworldly point of view.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Ralf
>> >
>> > PS: You sent to the wrong list. I only Cc'ed to Debian user and sent
>> > to the off-topic list. I suspect replies should go to this list only.
>
>
> These "reasons why Linux is not ready for the desktop" lists are so
> stupid. Sure they're "objective." But you know how easy it is to take
> Windows or OS X,
> grab a list of THEIR flaws, and call them reasons *they* aren't ready
> for the desktop? This is practically trolling. Nothing to see here
> people, move along.
>
> Conrad
--
jabadaba doooh ooh ooooh
Reply to: