Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

Ivan Marsh <annoyed.RemoveThis@you.now> writes:

>>
>> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.
>
> The Wine project was started in 1993. It was called Wine is not an
> emulator in 1993... it was also apparently called WINdows Emulator in
> 1993.
>

"apparently" and after. It was someone being smart.

The official FAQ, which two people have posted links to, was entitled
"WINdows Emulator".

Now enough with silly word games.

WINE is and was an emulator. Not a HW one, not an opcode simulator, but
it *emulates* the Windows system calls. It really is.

People think they are being clever by stating that it is NOT an
emulator. This has been proven to be false.

This was in the FAQ section I posted.

it is ridiculous to try and twist this for whatever motives.

End of thread for me since you seem intent on confusing the issue.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> Perhaps locally, you see most people using Windows,
> but again, that's meaningless.

Only the samples you deem worthy are representative of Linux usage?

Good advocate!



>> Then there's other overwhelming evidence:
>
> "Other" would imply you had _some_ in the first place; so far you
> don't.
>
>> "I love to tell the story about a speech I gave in Kuala Lumpur. I
>> asked
>> a large audience of techies, "How many of you use Linux?" Something
>> like two out of 500 of them raised their hands. This is abnormally
>> low
>> anywhere in the world.
>
> One wonders exactly _what_ sort of audience it was. "Techies"
> doesn't say anything. If it's an MS-run developer's conference, for
> example, chances are it's going to be populated by Windows folks.
> Without details, the observation is meaningless. However...

It's more PROOF POSITIVE of the nearly infinitesimal usage of desktop Linux,
which low usage is due to... you got it... shitty apps and games and PC
hardware support.



>> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/time-break-up-microsoft-has/stor...spx?gui
>
>
> Hmm. A quote from the page:
>
> "I'd argue that if Apple Inc., with its appealing desktop platform and
> amazing marketing machine cannot unseat Microsoft, then how can the
> slow-moving open source manage to do it?"
>
> "Slow-moving"? Apparently this person is completely unaware of the
> world of open source, which on the whole moves *faster* than most
> closed-source alternatives.

It's John Dvorak, hardly a MS lover. He's crabby about pretty much
everything.



> As a simple example, compare Windows to Linux. In the time between
> XP and Vista, Linux has added a whole host of new features and with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista



> products such as KDE 4 on the horizon, it is poised to produce even
> more - while Windows, despite the insanely long delivery time for
> Vista,

During which time Microsoft Corp. delivered dozens of new versions of many
products.



> has released a product which has even many Windows fans
> screaming in frustration.

....while simultaneously shoveling money hand over fist to MS for that
product.



>> ==================================================================================
>> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=0&action=c2hvd19...9kdWN0X
>> nearly all the purchasers wiped Linux and installed XP or Vista
>
> Interesting to note the comments offered there. Let's see... 10 per
> page. First page, two users with Linux. Second page, two with Linux,
> one with n/a, one with "other". Third page, three with n/a, one with
> "other". Fourth page, two comments, one with Linux.
>
> So... 32 comments in all; of those, five are Linux, four are "n/a",
> two are "other". That means 11 out of 32 use something other than
> Windows, and about 16% use Linux - giving lie to your 3% figure,
> never mind your "that's overstated".

Now all of a sudden a tiny survey IS acceptable as evidence of desktop Linux
usage. Great advocate!


Of those who indicated which OS they used:

Page 1: Windows 5, Linux 1
Page 2: Windows 6, Linux 2 (one comment was a multi-OS booter and one was
trying to install Vista)
Page 3: Windows 4, Linux 0
Page 4: Windows 0, Linux 0
Total: Windows 15, Linux 3
%: Windows 83%, Linux 17%

And every one of those Windows users chose to wipe Linux and install XP or
Vista.

Now, find me a situation where even 17% of purchasers wipe XP/Vista and
install Linux.



> So, your own references prove you're simply wrong in your own numbers
> where there *are* numbers, and the best you can do apart from that is
> to quote someone of questionable reliability, counting noses in an
> unknown environment.
>
> Yes, well, you really do make your case.
>
> <snicker>

How's that street survey coming along? You're far too timid to do it and
reveal the results, 'cause you know it will be 99 to 1 in favor of Windows.

This message is not archived

DFS <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
> It's more PROOF POSITIVE of the nearly infinitesimal usage of desktop Linux,
> which low usage is due to... you got it... shitty apps and games and PC
> hardware support.

Oh drop the shitty hardware support argument, arsehole.
That one went out with the twin towers.

Linux has had more hardware support than windows for ages.
And as for newer stuff, yes, we beat windows there too in many cases now.

And the apps aren't shitty either.
Or a lot of the games. And any that are shitty are just as shitty on
windows.

>> As a simple example, compare Windows to Linux. In the time between
>> XP and Vista, Linux has added a whole host of new features and with

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

But how many of them ADD to productivity or the user experience.
We don't care about things designed to annoy the user.
We don't care about things designed to screw the user for some faceless
media mogul.

Just the ones the user might actually LIKE?

Wooo. eyecandy. wooo they improved the search a bit. wooo they allowed jpgs
to be used as wallpaper.

The downsides far outweight the upsides from what I've heard so far.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1.DeleteThis@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
>
> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.

Are you aware that your sole argument is "a guy said it is an emulator"?

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

On 2007-08-03, alexti <QQalextiQQ.TakeThisOut@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.TakeThisOut@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
> news:slrnfb6cbi.66o.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:
>
>>
>> User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs on.
>> That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar layer for
>> regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.
>>
>> There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
>> different hw:
>>
>> - it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
>> - the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
>> did something he shouldn't have.
> I would disagree that those are the only reasons. From my practice, the
> following are much more common:
> (a) software uses uninitialised memory;
> (b) software uses unallocated memory;
> (c) software uses unallocated *and* uninitialised memory.
> Those are really good methods to make the program have strange and
> unexplicable behaviour on different configurations.
>
> (b) can probably be considered as a particular case of your second reason
> though.

Please note the "depending on different hw".

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:

> On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
>>
>> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.
>
> Are you aware that your sole argument is "a guy said it is an emulator"?
>

You know, it *has* to be true, since it supports the argument of the "true
linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist", "CUPS guru" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark

And he will staunchly ignore that *if* it is true, then WinNT also uses
an "emulator". Even several, for different types of win-apps

--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> I'm not naive enough to think that asking the handful
> of rednecks down at the local watering hole constitutes
> a meaningful analysis of worldwide technology adoption.

Of course not. They drink at a bar, so of course they don't use Linux and
are a biased sample.

Looks like you'll have to survey every village in Cambodia before you'll be
satisfied.

On Aug 3, 11:20 am, Hadron <hadronqu... DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
> WINE is and was an emulator. Not a HW one, not an opcode simulator, but
> it *emulates* the Windows system calls. It really is.

You guys take names too seriously! Oh, wait, I see this thread
is crossposted to *.advocacy. I'm not surprised anymore.
Anybody who posts in *.advocacy is an idiot (oh, wait...

The guys who say "wine is not an emulator" mean "wine isn't
a hardware emulator that lets you boot windows, and therefore
it doesn't require you to boot up, nor does it require a windows
license,
and it doesn't keep the windows files in a place you
can't get at easily; instead,
it provides implementations of each windows syscall,
and lets you store your files alongside your unix files."
(At least the good ones do.)

The post earlier in the thread about "small minded pedants" hit the
nail on the head.

Ho, hum, back to triaging wine problem reports...
- Dan

In article <1186237510.138115.110610.TakeThisOut@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
DanKegel <daniel.r.kegel.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ho, hum, back to triaging wine problem reports...
> - Dan

If you are the same Dan Kegel who wrote that great article on the C10K
problem, then let me say that is one of the most useful things I've come
across on the web. Thanks! (Especially since it looks like you've been
keeping it up-to-date...something that far too few people do when they
manage to write something great about the current state of a technology).


--
--Tim Smith

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> I'm not naive enough to think that asking the handful
>> of rednecks down at the local watering hole constitutes
>> a meaningful analysis of worldwide technology adoption.
>
> Of course not. They drink at a bar, so of course they don't use Linux and
> are a biased sample.
>
> Looks like you'll have to survey every village in Cambodia before you'll be
> satisfied.

It really is just about the only way to tally Linux usage.

And Windows usage, for that matter, since you cannot guarantee at all
anymore that a Windows sales is a usage of Windows.

--
Tux rox!

In article <slrnfb9fr8.72k.linonut.TakeThisOut@mlsrock.launchmodem.com>,
Linonut <linonut.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> It really is just about the only way to tally Linux usage.
>
> And Windows usage, for that matter, since you cannot guarantee at all
> anymore that a Windows sales is a usage of Windows.

You give up too easily. I'm glad you aren't in charge of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, or no species would ever get protection under the
Endangered Species Act, because we can't go out and count every single
member of a given species!

One way to get a good estimate of something like this is to do
independent estimates using different methods, and compare them. For
example, take browser stats at a general site, like Google. The biggest
source of error there will be browsers that report a different browser's
user agent. But you can get an estimate of that by taking stats from
sites where you'd expect most visitors to be on Linux, such as Linux
download sites, forums for projects that are only of use on Linux, and
things like that. There will be some legitimate IE traffic there, but
the shouldn't be too much, so to a first approximation, attribute ALL
the IE traffic on those sites to Linux users with spoofed user agents.
The ratio then of IE to non-IE users on that site gives a correction
factor you can apply to the numbers from the general site (such as
Google) to get an estimated upper limit on the percentage of Linux users
visiting the general site.

You can also take direct surveys. Survey groups that would not be
biased toward a particular system.

There are patterns in the way different operating systems generate TCP
sequence numbers. Someone clever could probably figure out something
about web site visitors by looking at the sequence numbers on different
requests. (Or by looking at other things in TCP or IP packets that vary
among operating systems).

This is just a start. Think a while and I'm sure you can come up with
other things you could use to get some idea of how many people use each
OS, along with some kind of error range estimate for each method.

Scientists, engineers, and business people all routinely count things
that are much harder to count than how many people use a given piece of
software. It amazes me that so many people think that this problem is
intractable.


--
--Tim Smith

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.TakeThisOut@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
news:slrnfb8d9j.3br.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:

> On 2007-08-03, alexti <QQalextiQQ.TakeThisOut@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.TakeThisOut@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
>> news:slrnfb6cbi.66o.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:
>>
>>>
>>> User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs
>>> on. That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar
>>> layer for regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.
>>>
>>> There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
>>> different hw:
>>>
>>> - it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
>>> - the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
>>> did something he shouldn't have.
>> I would disagree that those are the only reasons. From my practice,
>> the following are much more common:
>> (a) software uses uninitialised memory;
>> (b) software uses unallocated memory;
>> (c) software uses unallocated *and* uninitialised memory.
>> Those are really good methods to make the program have strange and
>> unexplicable behaviour on different configurations.
>>
>> (b) can probably be considered as a particular case of your second
>> reason though.
>
> Please note the "depending on different hw".
Yep, different hardware is very useful to make content of uninitialised
memory more random.