>From the hostile tone of all the respondents it appears that many of
these 'freedom of choice' advocates are afraid of competition.

Apparently they are all for 'freedom of choice' as long as that choice
is either Linux or Linux. You would think that they would be more
receptive to other freely distributed operating systems.

But when a recognized name brand, officialy certified commercial grade
Unix becomes freely available they all scoff at it. Makes you wonder
why.

lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>>From the hostile tone of all the respondents it appears that many of
> these 'freedom of choice' advocates are afraid of competition.
>
> Apparently they are all for 'freedom of choice' as long as that choice
> is either Linux or Linux. You would think that they would be more
> receptive to other freely distributed operating systems.
>
> But when a recognized name brand, officialy certified commercial grade
> Unix becomes freely available they all scoff at it. Makes you wonder
> why.
>

I for one am all for freedom of choice. Yes, I use Windows, that's my
/choice/, for quite a bit of /desktop/ work. I also use Linux for quite
a lot of /desktop/ work and *all* of my /server/ setups. That's also my
choice. I /chose/ to do my research and found that a hammer isn't the
best thing to thread a needle with. Although you may /choose/ to employ
a crude percussive device in such a manner.

--
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Linux is not /user-friendly/. It *is* user-friendly. It is not
ignorant-friendly, nor is it idiot-friendly.

Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

This is a battle of wits, and it is clear you are unarmed.

-end sig-

Jim <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> writes:

> I for one am all for freedom of choice.

[snip]

> -begin sig-
> Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of the
> opinions of its author. You decide.

[snip]

I like that part of your .signature.

The rest of it is too long though. But it's your choice.

Otherwise I completely agree with you.

Bye, Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

lqualig@uku.co.uk writes:

>>From the hostile tone of all the respondents it appears that many of
> these 'freedom of choice' advocates are afraid of competition.
>
> Apparently they are all for 'freedom of choice' as long as that choice
> is either Linux or Linux. You would think that they would be more
> receptive to other freely distributed operating systems.
>
> But when a recognized name brand, officialy certified commercial grade
> Unix becomes freely available they all scoff at it. Makes you wonder
> why.

Here are a number of things I might hold against Solaris:

1- Recognized name brand
2- officially certified
3- commercial grade

Those are the kind of things that appeal to corporate types,
not people that appreciate fine operating systems.

Just my opinion.

> Here are a number of things I might hold against Solaris:
>
> 1- Recognized name brand
> 2- officially certified
> 3- commercial grade
>
>
> Those are the kind of things that appeal to corporate types,
> not people that appreciate fine operating systems.



Just because something is recognized, officially certified and
commercial grade is not a reason to dismiss the product.

Do you wear a name brand sneaker or some no-name brand from K-Mart? Do
you fly on name-brand airlines or some unknown "Sky Friend" brand? Do
you buy a name brand automobile or do you build your own kit-car with
unbranded parts? Do you go to a AMA certified doctor or some hack who
works out of his apartment?

So if you are willing to accept "name brands" for clothing and you
don't have a problem with an AMA board certified doctor then why should
you hold this against an OS?

Why would anyone insist on ignoring an OS because it is "commercial
grade" or achieved an official certification. I would think that the
quality of the OS would be the first and foremost factor in your
decision and not some "anti-establishment" mentality.

In article <1118391008.948867.100060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
tripivceta@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> vlad.zam@gmail.com wrote:
>> Does it run on PowerPC/POWER ?
>
> It did, and it will again. Port is udnerway.

Ah, the once and future port.

--
mailto:rlhamil@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"

lqualig@uku.co.uk writes:

>> Here are a number of things I might hold against Solaris:
>>
>> 1- Recognized name brand
>> 2- officially certified
>> 3- commercial grade
>>
>>
>> Those are the kind of things that appeal to corporate types,
>> not people that appreciate fine operating systems.
>
>
>
> Just because something is recognized, officially certified and
> commercial grade is not a reason to dismiss the product.
>
> Do you wear a name brand sneaker or some no-name brand from K-Mart?

No name, but I don't shop at K-Mart.

> Do you fly on name-brand airlines or some unknown "Sky Friend" brand?

I usually take the plane that's going where I'm going.

> Do you buy a name brand automobile or do you build your own kit-car with
> unbranded parts?

If I was still into fooling around with cars, I'd have no problem
with a kit-car. Certainly with an OS, I very much appreciate being
able to mess with the parts.

> Do you go to a AMA certified doctor or some hack who
> works out of his apartment?

A name brand doctor?

> So if you are willing to accept "name brands" for clothing and you
> don't have a problem with an AMA board certified doctor then why should
> you hold this against an OS?

By that logic, I should be using Windows only. The biggest name
brand of all.

> Why would anyone insist on ignoring an OS because it is "commercial
> grade" or achieved an official certification. I would think that the
> quality of the OS would be the first and foremost factor in your
> decision and not some "anti-establishment" mentality.

I think you're reading too much into my statement. I did say
"might hold against". I'm just pointing out that the criteria
cited did nothing for me. I've always been attracted to the
underdog. If those are the only reasons to use Solaris,
I'm not convinced.

Tell me the OS is reliable, fast, flexible, (as Solaris is),
and then I'll listen.

In my everyday work, I use Solaris a lot. I used to use
Sparc/Solaris as my desktop system at work and at home.
Unfortunately, Sun decided a while back that they could
sell servers without being competitive on the desktop and
I finally gave in and switched to Linux for desktop use.

Now, it's hard to tell what they are up to but to make me
switch, they have to do _better_ than Mandrake to interest me.
We'll see.

Dan Espen wrote:
> lqualig@uku.co.uk writes:

>>But when a recognized name brand, officialy certified commercial grade
>>Unix becomes freely available they all scoff at it. Makes you wonder
>>why.

> Here are a number of things I might hold against Solaris:
>
> 1- Recognized name brand

So I guess if you played acoustic guitar, you'd steer clear of Martin
because it's a recognized name brand?

- Logan

I agree with 7. lmao

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:37:40 -0000,
Richard.L.Hamilton@mindwarp.smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) wrote:

>In article <1118391008.948867.100060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> tripivceta@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>> vlad.zam@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Does it run on PowerPC/POWER ?
>>
>> It did, and it will again. Port is udnerway.
>
>Ah, the once and future port.

Assuming you are not just being a prick, you can check with Dennis
Clarke over at Blastwave about the PPC port.

-david-