Myths and Realities of IT

I see all kinds of comments on my blog reflecting mythology rather than reality. Salesmen love mythology. It’s so easy to modify without doing any work at all. One plants a believable fact in the mind of someone and a believable mythology can spread like wildfire. We know from legal documents that M$ actually trained its people in how to manage mythology and seduce third parties to work on M$’s behalf selling the mythology of M$’s products to the world. It worked spectacularly well and overcame all kinds of rational tendencies in IT: price/performance and choice, in particular.

Without numerous viable choices in IT there is no reality at all to “choosing M$”. M$ did exclusive deals with IBM and major ISPs and OEMs to exclude competitors from the market virtually eliminating choice. M$ then leveraged that lack of choice into “superiority” of M$’s technology, the fundamental myth, widely held.

Reality is quite different. This week people celebrated Bill Gates’ decision to focus on security a decade ago after spreading insecure crap all over IT for more than a decade at that point. Even after that “milestone”, Vista propagated some vulnerabilities that Bill Gates had introduced in Lose 3.1 and waves of malware spread through the world of IT shutting down whole organizations some times. I worked at one organization that actually pulled the plug on the Internet to protect itself from malware for a period of time when one of the worms was making its rounds. The mythology does not survive the test of reality.

Myth Reality Comment
No one was ever fired for buying M$ London Stock Exchange scrapped that other OS for huge outages and lack of performance They got better performance for a lower price buying a company producing exchange systems and got into the business of selling exchange systems, essentially making the cost of migration $0.
You cannot escape M$ because of some critical application(s) Many seats can and have often been migrated because one does not need the same set of applications on every seat Requiring everyone to drive a Cadillac when a Toyota would do has cost $billions annually of wasted expenditure in IT. There can be economies of scale and efficiency having only one set of client machines but no one actually needs to do it that way and often it is not possible to do it that way so why try to do that with the OS?
Thin clients expose users to a single point of failure. At the time M$ wanted to suppress thin clients from undermining their monopoly, M$’s OS was the largest single point of failure on the planet and quite unsuited to run thin clients. GNU/Linux and other UNIX OS have been giving reliable performance using thin clients or not, making possible huge savings in capital cost and maintenance where the technology is really suitable (not video, usually).
M$ costs less The prices of licences and CALs give Free Software a huge headstart which proponents try to overcome with other myths like ease of management. Having managed many kinds of systems from one-of-a-kind, to GNU/Linux to inActive Directoried XP, I can state with no hesitation that I have never seen any efficiency in using that other OS to do anything. M$ is now warning users to be prepared to encounter GUI-less servers as if it were some novel thing.
Migrations to GNU/Linux are expensive failures Most migrations are easier than expected and cost less. Having migrated many kinds of systems I know that a few problems will arise but they are easily soluble one at a time. The easiest migrations are into green fields with no lock-in but most organizations succeed and rapidly recover their investment by starting with the easy cases, almost-green fields. For green-fields the return on investment is immediate because the hardware had to be bought anyway and the licensing fees are an immediate reduction in capital cost. Important applications can always be broken down into essential features and those replaced one at a time. Moving to web applications is the neatest way to get GNU/Linux to do anything that other OS can do.

The ultimate proof of the above is that where M$ has little standing, the myths are not evident at all: the mobile space. No one is saying smart thingies don’t work because hundreds of millions are out there, working, in the hands of ordinary people. Mobility was a green field for Android/Linux. Few are saying thin clients don’t work either as everyone depends on the web these days and even M$ has decided to extract “value” (money) by taxing thin clients with its OS and CALs.

M$’s myths still abound on the desktop and on the server but the reality is still there. Anything that other OS can do can be done faster, cheaper and more openly with GNU/Linux and FLOSS. We don’t need to accept, propagate or even tolerate the myths any longer. They are not reality.

I recommend Debian GNU/Linux for all IT. It is distributed by a core of dedicated developers following best practices for packaging software that works reliably and is well tested. GNU/Linux is a cooperative product of the world and it works for you with no myths required.

UPDATE
I no sooner had finished this when I saw articles about Apple’s pet myths:

  1. They stole our intellectual property
  2. Our stuff works really well
  3. Our stuff is for beautiful people

Clearly, Apple’s salesmen encourage the myths but reality creeps in. Both Apple and M$ will have to compete on price/performance. In reality, they have no special advantage in technology and buyers should make choice real.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Myths and Realities of IT

  1. oiaohm says:

    Please wake up to the big difference Dr Loser.

    Linux Standard Base mandates binary compatibility.
    Posix only mandates source compatibility.

    Linux Standard Base is a far more useful standard that what is Posix. To be Linux Standard Base compatible windows would have to load Linux ELF binaries. Provide all the libraries as the Standard base defines placed out in a directory structure defines by the FHS.

    Passing Linux Standard Base is no where near easy if you are not running ABI conforming stuff. Yes the test suite to confirm you are to Linux Standard Base is a universal binary between Linux distrobutions.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Posix compliance 1990 is way to old. IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995 Is threading. So want a run a multi threading program forget it on 1990 version.

    Posix compatibility: POSIX 1003.1-1990 is complete old and crusty crap. Dr Loser you complain about Linux having crushy crap you just point to stuff in windows that makes Linux look modern. Single threaded applications only no socket support. No Posix ACL support…. List of missing goes on and on. Supporting 1990 is a complete joke.

    Latest POSIX:2009 Heck don’t even think about running POSIX:2001 on NT. Linux Standard Base requirements start at Posix:2003.

    Sorry claiming compliance with crustly out of date stuff what are you trying to make me laugh DR Loser at how stupid you are.

    Tell me when MS support Linux Standard Base 4.0 or the matching Posix requirement ie something current.

    “I emphasise that the NT Operating System is a far better and less crusty piece of work than the Linux equivalent. It natively supports many varieties of access control, for example, whereas ACLs in Linux are just a bolt-on.”

    Posix ACL structs are incompatible with NT ACL structs as per POSIX 2001.

    “More to the point, the Linux desktop self-evidently lacks ABI stability between even closely related versions of the same distro. If it did not, then you would happily be able to copy 99% of applications in binary format from one release to the next.

    But you can’t, can you?”
    LOL the false world DR Loser lives in. Of course you can run the same binary on many different Linux distrobutions we do it all the time.

    You down right can if you application was build to LSB spec that means using only the certified stable ABI’s provided by kernel or libraries and providing copies of the ones that are not. Have you not run games on Linux like xonotic you just download the compress archive extract and run.

    If this is your argument about binary compatibility is false the same solution works on all 3 OS’s. Bundle anything the OS does not provide from stable ABI. Obey that no problems.

    http://www.xonotic.org uses the same method for all OS’s. Yes 1 package for Windows Linux and OS X. Just extract and run.

    “which includes all sorts of weird, outdated nonsense, particularly when it comes to the shell”

    Systemd distributions installing a shell is optional.

    So yes the outdated shell is optional for a Linux Standard Base distribution. Mandatory for a Posix.

    Must be able to install one if application needs it under Linux Standard base. No Linux standard base parts are mandatory to installed. Must be providable if requested.

    Yes there is a large difference in requirement between Posix and Linux Standard base.

    “stable”,”obsolete”. ABI on Linux kernel is the long term stuff, “testing”, “unstable”, and “private” is the stuff you should not touch when making a cross distribution application. Pritty straight forwards really.

    Thinking under windows you are never meant to syscall the kernel directly instead you are meant to call ntdll first. Linux could just as simply say you are meant to call libc standard functions first.

    Come on Dr Loser get somewhere near modern not 10 to 20 years out of date thank you.

  3. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    “Linux has evolved past Posix compliance.”

    Yet Posix compliance is always the first thing that comes up when comparing OSes, isn’t it? It even features in your very next sentence.

    Look, we can see through this. I don’t care what mountains of stuff are required above and beyond Posix compliance to meet a standard that very few distros ever bother about. The fact still remains that the underlying requirement is Posix compliance.

    You will recall that your original argument is that Linux has left Unix far behind. This is clearly not so. If you insist on Posix compliance (which includes all sorts of weird, outdated nonsense, particularly when it comes to the shell), then I am afraid you are still very much rooted in the Unix world.

  4. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    You can whine and lol all you like, but NT is quite capable of providing Posix compatibility: POSIX 1003.1-1990, as it happens.

    Why does nobody much use this feature? Because in the modern world it is totally pointless.

    Why did I mention it? Because the “crusty old OS” that is Windows is more than capable of doing everything that Linux can do, based on the same standards that Linux claims to be based on (but I believe you will find is somewhat non-compliant).

    The reason for this? People like you love to confuse the actual OS, which is NT, with the superstrate that users actually see for the most part.

    I emphasise that the NT Operating System is a far better and less crusty piece of work than the Linux equivalent. It natively supports many varieties of access control, for example, whereas ACLs in Linux are just a bolt-on.

    Feel free to dislike Windows for absolutely any reason at all; but I would suggest that complaining about it’s “crustiness” just makes you look like a know-nothing buffoon.

  5. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    This complete myth of yours, backed up by a link from that noted exponent of interface stability, Greg Kroah-Hartman?

    I’ve sketched out a directory structure that starts in Documentation/ABI/ and has five different states, “stable”, “testing”, “unstable”, “obsolete”, and “private”.

    Our definitions of ABI stability evidently differ.

    More to the point, the Linux desktop self-evidently lacks ABI stability between even closely related versions of the same distro. If it did not, then you would happily be able to copy 99% of applications in binary format from one release to the next.

    But you can’t, can you?

    Incidentally, as is usual with your walls’o’text, this question has nothing at all to do with the crustiness or otherwise of a given OS.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser being stuck with X11 is why lot of Linux people are cranky bits of works about closed source binary provides. Since closed source binary provides have been getting in way.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    “Given the well-known ABI instability between versions of the Linux kernel”
    That is a complete myth. The Kernel to Userspace ABI is stable. In fact mandatory since Linux 2.0. Any patch that causes Linux kernel User-space ABI to act different to its prior form must be reversed.

    http://lwn.net/Articles/173661/

    The stuff is highly documented and correct. Reason for Linux kernel userspace ABI being chosen in 2002 it was the only kernel userspace ABI that was fully documented with a clear markers of stable state ABI in the posix world.

    “check out the HAL stuff, for example, or the trivial ease with which you can build a Posix-compliant substrate on top of NT. Compare and contrast to the risible WINE”

    LOL. Really lot of NT design is Posix incompatible.

    Really wine has so much trouble because of how many programs want to use kernel mode drivers and direct hardware access requests. Same stuff that fails when you attempt to port a Linux kernel using program to windows. Also how many video card interfaces are not provided under Linux also gives wine trouble. Wine means to run normal user-mode windows programs is basically perfect.

    Linux kernel does not know how to load a dynamic binary. Yes anything using .so files. Anything using .so files is in fact loaded by a little program in userspace in Linux.

    Wine just provides a replacement loader that reads PE NE. Do you know what binfmt does in Linux kernel. Looks at binary and decides what use-space program should be run to run it. Yes its possible to cause a nice never ending loop if there was not a safe guard. Make a ELF dyanmic loader that is a ELF dynamic executable. In theory that should be a never ending loop if the Linux kernel did not contain protection against that.

    Basically Windows and Linux both have subsystems. With a subsystem controller. Linux subsystem controller is binfmt.

    Funny enough binfmt engine is unique to Linux. Its not part of being a Unix. Something that existed from Linux 1.0. Linus has taken Linux a different path in many places.

    Dr Loser
    “What happened to that Posix compliance you’re so awfully fond of? I’m unaware of anybody outside the Unix world demanding such a thing.”
    That is the thing. Posix compliance is not important to the Linux world any more. Linux Standard Base compliance is important.

    Linux has evolved past Posix compliance. Talking Posix compliance shows how out of touch you are. To pass Linux Standard base compliance you have to be Posix as well. But Linux Standard base includes stuff like qt and gtk library support and many other extras posix does not contain. Yes when stabilized the new video system will be part of passing this.

    Dr Loser
    “If you spend twenty years with a half-assed piece of crap like X at the centre of your OS, and only after that do you decide to emulate a supertanker[1], then You Just Might Be A Crusty Old OS.”
    Maybe for 20 years due to illegal actions going on trying to enter the desktop properly was not worth Linux effort. Also Linux first attempt to get rid of X11 with directfb. That is 1994. Reason Linux has been stuck with X11 was the fact Nvidia ATI and others would only release X11 drivers.

    Lets say windows 9 is released and ms has changed something in the video stack and the video card makers don’t release drivers for it. Would you not be forced to stay on Windows 8 right. This is what has happened to Linux for 20 years. Change in Linux position in the world with android is at long last giving Linux a chance to get rid of X11 once and for all.

    So calling Linux a crust old OS is a myth. A OS forced to run crusty old part they have been wanting to kill for 16+ years is correct. Reversing of video drivers by the Linux world came out of desperation attempting to get free of X11.

  8. oe says:

    “Many don’t consider any science, technology, art or commerce beyond their borders of any import.” South of the border if you believe such a statement as this, or that Europe has some enlightened ideas of Governance, or that Canada does does have some more effective social policies, your slandered as “elitist”, “a socialist”, “unpatriotic”, or told “love it or leave it”. Very enlightened, of course.

  9. Dr Loser says:

    Missed that last quote, sorry.

    I have indeed missed it. Given the well-known ABI instability between versions of the Linux kernel, I’m not even sure what you mean. Could you enlighten me with a link?

  10. Dr Loser says:

    @The crowd:

    <= oiaohm:

    "Dr Loser NT is a redesign of VMS a even older OS by the same exact author of both. Yes at the core of NT is a crusty old OS design. Basically NT was not a new design from nothing in 1993."

    But of course. I never argued to the contrary. May I point you to the fact that Multics (late 1960s and onwards) was the "mother ship" of Unix, VMS, and my personal favourite, VOS?

    Only a total moron would start an OS from scratch, even in 1970 or so, and particularly not now. Prior art in the field is clearly worth looking at.

    I am merely refuting your insane claim that Windows is ipso facto “more crusty” than Linux.

    “Linux started from basically nothing in 1991.”

    No it didn’t: see above. Linus himself admits that he was motivated by the fact that Tanenbaum wouldn’t release an i86 version of Minix for (free and open etc) use.

    Don’t get me wrong: it’s a magnificent achievement for the early ’90s, and I admire Mr Torvalds for it. But it’s basically a well-intentioned, rip-off, toy.

    Cutler’s second go at “new technology,” on the other hand, was even better than his first go at “new technology” (VMS), partly because he brought an expert team along with him from DEC, and partly because he was able to learn from his mistakes (check out the HAL stuff, for example, or the trivial ease with which you can build a Posix-compliant substrate on top of NT. Compare and contrast to the risible WINE).

    “So yes Linux is the young OS.”

    OK, we’ll compromise. I’ll give you juvenile.

    “Unix really does not control Linux any more.”

    Oh, really? What happened to that Posix compliance you’re so awfully fond of? I’m unaware of anybody outside the Unix world demanding such a thing.

    “Linux is now in the driver seat over the dropping of hald the redesign of the video stack.”

    Well, I don’t know what your definition of “crusty” is, but I know what my definition of crusty is. It goes as follows:

    If you spend twenty years with a half-assed piece of crap like X at the centre of your OS, and only after that do you decide to emulate a supertanker[1], then You Just Might Be A Crusty Old OS.

    [1] I expect it to take three years, minimum, and even then it will be horribly badly integrated and not consistent across distros. Just a prediction.

    In fact you missed a major change the universal standard for kernel to userspace ABI for Unix was defined as the Linux Kernel ABI. Back in the year 2002. That is when Linux took over the guiding force of unix.

  11. This is a terrible day on the web. I went to look for evidence and found several mainstays are blacked out in protest of SOPA…

    Sigh.

    I agree with oldman on this. I guess some of the old code is still available at kernel.org

    I downloaded linux-1.0 and grepped for minix and Tan and found only a minix directory containing an implementation of minix_fs written by Linus.
    “/*
    * linux/fs/minix/file.c
    *
    * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds
    *
    * minix regular file handling primitives
    */”

    There could be some common stuff between Minix and Linux from third parties like BSD or GNU.

    From the README:
    “WHAT IS LINUX?

    Linux is a Unix clone for 386/486-based PCs written from scratch by
    Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers
    across the Net. It aims towards POSIX compliance.

    It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged
    Unix, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries,
    demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory
    management and TCP/IP networking.

    It is distributed under the GNU General Public License – see the
    accompanying COPYING file for more details. “

    There’s an early history here.

  12. oldman says:

    “That’s a myth.”

    Certainly Torvalds may have been inspired by minix, but as far as I can recall he didn’t take any code from it.

  13. Phenom wrote, “Linux is itself based on Minix.”

    That’s a myth. Some contributions to Linux may have been written using Minix systems, but none of the code of Minix was put into Linux. Within the first year or so, GNU/Linux became its own development platform.

  14. Phenom says:

    Ohio, quite some ideas from VMS did move into NT, but I fail to see that as bad.

    Linux is itself based on Minix. It neither started from nothing, nor it is any younger than NT (3 years based on almost 25 year stand is nothing).

  15. oiaohm says:

    Phenom have you read the book by Dave Culter the author of NT. Talking about NT and how it relates to VMS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler Also the correct date for the start of Windows NT is October 1988. 3 years before the start of Linux. Dr Loser is badly wrong.

    Phenom NT was a chance for Dave_Cutler to rebuild a OS without the mistakes of VMS.

    VMS move the letters by 1 down the alphabet. You get WNT. Get the joke yet Phenom. That is no fluke either.

    Nothing I have said is wrong Phenom.

  16. Phenom says:

    Ohio, what you just wrote is simply incorrect.

    I start to suspect that it is not possible for a human being to have such a twisted perception of reality as you do, unless one is under the unhealthy influence of heavy drugs. Very heavy drugs.

  17. Phenom says:

    The ability to take the software home legally is priceless, especially since schools usually have better bandwidth than homes in remote communities.

    Pogs, did you ever heard of DreamSpark?

  18. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser NT is a redesign of VMS a even older OS by the same exact author of both. Yes at the core of NT is a crusty old OS design. Basically NT was not a new design from nothing in 1993.

    Linux started from basically nothing in 1991. So yes Linux is the young OS. Unix really does not control Linux any more. Linux is now in the driver seat over the dropping of hald the redesign of the video stack.

    In fact you missed a major change the universal standard for kernel to userspace ABI for Unix was defined as the Linux Kernel ABI. Back in the year 2002. That is when Linux took over the guiding force of unix.

  19. Andrew wrote, “That means we use BSD, GNU/Linux, Minix, MikeOS, ReactOS, etc; and recently Google Summer of code, where there’s a wealth of material and mentors to accomplish such tasks.”

    I taught some computer science but most of my students were into using software. GNU/Linux is ideal for them because they can run the code with few limitations. That means I don’t need extra licences to practice installation, fix that other OS (permanently by paving), set up services and networking. Learning to install and use GNU/Linux turns an ordinary student into someone independent of the monopoly. The ability to take the software home legally is priceless, especially since schools usually have better bandwidth than homes in remote communities.

  20. Andrew says:

    Robert, your a teacher. I teach during idle times at one of our community centers. To teach our young ones computer science (not click, click, click with a mouse) you must have hardware & source code to OS and apps. This leaves ms out since there is no source there. That means we use BSD, GNU/Linux, Minix, MikeOS, ReactOS, etc; and recently Google Summer of code, where there’s a wealth of material and mentors to accomplish such tasks.

  21. Dr Loser, expressing ignorance, maligned GNU/Linux’s UNIX roots.

    While SCOG tried to sue the world over IBM contributing some of their AIX stuff to Linux, and GNU was designed to be a UNIX-like OS Free for all, and Linus intending to create a UNIX OS and following POSIX stuff, and a lot of UNIX app code being easily ported to GNU/Linux, Dr Loser insists on denying any resemblance.

    Stuff that make one go, “Hmmm!”

    And, if that’s not enough, he wanted to call one of the most rapidly developing projects in all IT with thousands of current contributors and commits, “Crusty”. Hmmm…

  22. Andrew wrote, “It’s different in english blogs; especially concerning alternative technologies.”

    I would not blame the English. It’s more like the “ugly American” tendency to presume to rule the world. That tendency falls right into M$’s plan for world domination.

    I am a Canadian, btw, also American (I live in North America) but the folks to my south have not yet figured out a good name for themselves and their country. Presuming to speak for North, South and Central America when they call themselves Americans is rude to say the least. Many don’t consider any science, technology, art or commerce beyond their borders of any import.

  23. Andrew says:

    @Dr. Loser: “You haven’t been reading this blog for very long, have you? Or, indeed, any blog.”

    You’re halfway correct in that assumption. I spend a good deal of time in Latin American blogs. There we have a cordial, respectful and polite dissemination of helpful information. It’s different in english blogs; especially concerning alternative technologies.

    Thanks for making it clear. I’ll leave it at that.

  24. kozmcrae says:

    “Which one of those two is the crustier?”

    Windows by far. Wasn’t it just in the past couple of years that a 17 year old security hole was patched in Windows? Must have been a 17 year locust!

    Yes, Windows is a crusty old OS. Microsoft just keeps adding layers upon layers to Windows. Then a shiny new skin when it’s time for an upgrade. Just look at the system calls for each OS. The crust is visually apparent in Windows.

    A Microsoft engineer said “When we make a change in the code we have no idea what other changes it will make”. They just hope and pray it doesn’t cause a major rewrite.

    Haven’t you ever wondered why Vista took so long to get to market. And when it did it was missing some promised features? Now you know. Windows is a mess. It’s not even in the same league Linux. Forty millions lines of code without the drivers vs 13 million lines of code with the drivers. And Linux is a lot tougher than Windows. Windows is a dandy in a workaday world. A Barby car when you need a Humvee.

  25. oe says:

    ” Moving to web applications is the neatest way to get GNU/Linux to do anything that other OS can do”….not to mention that GNU/Linux can do a heck of a lot more than that Other Os or the Fruity OS (though better that the Other OS) can do out of the box.

  26. Dr Loser says:

    @Andrew:

    “So what seems to be the problem with grammatical shortcomings in english?”

    Nothing at all, apart from the fact that it makes a post almost entirely incomprehensible. Did I mention English, or Old English? You decide. Or alternatively check your source.

    “At the UN when President Hugo Chavez or President Lala speaks other heads of state usually wear headphones with a translator at the other end. Does it make the speaker inferior?”

    No. But it does rather put oiaohm at a disadvantage. He doesn’t have a translator and therefore he is mostly garbled. Plus which, inferiority has nothing to do with it. Clarity in your own language is something that most people should strive for.

    “If you need clarification, I’m sure oiaohom will make the effort to do so.”

    I’m equally sure that dispassionate observers (ie not you and not I and not Robert) will have to confess that he fails.

    See, that’s one of the things about writing unintelligible gibberish.

    “Nitpicking off topic does not bode well.”

    Oiaohm was the one who introduced Old English. He’s very proud of his accomplishments. Who am I to deny him an argument on the subject?

    And, off-topic? You haven’t been reading this blog for very long, have you? Or, indeed, any blog.

    “Robert could very easily post in Canada’s other primary language.”

    Him being from Manitoba, I rather doubt it. The chances are that even my execrable French is way ahead of his.

  27. Dr Loser says:

    Koz:

    Crusty old OS?

    Well, you can’t really have it both ways. NT debuted in July 1993. Linux debuted two years before, if my memory serves me correctly.

    Which one of those two is the crustier?

    Oh, and all these claims that Linux has a “Unix heritaage”? (Mostly spurious, other than the fact that for twenty years it has perpetuated some of the worst bits of Unix.)

    Would those be an admirable heritage, or would they just be crusty?

  28. Dr Loser wrote of the Astroturfers, “I seriously doubt that you register with these people.”

    I think M$ has a different department for that, sort of like Navy Seals, guys paid on salary not commission.

  29. WordPress and tables don’t seem to like each other. WordPress seems to delete some tags and overrule settings. It’s a cross I bear because WP is so darn wonderful at other things like filtering the damned spam and twits.

    I posted this cellpadding=”5″ and get no cellpadding whatsoever even though the page source shows it. I guess browser settings/stylesheets are overruling my wishes.

  30. Andrew says:

    So what seems to be the problem with grammatical shortcomings in english? At the UN when President Hugo Chavez or President Lala speaks other heads of state usually wear headphones with a translator at the other end. Does it make the speaker inferior?

    If you need clarification, I’m sure oiaohom will make the effort to do so. nitpicking off topic does not bode well. Robert could very easily post in Canada’s other primary language.

  31. Dr Loser says:

    Having learned Postgresql in a weekend, do you think you could polish up your HTML tables skills?

    That there was just plain butt-ugly.

  32. Dr Loser says:

    An interesting observation on the price/performance thing since 1997, or whenever it was that Gates “rescued” Jobs. For the purposes of my current point, the details of that “rescue” do not matter.

    Consider the price/performance ratio of Apple machines since that point, as compared to Windows machines. They’ve been pitiful for the best part of fifteen years.

    And yet Apple recently overtook Microsoft in terms of market capitalization.

    It’s a complicated old world, isn’t it?

  33. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    I’m willing to bet that you haven’t had a single salesman yet on your blog, Robert. I exclude oiaohom, the man who works for a Microsoft VAR, from this, simply because it is rather difficult to believe that he can sell anything at all whilst speaking in badly-typed Old English.

    I’m slightly less confident that you’ve never had an “evangelist” here either, although it seems unlikely. Why would they waste their time?

    I mean, I do this for pure fun. But salesmen and evangelists are greedy buggers who work off a commission.

    I seriously doubt that you register with these people.

  34. Kozmcrae says:

    Yes, and at the time Steve Ballmer waved around a Linux CD saying, “See, we’re not a monopoly.”.: Yet the Cult of Microsoft have been saying all along that GNU/Linux on the desktop is no more than 1%. Can’t have it both ways idiots.

  35. Finalzone says:

    Let remind that Apple was rescued by Microsoft from bankruptcy because the latter infused the cash to keep Apple alive in the 1990’s so they won’t be accused of monopoly.

  36. Kozmcrae says:

    Microsoft costs less: Their cost evaluations conveniently end just before the next upgrade cycle… ah, er, the next layer on the crusty old OS.

Leave a Reply