GNU/Linux Is The Right Way To Do IT

Once again, we see that GNU/Linux is the right way to do IT. GNU/Linux is huge in every arena except desktop and there is no good technical reason for that. It’s all about vendor-lockin and anti-competitive actions of a few big players.
“Linux tends to be a marginal player in the PC arena, but it is by far the most successful operating system on thin clients. 27 percent of the devices sold worldwide set store by the open source operating system (OS), followed by models “without OS” and those with various Microsoft Windows Embedded systems, according to the results of IDC’s market analysis for 2012.”

See IGEL sees Linux staying ahead – Application Delivery, MDM, VDI, Cloud and Virtualization News.

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 and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to GNU/Linux Is The Right Way To Do IT

  1. DrLoser says:

    Any news on the “Spartan Hydra formation” yet, oiaohm?

    Did it ever exist outside your fertilised imagination?

    I have a hat here, ready and waiting to be eaten.

  2. DrLoser says:

    Pardon me, Dougie, but if I’m going to waste my time replying to anybody, it would be oiaohm and not you. First of all, you don’t know anything about anything, you don’t care, and you seem oblivious to the fact that your own total ignorance is something of a barrier to yer average member of the polity taking you seriously. Unless, of course, you sell them snake-oil and spurious anti-virus advice, followed by trashing their installation media. That always works.
    And, secondly, because although oiaohm doesn’t know anything about anything, he does at least care. And he tries. He fails miserably, but I applaud the effort. It is loveable and admirable and only slightly makes me conclude that he is a dipstick wearing a tin-foil hat. Hi-ho, oiaohm:

    Agesipolis III was defeated before Nabis

    Did I say otherwise? Have you lost your mind? It’s not even a matter of “record,” to quote your pusillanimous term for “I can’t dig up links via Google.” It’s just the time-line. Although, incidentally, Agesipolis III wasn’t defeated by the Romans, who could have cared less.

    Even with roman assistance Agiad Agesipolis III was unable to take back his kingship.

    King by blood, remember? Not revocable. Not like, say, tyrants or despots. Or Ephors.
    Are you serious here? Agesipolis “reigned” for four years: 219-215BC. He died in 183BC. He’s a footnote in history, if that. Have you been main-lining Plutarch? Give Plutarch up. A dangerous and unreliable drug.

    By the time of Nabis the deal between Agiad Agesipolis III has been over for a fair while.

    “By the time of Nabis?” 207-192BC. Not really a “fair while;” just an eight year gap. Although it’s not relevant, and you fail even to go so far as to suggest why it’s relevant. Good to see that you have now regressed one pointless Agiad “reign” back from Pelops, who (as you will no doubt remember) you suggested was an incredibly effective military leader against the Romans whilst aged, at most, eleven years old.
    So much for that eight year gap, dimwit.

    Romans in fact gave up on assisting Agiad Agesipolis III. This is key way Nabis was out to attack Roman when he got in charge.

    Go on, tell me more. This is beyond funny and simply stupid. I can’t wait.
    When comes to it Pelops at eleven still had his commanders trained by his father who were training him.
    How completely unique in the history of mankind. This would almost be impressive if you hadn’t added in the hysterically funny “who were training him.”
    Did that training catch on, oiaohm? Did the eleven year old Pelops lead his phalanx to victory?
    I suspect not. You are a fool and an incompetent and a buffoon.

    In fact the record says in his short rain Romans lost 4 full encampments that is the roman record.

    Do we have a quote from Polybius? (I’m guessing it’s Polybius. I’m here to help.) If not, this is a futile assertion.

    Killing Pelops resulted in Nabis not getting Pelops commanders.

    Fantasy. Incidentally, do you know roughly how many men of arms-bearing age were qualified either to call themselves Spartans or to serve in the Spartan army in c190BC? I do. It’s far less than you might think.

    So Nabis did not have the education or experienced commanders to fall back on. The triangle formation is only used by 1 commander. Nabis. Yes it was a mistake.

    A classic off-by-one error there, oioahm. The triangle formation was never used by a single commander. Your mistake, idiot.

    Yet games show the formation used all the way through greek history.

    Games? GAMES? Didn’t I just tell you that everything you think you know on this subject is based on, in my words, “silly little computer games?”
    And you have the nerve to refuse any reference at all except to quote silly little computer games?
    Boy, you’re a piece of work, aren’t you?

    Nabis did also make something unique as well the Bladed shield. That is another mistake of games. Without the Bladed Shield the triangle formation does not work at all. Triangle formation is a duel wielding formation.

    Keep digging, oiaohm, keep digging. Ask me to refute that. I will.

    Dr Loser the problem was that the boarder was riverine. So it changed slightly over time this leads to on going disputes over where the boarder is and was.

    I’ll lay substantial odds that you had never even heard of the word “riverine” before I mentioned it, oiaohm. And my points about Spartan history (900BC through the Fifth Century through 370BC through 190BC) still obtain, moron. Show us all a link to suggest otherwise.
    You can’t, can you? No such link exists.
    Riverine or not, Sparta by 190BC was a total irrelevancy as a polity or an armed force and was limited to a tiny portion of territory. It had been long stripped of its Lacemonian and Messenian helots/slaves. It was almost certainly less important than Corinth, of all places. Sparta danced to other peoples’ tune. How hard is this for you to understand, even though you are an idiot?
    Next time, try the Carthaginians. Now, that’s actually a state and a fighting force that caused the Romans problems throughout the third century and a bit beyond.

    We have equally stupid board disputes still going on around the world today. Dr Loser think about China and Japan arguing over the smallest bit of land sticking above the water line. Heck sometimes only at low tide. There is no real advantage to this.

    The only teeny tiny problem with your triumphant concluding statement here, oiaohm, is that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to “Sparta” under Nabis and the horrorshock that you claim this dismal little tyranny caused the Roman Republic at the time.
    Your level of argument (unsubstantiated by references to Polybius, Plutarch, Xenophon, I could go on) is infantile.
    Do yourself a favour and give it up, mate.

  3. dougman says:

    Your qualified?? Perhaps your under qualified or more like unemployed.Seems you like arguing with someone you label an ‘idiot’, which shows to us your own lack of worth and time.

    Educational certificate? We’re discussing you not I, besides as if one needs a degree to build a business; Jobs, Gates and a host of other people disagrees with your pedantic snobbery, that you and your bloated buddy BW spew on here.

    Never swam in oil before, I have swam in a few off-shore 1600M races, rather invigorating to say the least you should try it.

    Try harder??…obviously it bothered you enough to respond… LOL.

    Five minutes, well geee wilkers. Instead of wasting your time on here, you should be composing some books on how to use Bing-a-Ling, as your the ‘expert’.

  4. DrLoser says:

    Mr. I spent two-years working on Bing, sure has plenty of time arguing over ancient history.

    Well, Dougie, it’s what I’m qualified to do. Remind me again what educational certificate you have? Twenty-five metres swimming under snake oil?
    You need to try harder than that to come up with a wounding jibe. I can write this stuff in five minutes flat — but then again, unlike you, I have opposable thumbs and can use the space bar without too much effort.

  5. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser Agiad Agesipolis III was defeated before Nabis. Even with roman assistance Agiad Agesipolis III was unable to take back his king ship. By the time of Nabis the deal between Agiad Agesipolis III has been over for a fair while..

    Romans in fact gave up on assisting Agiad Agesipolis III. This is key way Nabis was out to attack Roman when he got in charge.

    When comes to it Pelops at eleven still had his commanders trained by his father who were training him. In fact the record says in his short rain Romans lost 4 full encampments that is the roman record. The Romans of course were not particularly happy about this. Killing Pelops resulted in Nabis not getting Pelops commanders. So Nabis did not have the education or experienced commanders to fall back on. The triangle formation is only used by 1 commander. Nabis. Yes it was a mistake. Yet games show the formation used all the way through greek history. Nabis did also make something unique as well the Bladed shield. That is another mistake of games. Without the Bladed Shield the triangle formation does not work at all. Triangle formation is a duel wielding formation.

    Sorry Dr Loser game developers are not complete idiots. They are lazy on their research yes they use the first formation that found in history.

    Pelops was mostly about holding territory.

    Dr Loser the problem was that the boarder was riverine. So it changed slightly over time this leads to on going disputes over where the boarder is and was.

    We have equally stupid board disputes still going on around the world today. Dr Loser think about China and Japan arguing over the smallest bit of land sticking above the water line. Heck sometimes only at low tide. There is no real advantage to this.

  6. dougman says:

    Mr. I spent two-years working on Bing, sure has plenty of time arguing over ancient history.

  7. DrLoser says:

    Good to see you joining in on behalf of your intellectually-challenged supporter oiaohm, Robert. Now, do you have any knowledge of Greek history? Or indeed any knowledge of Ancient Greek? Oiaohm claims he does (kings, tyrants, despots, bits of Livy and Xenophon and so on).
    I have this knowledge, and I will freely admit that it is rare, specialist, and almost entirely pointless. But, armed with this rare, specialist and almost entirely pointless knowledge, I can beat the crap out of oiaohm if left to do so.
    Rather like your rare, specialist and almost entirely pointless Linux server/thin client knowledge, with the minor exception that you couldn’t fight your way out of a wet copy of the Liverpool Daily Echo.
    Thanks for bringing Nelson Mandela up, btw. What an interesting contrast to the Spartan attitude to the Laconian and Messenian helots that might be, except for the fact that, er, there is no contrast whatsoever.

  8. DrLoser wrote, “You have never once succeeded on a single IT-related point.”

    So, DrLoser admits being a professional bully, keeping score. How sad, when the world is full of positive and uplifting ideas and processes. I am reminded of the late Nelson Mandela who fought to a standstill a regime slaughtering its people in the streets yet he worked hard to foster reconciliation instead of humiliation when he was finally freed. Some people never seem to do anything to make the world a better place.

  9. DrLoser wrote, ” If you think that the Romans were preoccupied by a narrow fifty mile strip of riverine territory between Gypsium and Sparta, then you need your head examined.”

    The whole might of the Roman empire was rarely needed for a local matter. The Roman empire was a distributed system inducting lots of mercenaries or local talent wherever they went. A Greek city would not have needed resources from far away.

  10. DrLoser says:

    I can’t really resist. I can’t. I’m sorry, Robert, but I’ve tried, and I can’t.

    But I told you that the king of the time you talked of lived out to a old age.

    Which one was this, oiaohm? I didn’t talk about him. And besides, you do know that being either the Agiad or Eurypontid “king” was purely an honorific title that allowed the “king” to lead the army, don’t you? The Ephors made all the decisions.

    Yes before the fall of sparta they were the only force that had held its own against Roman forces.

    No they weren’t, you ignorant fool. Let’s just look back a couple of decades (more or less at random) and pick 209BC, shall we?

    Battle of Asculum: Hannibal once again defeats Marcellus, in an indecisive battle.
    First Battle of Lamia: Greek allies of Rome defeated by Philip V of Macedon.
    Second Battle of Lamia: Greek allies of Rome defeated by Philip V once more.

    Nowhere near; sorry. If you think that the Romans were preoccupied by a narrow fifty mile strip of riverine territory between Gypsium and Sparta, then you need your head examined.

    Agiad Agesipolis III worked with the romans to attempt to get his king ship back from Eurypontid Lycurgus.

    Indeed. The last gasp of petty quarrels between the Agiads and the Europontes, as you know. And obviously that “working with the Romans thing” sorta bombed, what with the Romans marching straight in and biffing Nabis and ignoring the pathetic Agesipolis. Not sure why you mention this: an obvious win for Titus Quinctius Flamininius against a bunch of agrarian hooligans.

    But enough of that, oioahm. You clearly cannot read Greek (or even understand Plutarch, Livy and Xenophon in translation). I can. You clearly have no competence in History. (I possess a degree in the subject.)

    For various reasons, I have no wish to go up against your northern NSW competencies (which I would imagine involve shearing a llama with nail-clippers: not the recommended way, but you seem to be a man who swims against the tide of reality).

    So, let me just point the following out.

    1) You fail on any sort of historical observation whatsoever.
    2) You fail on “latency.”
    3) You fail on OS security, or as you have repeatedly put it, “security.”
    4) You fail on .NET and the CLR.
    5) You fail on Java and the JVM.
    6) You fail spectacularly on B-Trees (see TEG).
    7) You have never once succeeded on a single IT-related point. Isn’t it about time you gave up and took a Caribbean cruise?

    In short, you’re a worthless deluded idiot in a tin-foil hat that doesn’t even fit your tiny little bonce.

    Why are you still here, oiaohm?

  11. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser in fact there are official records from that time frame.

    Your concept of “official” is as yet to be explained, dimwit. And you haven’t even quoted one.

    Eurypontid Pelops before Nabis was already at war with Roman before he was taken out by Nabis. Roman could not get an alliance against Pelops. Roman forces and Spartain forces under Pelops had boarder disputes for a long time against roman forces with roman forces losing. Having more force and more weapons don’t help you when you are fighting someone like Pelops who is using multi sided assault and mostly targeting your forces supply lines and avoiding head to head conflits. Pelops basically is how to use guerrilla war to stop a much larger force. Hydra destroy the link between the head and body kill it. This is what was happening to the Romans repeatedly under Pelops.

    Nonsense, blockhead. You do realise that Pelops was eleven years old when Nabis whacked him, don’t you? How many Roman legions do you think Pelops defeated?

    Dear Lord, you’re digging an enormous hole for yourself here.

    Pelops was the last proper educated Spartan king.

    370 BC. I hate to repeat myself. But you’re not listening. Perhaps you have access to Pelops’ curriculum?

    If Nabis had never over thrown Pelops the stalemate between Pelops with good tactics that was confusing the Romans would have gone on for very much longer.

    You really are a total nutter.

    Yes Pelops Romans attack Spartans retreat and attack the supply line disregarding the armed force.

    “Disregarding the armed force?”

    Nutter.

    Perhaps they mislaid all that hydra and tentacle, oops, tetrahedron, oops, triangle stuff and, er, went for “attacking the supply line.”

    Maybe so. Not a bad idea, although the distance between Sparta and Gypsium is about two days’ march and none too tricky to supply if, like the Romans, you have an awesome commissariat and an equally awesome navy.

    Pah.

    DrLoser end of slavery is a change of culture. Many countries have gone through it like in modern times South Africa.

    Yeah, right.

    Let me explain this to you one more time, bone-head, as if you are capable of listening.

    The whole basis of the Spartan state from c900BC through 370BC was, as you would expect when considering a hugely militarised state based upon 90% slavery, BUGGERED by Epaminondas. Once the Messenians (ie the Helots) get their own back – and interestingly they weren’t that co-operative with the Thebans afterwards – the original Spartan state DIED. And if that weren’t enough, the remnants of Spartan military tradition DIED once over again after <a href+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(338_BC). The Spartans couldn’t even be bothered to turn up. (Much like Marathon and indeed the prelude to Thermopylae: a few good honest men, but basically a bunch of sadistic slave-owners.)

    Nabis’ statelet had nothing in common with the original Spartan state, except for a fortuitous set of boundaries. Not, to be frank, many of those, either.

    Wriggle all you like, oiaohm. Wriggle to your little heart’s content. But you have yet to show any sort of academic rigour (links, even vague book titles) to dispute any of the following:

    1) If indeed the Romans lost to the “Spartans” in any number of battles, the only real evidence is for some little tactical fracas in 190BC on the way to trashing the place.
    2) The Spartan state in 190BC had nothing to do with the Spartan state in 370BC.
    3) The Spartan state in 370BC was trashed by the Thebans.
    4) It ceased to work once the Helot population was let loose. Obviously. Only a moron would think otherwise.
    5) Between them, Philip and Alexander rendered the rump state impotent.
    6) There is no such thing, outside silly little computer games, as a “Spartan hydra formation.”
    7) There is no such thing, outside silly little computer games, as a “Spartan triangle formation.” (Your second cretinous guess.)
    8) Oh, and I forgot: Kings, Despots, Tyrants … you don’t have the remotest clue there, either, do you? Heck, I had to dig up the numismatic evidence for Nabis on your behalf. Don’t you feel the teeniest bit pathetic and worthless?

    I don’t know how else to put this, oiaohm, but basically you don’t have a clue.

    Prove me wrong with appropriate links. Otherwise, much though I adore you looking like a mindless cretin, I would suggest that you come to terms with the fact that you are not, actually, an accredited Historian. (I am.) Amongst several other deficiencies.

  12. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser I never said Nabis was the one where Romans had all the loses. It was the other attempts before that.

    DrLoser in fact there are official records from that time frame.

    Agiads Nabis objective was to take back his ruling status by force. As the last king of his line.
    Eurypontid Pelops before Nabis was already at war with Roman before he was taken out by Nabis. Roman could not get an alliance against Pelops. Roman forces and Spartain forces under Pelops had boarder disputes for a long time against roman forces with roman forces losing. Having more force and more weapons don’t help you when you are fighting someone like Pelops who is using multi sided assault and mostly targeting your forces supply lines and avoiding head to head conflits. Pelops basically is how to use guerrilla war to stop a much larger force. Hydra destroy the link between the head and body kill it. This is what was happening to the Romans repeatedly under Pelops.

    Pelops was the last proper educated Spartan king. If Nabis had never over thrown Pelops the stalemate between Pelops with good tactics that was confusing the Romans would have gone on for very much longer. Yes Pelops Romans attack Spartans retreat and attack the supply line disregarding the armed force.

    DrLoser end of slavery is a change of culture. Many countries have gone threw it like in modern times south Africa The people did not stop being south African people just because slavery ended. Like people did not stop being american when USA stopped having slaves either. Spartans did not stop being Spartans when slavery ended. The culture of a Spartan changed that is all.

    Sorry Dr Loser you really have made a mistake on your reading of history. Also note I never said Nabis was good. He was a untrained idiot who did not protect his forces backs or the supply lines. It was the battle against Nabis where Roman first started properly attacking supply lines.

  13. DrLoser says:

    I’m impressed to see that your fanatical devotion to silly little computer games purporting to replicate the strategy and tactics of some amorphous and anachronistic entity labelled “the Spartans” has led you to in-depth research into the bloodlines of the Agiads and the Europontids.

    However, you are still wafting your hands in the air. Absolutely nothing you said made any sense whatsoever. Go back to your computer games and start again.

    To take a few random examples:

    When the spartians migrated from the 10 percent rulling 90 percent 90 helot there was a lot of internal decent. They did not stop being spartians just because they changed culture..

    The entire Spartan state between c.900BC and c.370BC was based on a “native” Spartan elite and a conquered mass of non-native serfs, ie the Helots. The Thebans blasted the whole system away. And you think this is just “a change of culture?” Are you completely insane?

    To reiterate: Sparta after 370BC bore little or no resemblance to Sparta before 370BC. Only an ignorant fool would argue otherwise.

    The romans and spartians battled many times.

    No they didn’t.

    Before the fall of Nabis the roman forces more depended on force than sound tactics.

    “I am Spartan! I will die before I give up sound tactics!”

    “Well, I’m Roman. I’ve got a fleet (you don’t) and a much larger army. I’ve got siege engines (you don’t). I’ve even got an alliance with all the neighbours you’ve pissed off.”

    Guess which one is the more compelling military argument? No, wait, no need to guess. It’s the one that won. D’oh.

    This is why there are many battles

    … which you have yet to enumerate …

    and many losses.

    I’ll trouble you to count up “Spartan” losses against Roman losses. Military campaigns aren’t won by the aggregate of losses (otherwise Pyrrhus would have won). They’re not even won by causing more losses to the opponent than those suffered by your own side.

    They’re won by, well, achieving your objectives. It’s hard to imagine that Nabis’ objective was to be thrown out of power and to get assassinated three years later, by which stage he was a Roman puppet. But what the heck, by your standards, he apparently won.

    Possibly the computer game you play gives you mucho points for this, but in real life (or history), it don’t work that way, dimwit.

    This prevent him from being written as king in the official record of those countries.

    There is no such thing as an “official record,” dimwit.

    There are two words in greek one for tyrant and one for dictator.

    Well, this one is going to be interesting. I studied Ancient Greek between the ages of 11 and 18, oiaohm. I am well aware of the various titles involved here. Care to tell me the widely-accepted Ancient Greek (Attic or Doric, I don’t care) term for “a dictator?”

    There isn’t one. Dimwit.

    There is a problem. A king is a tyrant a non king is a dictator.

    No such distinction exists. As a matter of fact, as even a cursory reading of Ancient Greek history would tell you, the Greeks were not particularly keen on the title of “king” in the first place. I forget the actual name for a Spartan “king” (and as you know there were normally two of them), but it’s not cognate with the modern term.

    The record in greek clearly says Nabis was a king.

    No it doesn’t. Nobody but Nabis himself ever called him a king (and this is not a point worth arguing in any case, unless you’re an utter obsessive loony).

    The only reference I can find to Nabis being a “king” is via his own coinage, which uses the Doric term “ΒΑΙΛΕΟΣ.”

    You’re standing on quicksand here, aren’t you, my little dim-witted friend?

    Oh, and about those links to “hydra formations” and “Spartan triangles?”

    How long are you going to keep us in suspense?

  14. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser nabis was the last king. But I told you that the king of the time you talked of lived out to a old age. He was only deposed not killed. Basically his powers of a king removed but not from his descendants.

    Eurypontid dynasty of Spartans was destroyed by Nabis but the historic record puts his blood line as dominate being Agiad blood line not totally what he claimed. He was by mothers side Eurypontid. He was the last if he claimed his true blood line the people would not have followed him.

    Also it was not the only Roman loss the one against Nabis. It was the one Roman loss that put Nabis in the location to be attacked from many sides. A method the Spartans had used for years against the Roman forces with massive success.

    Agiad Agesipolis III worked with the romans to attempt to get his king ship back from Eurypontid Lycurgus. When the spartians migrated from the 10 percent rulling 90 percent 90 helot there was a lot of internal decent. They did not stop being spartians just because they changed culture.

    The romans and spartians battled many times. Before the fall of Nabis the roman forces more depended on force than sound tactics. This is why there are many battles and many losses. spartians depended more on tactics.

    Yes before the fall of sparta they were the only force that had held its own against Roman forces.

    Nabis being from an exiled king did not have the education of the prior rules who had been able to battle Roman forces successfully.

    The final official battle Spartians vs Roman is 195 BC. Yes second century. But that was not the only boarder battle. Roman forces lost a lot of boarder battles with Sparta. They were the hold out to Roman rule.

    Of course the Romans were smart take on the Spartans when they have a idiot ruler.

    DrLoser Spartan being a king or not is by blood. The other greek states gave Nabis the title tyrant. This prevent him from being written as king in the official record of those countries. There are two words in greek one for tyrant and one for dictator. There is a problem. A king is a tyrant a non king is a dictator. When doing the same thing.

    The record in greek clearly says Nabis was a king. His title is that of a king. Sorry Dr Loser this is what happens when people don’t check out the usage of words in that time frame.

    By the way the question over Nabis blood line is correct. Of course you see lot of greek writers complaining about the one blood line claim. Of course most people don’t dig deep enough to see Nabis is from both blood lines of the kings. He is the true last and the only Spartan king that was descended from both blood lines.

    Nabis is very interesting in many ways. All prior kings of spartan had their blood line written before their name. Nabis did not. Why he was both blood lines so he was just a King.

    Yes there is a sign of a problem when you notice how Nabis name is written. If he was claiming only to be a Eurypontid Spartan king. His name on his coins would have been written Eurypontid Nabis not just Nabis.

  15. DrLoser says:

    Let us revisit your idiotic premise, oiaohm:

    The Romans lost a lot of battles against the Spartans.

    No they didn’t. Livy suggests one small skirmish against Nabis (giving you Nabis as a Spartan, which I shouldn’t), and no more. Can you quote another one? No, you cannot. You are an utter fool.

    The Spartan triangle formation was destroying the Roman square formation.

    “Was?” When? And what might this “Spartan triangle formation” be, pray? It was unknown to me (a historian) until I googled it, and apparently it’s a tactic you can use in various PC games. I hesitate to suggest that you burn out what few brain-cells you possess, oiaohm, on computer games, but, hey, I read ’em as I see ’em.

    Thinking each group of Spartans in Triangle formation went off in different directions.

    OK, I’ll buy that as a military doctrine.

    “This is what we do here, guys. We set ourselves up in a triangle and then we all go off in different directions. Victory is ours! Oh, btw, don’t forget to make it look like a Mandelbrot pattern. That should confuse the silly sods.”

    Yeah, right.

    The Hydra form Assault. It worked over and over again.

    It doesn’t exist. It never existed. And if it had existed, it would never have worked. For blindingly obvious reasons.

    Only thing that defeated it was Roman forces copying it.

    As in the Gythium campaign, where, er, whoops, they didn’t.

    The Romans did not record the name of what they copied. Romans called it Spartan battle tactics.

    This is so pitiful, oiaohm. It’s even beneath you. The Romans didn’t copy it, they didn’t name it anything like that, and there was no other name for it because it did not exist.

    Are there any limits to your total futile ignorance, oiaohm? IT, the military, history, anything at all?

    You manifest yourself upon Earth as an omniscient super-being, yet you have never been known to be correct once.

    Try listening to people who know better for once. It will do you good.

  16. DrLoser says:

    Nice try, oiaohm, nice try. I’m pleased to see that you are a student of Livy; always one of my favourite classical authors.

    Passing swiftly by the obvious fact that the Gythium campaign was a complete disaster for the “Spartan” tyrant Nabis, as you would realise if only you could be bothered to read the Wikipedia articles you incessantly link, I think the issue of whether or not Nabis qualifies as a “Spartan” in any realistic sense is more important.

    He wasn’t.

    No normal person would consider a second century BC post-Macedonian petty tyrant to be a “Spartan” in any way that makes sense. But then again, you’re not normal, are you?

    As for this “Greek triangle” rubbish: it didn’t seem to be very successful, did it? Perhaps Nabis should have taken your advice and adopted the “hydra formation,” which incidentally sounds about as far from any possible Ancient Greek tactical or strategic doctrine as it is possible to get. And yet again you fail to provide a link to refute this. Why? Because there isn’t one.

    I will concede that Nabis (not a Spartan king — partly because he’d massacred the remaining Spartan royalty) won a single small battle. But so what?

    And as for the Thebans and Philip of Macedon: if you seriously believe that they didn’t whack Sparta upside the head and destroy the very concept of Sparta (10% ruling tribe, 90% Helot), then you are even more foolish than I thought you were.

    Now, O abnormal one: tell us again what a “hydra formation” might be. And after you’ve finished doing that, could you possibly deign to explain to us mere mortals how it has any relevance to Microsoft and Linux?

  17. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser in fact you have a poor grasp of history.

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

    –The Romans never lost a single battle against the Spartans–
    This is a Dr Loser pure LIE. The Romans lost lots of different battles over time against Spartans. Romans never lost a full war some of this was altering tattics and taking in what the other side was doing.

    Reality you don’t know the history at all.

    The romans lost more than 1 battle against Spartans forces. The Spartan mil existed long after the fall of their government. as well.

    Battle of Gythium is in fact quite a few battles.

    DrLoser a lot of people forget the last Spartan king. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Nabis and that his final downfall was against Romans and the fact battling him did not go all romans way.

    The greek triangle formation is from Nabis.

    Roman forces was not powerful enough to take on Nabis alone.

    Also note Dr Loser is a complete lier.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_hegemony Never fully defeated Spartans. Archidamus II the Spartan king of that time died of old age.

    Philip of Macedon also treated with the Spartans.

    We are talking 195 BC before the fall of the last Spartan king. Philp of Macedon has been in his grave for a very long time. 336 BCE is Philp of Macedon death.

    Dr Loser you are out by over a century.

  18. bw says:

    Seams like every few years they have to be sued for false advertising against an competitor

    Nothing in that load of tripe that shows where any sort of lawsuit was filed or even threatened. Read your own cite for once. Also, you are not providing any justification for your Roman army hydra form fantasy either. Why not just admit you are making all of this up and don’t have any evidence of anything?

  19. DrLoser says:

    Enough, oiaohm. Enough.

    The Romans never lost a single battle against the Spartans. The Spartan hegemony (such as it was) ended when they were beaten by the Thebans under Epanimondas at Leuctra. This is common knowledge. No hydra formations were involved, and certainly no Romans. The Spartan military staggered on until they were crushed by Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great.

    Your feeble grasp of military history may possibly be confusing the Spartans with Pyrrhus, a Macedonian king-for-hire who did indeed fail to beat the Romans. Roughly a hundred and fifty years after the last gasp of the Spartans, and it didn’t involve anything to do with hydras, but I’m sure you’re not quite so totally cretinous and mind-blowingly fantasising as you appear to be.

    A link, please, oiaohm.

  20. oiaohm says:

    bw it does depend on who account you are reading. The Spartans vs Romans where the Romans win battle is different to most Roman battles. The Romans lost a lot of battles against the Spartans. The Spartan triangle formation was destroying the Roman square formation. Thinking each group of Spartans in Triangle formation went off in different directions. The Hyrda form Assault. It worked over and over again.

    Only thing that defeated it was Roman forces copying it. bw the Romans did not record the name of what they copied. Romans called it Spartan battle tactics.

    bw its very hard to dig back on false advertising because Microsoft does it every 1 to 2 years.
    http://macdailynews.com/2009/07/16/apple_legal_forces_microsoft_to_stop_falsely_advertising_macbook_pro_price/

    Microsoft does not seam to learn. Seams like every few years they have to be sued for false advertising against an competitor.

    For a company so dominate in the market place if they were sure of themselves they should not need such gutter tactics.

  21. DrLoser says:

    I believe Mr Oiaohm is referring to the painstakingly authentic game, Spartan: Total War. My link demonstrates how these 100% realistic Spartan Warriors can kill the hydra.

    It’s reality, but not as we know it, bw. My limited historical knowledge (what with having a degree in it and all, and yes that degree covered both the Romans and the Spartans) misleads me to the belief that oiaohm is basically not telling the truth. Neither the Romans nor the Spartans (nor indeed anybody else) used a “hydra formation.”

    Of course, there’s the remote possibility that oiaohm has a link to prove us wrong.

  22. bw says:

    if I do dig back

    You made up a story about Microsoft being sued over the satirical skits such as the Pawn Shop clip referenced. That was a complete lie.

    Your reference to the stockholder suit filed over a claim that some investor was misled by reported RT sales has nothing to do with your claim. Nor does some unsubstantiated claim that there was such a case vis-à-vis Red Hat. That sort of thing is what ruins your credibility to begin with. It can never save your false face.

    I am fairly sure that your invention of Roman army use of something called “hydra form” is a lot of baloney as well as its use against the Spartans.

  23. oiaohm says:

    bw by the way hydra form assault is what the Romans uses to defeat the Spartans. So the non mythical hydra form assault works. The romans gave up 4 full divisions of soldiers to entrap the Spartans with there remaining forces.

    Idiot of history you are. Myths are Myths. Some-things real history says the exact other way.

  24. oiaohm says:

    bw you removed a word. “a hydra form assault” is in fact from combat play-book Spartan by the way. Yes I had one typo. from instead of form. The letter a was not some random char. It marks that everyone on from their is 1 item.

    Of course it become gibberish if you remove a key word. A single typo was really not enough to turn that into gibberish.

    bw
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2423022,00.asp
    Microsoft gets sued quite a bit for false representation and yes if I do dig back red-hat did sue Microsoft once over a conference video that was totally incorrect.

    There is a law about false representation in advertising. If Google so pleases and can prove a chrome-book has resale value Microsoft is toast. The thing here the fact Google has not published a statement either accepting or countering suggests that at the moment it is in the Goggle legal department.

  25. bw says:

    I knew what the mythological Hydra was, but how it could be “put forwards from assault” still represents total gibberish. I know for a fact that they speak perfectly understandable English in Australia, so I can only believe that you are either not from there or are defective.

    Don’t get too carried away with analogies, either. Remember that Hercules did manage to kill the thing and so there is certainly historic precedent for Microsoft to hold onto their lead.

    As to Microsoft being sued over such things in the past, that is pretty much another fantasy in your bizarre mind. I have seen a lot of these at conferences and have never heard of any lawsuit. No law against it, BTW.

    Get to googling for an answer and then hope that everyone will forget what a charlatan you are when you cannot find any reference.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Also just like a hydra if Microsoft loses track of a head by the time Microsoft works out what is going on the damage is massive.

    Linux attack pattern is that of a hydra. This is also why we will have firefox os and others in the market as well.

    Hydra is a big problem because a successful advertising attack against a single head of a hydra the hydra can let that head die and grow a new one.

    The hydra nature explains why Linux is not going to die. At least not die easily.

  27. oiaohm says:

    bw this of mine is english.
    –There is a reason why Linux has to put forwards a hydra from assault.–
    Do you know what a Hydra is.
    http://www.mythicalcreaturesguide.com/page/Hydra

    One body many heads. Linux kernel is the body. Items like Chrome OS, Ubuntu, Android …. are the heads. So Microsoft is forced to spend money to go after all of them. So if it was pushed forwards as just Linux Microsoft could run just one advertising assault against that. Microsoft is being forced to engage in many marketing assaults. Higher costs.

    Really that line was very simple english to me.

    1.3 million does not sound like much. Until you see this. http://www.2x.com/rdp-client/chrome/

    bw you have to pool chromebooks and thinclient sales into one group. Then you have to remember items like thinstation exist to convert old machines too old to upgrade to Windows 7 or Windows 8 into thin terminals without hard-drives.

    Cost to Microsoft is well more than 50 million. bw conservative places the losses to Microsoft due to not upgrading but converting machines to thin is in the multi billion dollar mark. That is with no new units shipping.

    bw Microsoft has been sued over those comic relief videos before.

  28. dougman says:

    Win-Dohs..is the WRONG WAY for IT.

    CryptoLocker Ransomware Infections – Microsoft Windows systems running Windows 8, Windows 7, Vista, and XP operating systems
    http://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA13-309A

    Microsoft Should Is Scared to Death of Google’s Chromebooks
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/28/microsoft-should-be-scared-to-death-of-googles-chr.aspx

    “Problem is, rather than causing me to question Chromebooks, what the Scroogled campaign tells me is that Microsoft is actually scared of Chromebooks, and instead of addressing the needs of consumers, Google has brought the Redmond giant to the point of panic with Chromebooks ahead of the holiday spending extravaganza. By choosing to go on the offensive against the Chromebook, Microsoft has inadvertently given validation to a platform that most mainstream buyers – the sort of people looking for a computer over the next few weeks – would never have noticed.”

    http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-is-missing-the-point-with-chromebooks-7000023703/

    If you’re trying to figure out why Microsoft has been attacking Google with its Scroogled campaign, look no further than the new Acer C720P Chromebook. The Acer C720P is a $299 laptop that comes with a touchscreen.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-microsoft-hates-google-acer-c720p-chromebook-touchscreen-20131126,0,2771578.story#axzz2mGRMP8qJ

    Satya Nadella will be the next CEO of M$.

  29. oiaohm wrote, “thin clients have many times the operational life span of a normal PC.”

    This is true. Thanks to M$, 800×600 was good for a decade or more. 1024×768 was king for ages, but many thin clients will do 1280 or more. There isn’t much reason to change a thin client with no moving parts and adequate resolution.

  30. bw says:

    you also say no inroads

    Well, the total shipment count for the thin-client device, according to Pogson’s own cite, was 1.3 million units for a whole quarter. What is that worth to Microsoft in terms of lost revenues? If they are willing to discount Windows to fight it, the whole enchilada is no more than $50M and likely a lot less. Microsoft spills more than that just carrying their moneybags to the bank.

  31. bw says:

    There is a reason why Linux has to put forwards a hydra from assault.

    That sort of looks like English, but the meaning is pretty much a mystery.

    As to the video, what is its purpose? I don’t think it is an ad at all. The run time, 1:35, is wrong to begin with. I think that it is one of the comic relief videos that Microsoft shows to developers at tech conferences. It would get a great laugh at one of those things.

  32. oiaohm says:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/26/microsoft-hires-pawn-stars-to-bash-google-chromebooks/

    There is a reason why Linux has to put forwards a hydra from assault.

    This form of Anti-competition product advertisement more shows the fact you don’t have a decent product yourself.

    Notice Microsoft is offering licensing discounts to attempt to stop OEM going Chromebooks or any other Linux.

    Really the Linux netbook problem is back for Microsoft. The question is how can they stop it this time. They had to give XP away fairly much for free.

    It is going to be fun. Android laptops are coming next. So what Microsoft going to run advertising against those as well.

    bw thin clients have many times the operational life span of a normal PC. Also you have to allow that thin-client networks are also used to extend life of normal PC hardware as well. So thin-client sales don’t have to be anywhere as large as normal PC due to the glut of left overs from the PC market.

    bw you also say no inroads. You are aware that Munich and French Police do use thin-client tech as well as many other governments doing Linux conversion. So no inroads is bogus. Speed of inroads slow but its there.

  33. dougman says:

    If a business wants thin clients, I tell them to acquire Chromebooks or Chromebox’s.

    Why limit yourself??

  34. bw says:

    “Thin Clients make up the vast majority (96%) of enterprise client devices.”

    Something isn’t right here, I think. IDC seems to have indeed published those very words, but they go on to say:

    “worldwide thin client and terminal client device shipments totaled 1.3 million units in the second quarter of 2013 “

    If we suppose that a copy of MS Office will most likely go on a corporate computer, the volume of corporate computers is far, far higher than the thin-client world-wide sales volume.

    There are more Linux PCs installed in the world than thin-clients based on that volume.

    I believe a proper thin client setup is superior

    Sure you do. Maybe you are even right, but nearly 30 years of people like McNealy pushing on that idea haven’t made any inroads to stopping Microsoft.

  35. bw wrote, ” You have to recognize that the architecture has limitations, though, and the reason why “thick clients” dominate use today is due to the limitations of the old architecture, namely that the system is useless when the server is not available.”

    Of course, bw supposes that thin clients are not popular. They are. “Thin Clients make up the vast majority (96%) of enterprise client devices.” Further, servers can have redundancy. Lots of folks have multiple servers running simultaneously. At one school, we had 3. If one failed, it took seconds to switch clients to another. With redundant storage servers, one can even save the sessions entirely. I have seen poor thin client setups but they are not an essential characteristic of the technology. I believe a proper thin client setup is superior to any thick client running that other OS:

    • faster logins, loading application windows, etc. because of file-caching,
    • greater security because the binary data never leaves the server, and
    • of course, the cost of this better performance is negative. They save money: capital cost, maintenance, electrical power, space, noise…
  36. bw says:

    I don’t think that it is about “OS on the client” at all. Rather it is about architecture. You are proposing the age-old server/terminal sort of thing, choosing to re-name it as a “thin client”. Nothing wrong with doing that, if it works for you. You have to recognize that the architecture has limitations, though, and the reason why “thick clients” dominate use today is due to the limitations of the old architecture, namely that the system is useless when the server is not available.

    Quite a bit of useful activity can be run local to the client and does not require continuous availability of a server. People have gotten used to that. They can play games, watch videos, listen to music, write letters, and a lot of other things when not connected to a server.

    In addition, the client can do a lot of data processing and aggregation that off-loads such work from the server. A thin-client merely interacts with the server and if the bulk of the data processing is performed on the server, the size and cost of the server is increased. Doubtless there is a crossover point where one technology or the other is more efficient in terms of a cost to benefit ratio.

    But various people have been proposing your thin-client notion for a long time now, for example Scott McNeely and his “The network is the computer” crusade. You can look up how far that got him.

    The thin-client idea, as implemented with PCs, has been going on for nearly three decades now and hasn’t made much of a dent in Microsoft’s fortunes. Maybe without any effort in this regard Microsoft might be even bigger than it is today, but that is just speculation. They are doing quite well in anyone’s estimation, save perhaps you die-hards around here, and will continue to do well, I believe.

  37. bw, not pausing to reflect, wrote, “What else can he say? He is paid to post these silly ideas. “

    It’s about the OS on the client, bw… GNU/Linux has a strong showing there. There is no need for that other OS on the client device. It’s just showing pix and sending clicks… thus cutting out M$ from a lot of revenue. They may get a CAL but not a full OS licence. This technology is widespread in big businesses and it’s a stepping-stone for putting GNU/Linux on the terminal server and web-application server as well. More erosion of the Wintel empire.

  38. bw says:

    IGEL sees Linux staying ahead

    What else can he say? He is paid to post these silly ideas.

    “Alexander Ervik Johnsen is a Blogger, Senior Solution Architect, Technology Evangelist, Author and Speaker, based in Oslo – Norway. Alexander has been working with Microsoft and Citrix products since 1997 as a system administrator, consultant, and senior consultant. He now works as a pre-sales for the Citrix VAD Reseller, ArrowECS in Norway as a Product Manager Citrix / Senior Solution Architect. He primarily works as a pre-sale and travel around Norway evangelizing Citrix, Cloud, Virtualization, Thin clients and 3 party solutions.”

Leave a Reply