Topic: Desktop Linux Falters as Linux Use Shrinks for First Time

[toasty0]

 We're starting to see some interesting Linux trends this year, and for the first time they aren't positive. In the past, I've lampooned all the "this is the year of desktop Linux" reports, which showed up like clockwork every 12 months. January 2005 was a little different. For the first time, few analysts touted the year of Linux on the desktop. And now I think we're seeing why: Linux, everyone's favorite open-source poster child, isn't exactly doing well on the desktop ... or the server, for that matter. In fact, Linux is starting to look a bit like that killer bees invasion that was going to strike North America but never really happened. The proof? For the first time, Linux adoption in corporations has fallen year over year. Mind you, Linux adoption hasn't just slowed. It's fallen by half. There will always be a market for free products, but the notion that Linux will magically replace Windows on the desktop is suddenly looking a bit silly.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/46692/windowspaulthurrott_46692.html

[Nemesis]

Nice title there toasty - misleading as heck but nice.  It implies that people are leaving Linux but even your own source only claims that the rate of growth is lower than it was.  The very source says Linux is growing but you don't let that stop  you from implying market share loss.

I would guess that he is referring to the SG Cowen & Co report.

Link to full article

The number of corporate first-time users of Linux has dropped for the first time in two years, according to an SG Cowen survey.

Just seven per cent of companies currently without Linux servers plan to adopt Linux during the next year, compared to between 12 per cent and 17 per cent when SG Cowen began tracking in 2003. SG Cowen surveyed 500 organizations.

Then there are other views:

Both sets of numbers come as surprise in light of recent data that indicates Linux is alive and growing. During the first three months of 2005, Linux server factory revenue exceeded $1bn for the second sequential quarter, growing 35.2 per cent, according to IDC. Linux accounted for 10.3 per cent of overall quarterly server revenue.

One could explain SG Cowen's findings by noting that Linux has moved beyond its early adopter status, making it difficult to find organizations for its survey who aren't already running Linux somewhere in their infrastructure.

On the one hand SG Cowen & Co claims Linux growth is slowing on the other there is a 35.2% growth. 

How is Microsoft doing?

Link to full article

Update: Microsoft revenue is less than expected

Microsoft also missed its own revenue forecast.

Sales of the Windows client operating system and Office, Microsoft's two biggest products, showed little growth and revenue at the MSN Internet business decreased slightly.

Revenue at the Information Worker group, which includes Office, also increased 2 percent, primarily as a result of currency exchange rate benefits. Retail sales of Office were strong, but corporate users not renewing upgrade contracts held down the group's results, Microsoft said.

MSN revenue declined 5 percent as more customers switched away from Microsoft's MSN Internet Access dial-up service. Advertising and subscriptions for other MSN services increased, Microsoft said.

Little growth in the OS and Office?  Microsofts 2 core earners?  Also Open Sources 2 strongest points with Linux and OpenOffice.org. 

At the same time Microsoft is cutting employee benefits in an effort to keep profits up. 

Link to full article

Has the Kool-Aid at Microsoft gone bad?

Employees are incensed over cuts in benefits announced last week, according to an internal survey posted on one worker's Web site. When asked to post comments on the cuts Monday, many of workers railed against the company, its management and its policies.

"Microsoft's benefits used to somewhat make up for what is a difficult place to work," wrote one poster. "Are we now going in the direction that it will be both difficult and unrewarding?"

When the blogger you quote complains about the "Year of the Linux Desktop" over and over again perhaps he should remember other perennial "The Year of..." claims.  For networks that occurred year after year and then suddenly there was no need for it because all those years collectively had given the growth to make networks ubiquitous.  Other products did the same.  Of course some failed to achieve ubiquity.  Mostly though the failures were only declared to be the "Year of" once or twice before fading away, unlike networks and Linux for example.

[toasty0]

Nice title there toasty - misleading as heck but nice.  It implies that people are leaving Linux but even your own source only claims that the rate of growth is lower than it was.  The very source says Linux is growing but you don't let that stop  you from implying market share loss.

I would guess that he is referring to the SG Cowen & Co report.

Link to full article

The number of corporate first-time users of Linux has dropped for the first time in two years, according to an SG Cowen survey.

Just seven per cent of companies currently without Linux servers plan to adopt Linux during the next year, compared to between 12 per cent and 17 per cent when SG Cowen began tracking in 2003. SG Cowen surveyed 500 organizations.

Then there are other views:

Both sets of numbers come as surprise in light of recent data that indicates Linux is alive and growing. During the first three months of 2005, Linux server factory revenue exceeded $1bn for the second sequential quarter, growing 35.2 per cent, according to IDC. Linux accounted for 10.3 per cent of overall quarterly server revenue.

One could explain SG Cowen's findings by noting that Linux has moved beyond its early adopter status, making it difficult to find organizations for its survey who aren't already running Linux somewhere in their infrastructure.

On the one hand SG Cowen & Co claims Linux growth is slowing on the other there is a 35.2% growth. 

How is Microsoft doing?

Link to full article

Update: Microsoft revenue is less than expected

Microsoft also missed its own revenue forecast.

Sales of the Windows client operating system and Office, Microsoft's two biggest products, showed little growth and revenue at the MSN Internet business decreased slightly.

Revenue at the Information Worker group, which includes Office, also increased 2 percent, primarily as a result of currency exchange rate benefits. Retail sales of Office were strong, but corporate users not renewing upgrade contracts held down the group's results, Microsoft said.

MSN revenue declined 5 percent as more customers switched away from Microsoft's MSN Internet Access dial-up service. Advertising and subscriptions for other MSN services increased, Microsoft said.

Little growth in the OS and Office?  Microsofts 2 core earners?  Also Open Sources 2 strongest points with Linux and OpenOffice.org. 

At the same time Microsoft is cutting employee benefits in an effort to keep profits up. 

Link to full article

Has the Kool-Aid at Microsoft gone bad?

Employees are incensed over cuts in benefits announced last week, according to an internal survey posted on one worker's Web site. When asked to post comments on the cuts Monday, many of workers railed against the company, its management and its policies.

"Microsoft's benefits used to somewhat make up for what is a difficult place to work," wrote one poster. "Are we now going in the direction that it will be both difficult and unrewarding?"

When the blogger you quote complains about the "Year of the Linux Desktop" over and over again perhaps he should remember other perennial "The Year of..." claims.  For networks that occurred year after year and then suddenly there was no need for it because all those years collectively had given the growth to make networks ubiquitous.  Other products did the same.  Of course some failed to achieve ubiquity.  Mostly though the failures were only declared to be the "Year of" once or twice before fading away, unlike networks and Linux for example.

Oh fer christ's sake, Nem, it was the title of the freaking article. I didn't make it up.

Never the less, since you felt the need to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak, I thought I'd post a post form another more knowledgable developer on this subject: The following was his thoughts on that quoted piece about Linux desktop--


The comment above this mentions that Linux is a "Geeks Paradise" - well I'm pretty sure I qualify as a geek, and I most certainly do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, consider it a paradise. I consider it a half assed solution that, more often then not, makes me waste *my* time on futzing around with it in all sorts of stupid ways, from configuring, to fighting with installers/updaters, to dealing with piss-poor development tools/libs that were not very good 15-20 years ago (make anyone? - TAB as a critical character???, automake/autoconf/autopuke and friends) and are *certainly* not noteworthy at this point in time.

Linux will never take off as whole until it becomes a *platform* and until it's software "ecosystem" is something other than the largely GPL mono-culture that it is today. Linux suffers from:
- Absolutely no baseline *platform*. This includes a standard directory tree, standard set of libs, from basic kernel level and IO stuff all the way to UI libs. As a developer that is considering targetting linux you are forced into making all sorts of low level decisions that have ramifications on your users because of library dependencies. You have no guarantee that the libs you need will be on the version of linux (or whatver the hell it's supposed to be called) that your user may be using.

- No standard set of configuration tools nor any standard whatsoever of config storage.

- No baseline installation techniques. They vary ALL over the place, each distro seems to relish either completely re-inventing the installer (i.e YAST, RPM, et al) or making subtle changes to "standard" packages that make it difficult to install on another distro.
- No baseline UI that either a developer can count on, and thus either work with or against(in the case of some custom UI app).

- Development tools that lag behind pro tools found on other platforms. For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate? ALL your binaries are fat. And compiler optimizing performance isn't too great either. What does that imply when this is spread across the whole damn system?

- A software ecosystem that is largely a "mono-culture". On both the Win32 and Mac OSX platforms there's a wide variety of different developers (and, gasp!, even companies!), from commercial developers/companies, shareware developers, freeware developer, to GPL/OSS developers. This is not (or doesn't appear to be) the case on linux, where most of the software is GPL, and the starting assumption for new projects is to write GPL'd software, and the expectation from the community that the software be free from a monetary standpoint. How many shareware authors sell products on Linux systems? How many commercial products are there (a few, IBM makes something, and Oracle has their DB on it)? On both Win32 and Mac I can easily point to a large variety - I can't do that on Linux. Given that, why would anyone port anything to it? What's the incentive, unless you buy into the whole GPL-is-saving-the-world sentiment?



I could not have said it better.

Jerry

[Nemesis]

Oh fer christ's sake, Nem, it was the title of the freaking article. I didn't make it up.

Perhaps you would explain your motives in posting it then?  I can only think of 3 reasons.

1/ You believed it and wanted to spread the information.  I believe that you are to intelligent for that.

2/ Cause controversey.  If that is it then you got it and shouldn't complain.

3/ Decieve people into thinking Linux was failing.  I don't think that you are that dishonest or stupid enough to think that you wouldn't be refuted.

If you had a fourth reason then please explain for I fail to see it.  Perhaps you have just had an off day and didn't think too deeply on what you read?

Never the less, since you felt the need to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak, I thought I'd post a post form another more knowledgable developer on this subject: The following was his thoughts on that quoted piece about Linux desktop--[/color]

When you posted that you threw down the gauntlet I have picked it up.  Please provide a link to the source of your "more knowledgable developer".

The comment above this mentions that Linux is a "Geeks Paradise" - well I'm pretty sure I qualify as a geek, and I most certainly do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, consider it a paradise. I consider it a half assed solution that, more often then not, makes me waste *my* time on futzing around with it in all sorts of stupid ways, from configuring, to fighting with installers/updaters, to dealing with piss-poor development tools/libs that were not very good 15-20 years ago (make anyone? - TAB as a critical character???, automake/autoconf/autopuke and friends) and are *certainly* not noteworthy at this point in time.

Since I am not a programmer I am not going to attempt to refute this though I believe that it could be.

Linux will never take off as whole until it becomes a *platform* and until it's software "ecosystem" is something other than the largely GPL mono-culture that it is today. Linux suffers from:

Linux is a mono culture?  How many distributions are there?  Hundreds?  How many companies are involved in Linux development?  Dozens?  More?  How is this a mono culture?

Unlike what this implies you can create non GPL programs that run on Linux.  For example Never Winter Nights as a non GPL game on Linux. 

If being a mono culture is bad then you should be fleeing Microsoft products like the plague.  From whom can you buy a Window compatible operating system that can run 99% of your Windows programs?  No one but Microsoft?  What non Microsoft compilers can you use to develop Direct X games?  Can you count on those compilers and resulting games working on the next version of Direct X?  All this makes Microsoft a mono culture

Can you count on any non Microsoft program surviving on Windows with Microsofts illegal and predatory practices?  At least on Linux there is no central predator destroying those who dare to challenge them.

Have you actually read Microsofts announced plans and desires for the future?  Their goal is to have Windows (and all of their other programs) subscription only and all automatically patched up to the exact same version.  If a patch breaks your computer - buy a new one - you can't under the MS vision use the older version that worked for you.  THAT is a monoculture and that is the Microsoft vision.

- Absolutely no baseline *platform*. This includes a standard directory tree, standard set of libs, from basic kernel level and IO stuff all the way to UI libs. As a developer that is considering targetting linux you are forced into making all sorts of low level decisions that have ramifications on your users because of library dependencies. You have no guarantee that the libs you need will be on the version of linux (or whatver the hell it's supposed to be called) that your user may be using.

Linux Standards Base.  Perhaps you haven't heard of it? I quote their home page below.

Mission Statement

To develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux.

LSB as an ISO Draft International Standard

On 11/10/04, ISO/IEC commenced balloting the 2.0.1 LSB release through the "Publically Available Specification" process. This has a single six month long ballot for Draft International Standard 23360. For information on the progress see the wiki page which is updated frequently.

Notice that they have a standard and are working towards making it an international standard not just a North American one or a single companies version.

Where are the ISO standards for Microsofts systems? 

- No standard set of configuration tools nor any standard whatsoever of config storage.

Complaining because competitors actually compete with one another on trying to create a best way to do things?  This can be a problem for some.  For others it is an advantage.  You don't like the way Red Hat does things?  Fine use SUSE or Mandriva (formerly Mandrake and Connectiva) or Linspire (formerly Lindows until Microsoft feared a backfiring lawsuit they started and paid Lindows to change their name).  You have choice use it.

Microsoft has a standard?  It doesn't change from version to version?  The tools are in the same places and work the same? That does not match my experience.  You have no choice on Windows deal with it

- No baseline installation techniques. They vary ALL over the place, each distro seems to relish either completely re-inventing the installer (i.e YAST, RPM, et al) or making subtle changes to "standard" packages that make it difficult to install on another distro.

Refer to the Linux Standards Base info above.  Distros that adhere to the standard and programs that adhere don't have this problem.

Look on the forums and you will see that special techniques had to be devised for installing SFC versions on XP.  Microsoft is not exactly innocent on that score themselves.  How about Dungeon Siege (a MS trademarked game) the original version seems not to work properly on DirectX 9.0c on Win2k and there is no patch.  It worked properly under older versions of DirectX.  Microsoft breaks their own programs and you have no recourse.

Tell me where is the one place that programs under Windows put configuration data and ddls?  My experience is they just fire it all over like a long range shotgun blast and hope it works.

- No baseline UI that either a developer can count on, and thus either work with or against(in the case of some custom UI app).

Can you count on Microsoft not changing their UI on whims?  No?  Can you automatically assume that what you used under Win2K or WinXP will work under Long Horn?  I don't think so.  Just as one minor change all the directories that used to be MY(fill in blank) lose the MY.  Microsoft is demonstrating with Longhorn that they don't recognize that it is MY computer. 

There is actually a baseline UI against which they can develop if they so chose. It is called X-Windows.  Among other things programs designed for it can be made to work under Mac as well not to mention work in a networked fashion.  There are however 2 Windowing UIs that are "dominant" on Linux KDE (which I use) and Gnome.  All the major distributions allow you to use either one.  Most programs that work on one can work on the other (more interoperability is constantly developing). 

This can be an advantage.  If KDE and Gnome are too "bloated" for your hardware there are simpler systems that will work all the way back to Pentium 100 systems (and lower I suspect).  You are not locked in to one system that works the way one company decided it should and to heck with your personal style.

You can even totally dispense with a Windowing UI and work on the command line.  Why does the D2 server kit need a Windowing system?  It doesn't, that just sucks computing resources away from your server, just as it does for a web server, a file server or a print server. 

- Development tools that lag behind pro tools found on other platforms. For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate? ALL your binaries are fat. And compiler optimizing performance isn't too great either. What does that imply when this is spread across the whole damn system?

Again I am not a programmer but since I know you are perhaps you can answer a question.  Are the MS compilers producing smaller code because they link to ddls that are already on the system that MS as they make both the compiler and the OS can dictate the presence of?  Can make present in your OS even if you have absolutely no use for them?  Like for example directx on a web server?

Can you take that MS compiler and compile on IBM AIX?  On MAC (68000 or PowerPC)?  GCC can.  Can you compile for a processor different from the one you are running on?  GCC can.  Can you compile 64 bit or 32 bit whichever you need? 

Here is something I doubt that VC could do.  Before the Athlon 64 was released there were compiled and operating 64 bit versions of Linux ready for it created using GCC.  They were ready and operational BEFORE AMD had even working engineering samples.  Can VC do that?  How long did it take MS to make a 64bit Windows XP?  Is it fully ready even now?

- A software ecosystem that is largely a "mono-culture". On both the Win32 and Mac OSX platforms there's a wide variety of different developers (and, gasp!, even companies!), from commercial developers/companies, shareware developers, freeware developer, to GPL/OSS developers. This is not (or doesn't appear to be) the case on linux, where most of the software is GPL, and the starting assumption for new projects is to write GPL'd software, and the expectation from the community that the software be free from a monetary standpoint. How many shareware authors sell products on Linux systems? How many commercial products are there (a few, IBM makes something, and Oracle has their DB on it)? On both Win32 and Mac I can easily point to a large variety - I can't do that on Linux. Given that, why would anyone port anything to it? What's the incentive, unless you buy into the whole GPL-is-saving-the-world sentiment?

Back to the mono culture.  Sigh. 

You do know that there is a wide variety of companies developing for Linux as well?  Some of them also develop for windows.  IBM just for one small example.  How about the Apache web server - it has a company behind it and produces Windows versions as well as Linux. 

Anyone developing programs to run on top of Linux is free to use whatever license they want.  The baseline assumption is that a company that creates a program for Linux will use the license they thing is best for them. 

Intel for example has proprietary compilers that are not GPLd and work under Linux.  Linux has even been compiled with Intel compilers. 

Sun has Star Office.  Proprietary. (They also donated the code base for OpenOffice.org).

Oracle databases under linux. Proprietary

Opera web browser.  Proprietary

The TIVO is I believe a Linux based piece of hardware and is ... Proprietary.

Linksys makes at least one router that is ... Proprietary but based on Linux.  They sold many extra as people could customize them in ways Linksys never imagined. 

Nero has begun to be available and it is Proprietary.

Just a few examples.

Even Microsoft once wrote Internet Explorer for Unix that could run on Linux.  Of course once Netscape was destroyed as a competitor they dropped it.

The only time some one is FORCED to use the GPL is if they use code in their PROPRIETARY program that someone else owns and released under the GPL.  Even there they have the option of going to the legitimate owner and working a deal to license it differently.  Look up Trolltech.  They make the toolkit that was used to create KDE.  You can either produce GPL'd code using a freely available GPL version of the kit or you can license it direct from Trolltech and make you software totally proprietary. 

Even if you are forced (due to theft of anothers code) to release some of your code under the GPL you still own your own code.  If you replace the stolen code you can then release the product again under any license you choose.  If you used that (your own not the stolen) code in another program already that program is not affected as even though the code was forced under the GPL it was only so forced for where you used it with the stolen GPL'd code.  Other uses by you are still legally allowed under non GPL licenses.

There have been cases (the Linksys router above for example) where people tried to turn GPL'd code proprietary and were forced to open it back up to the GPL.  They violated the law and were forced to obey it.   Just as one would expect if they had stolen  your proprietary code.  Once the code was out people worked on it and improved it.  They released improved versions and people bought the router just because they could pick the software that had the features they wanted to run on it rather than being restricted to what Linksys thought they needed. 

I could not have said it better.

Jerry

I think that I did.

[Nemesis]

Since you seem to have difficulties with phantoms in connection with the GPL here is a Link to information on the GPL.

Here is the text of the GPL V2.0:

          GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
             Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
                 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

             Preamble

  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.  This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it.  (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.)  You can apply it to
your programs, too.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

  We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

  Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents.  We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

          GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

  0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License.  The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)  Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

  8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

  10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

             NO WARRANTY

  11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

  12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

           END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

       How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA


Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

    Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
    Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:

  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
  `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
  Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

If you read it through either now or in the past you will have observed that mostly what it is doing is giving you the user of the software more rights than copyright laws themselves do.  Compare that to proprietary licenses that take away rights that the law allows you.  Which do you prefer a company being able to unilaterally take away your rights or one that give you rights that the law does not require them to?

[toasty0]

If you read it through either now or in the past you will have observed that mostly what it is doing is giving you the user of the software more rights than copyright laws themselves do.  Compare that to proprietary licenses that take away rights that the law allows you.  Which do you prefer a company being able to unilaterally take away your rights or one that give you rights that the law does not require them to?

Oh lordy, Linux is a PIA to develop for and its UI is not friendly. And, as that one developer said, Linux is not going to save anyone except for those business owners looking to exploit the free labor of others. It is the ultimate outsourcing without leaving our shores.

The rest of your rant is just another oft repeated rant about how MS is the evil empire and your way is the guiding light to freedom.

Notice, once again I did not mention MS or try to make a comparission with open source, MS, or Linux. You did however. My link was/is an info only post and was very norrowly focused on the subject of the Linux desktop--which, btw, is a PIA to develop for (have I said that already?)--and nothing else.

All the rest is baggage of your making, not mine.

[Nemesis]

Oh lordy, Linux is a PIA to develop for and its UI is not friendly. And, as that one developer said, Linux is not going to save anyone except for those business owners looking to exploit the free labor of others. It is the ultimate outsourcing without leaving our shores.

So you have developed for Linux or are you relying on this "mystery" developer for information?   I assume that you have an actual basis for the PIA comments.

Is it exploiting when the labour is given by free choice?   Those who develop open source software either do it by choice or for payment.  Are those who work for IBM and produce Open Source materials exploited?

There are many situations where people freely give of their labours.  What makes those who freely give to Linux exploited and those who give of their labours to charities are not?  Are those who run our D2 servers exploited?  They give of their time and labours?  What is the difference? 

The rest of your rant is just another oft repeated rant about how MS is the evil empire and your way is the guiding light to freedom.

Perhaps you should go back to the original site that you linked to.  "windowsitpro . com".  Don't you consider it likely that someone whose site is named Windows IT Pro might have a bias vs anything non Microsoft?   Perhaps using a Windows fanatic for information on Linux might not be wise? 

Perhaps if you had instead linked to a site (such as I did in my first post) that had the basic information that your fanatic misrepresented and either gave your interpretation or allowed others to do so it would not have inspired my so called "rant". 

Go back and read that so called rant with an open mind.  Your linked site was excessively biased against Linux and for Windows.  I presented equivalent evidence and showed how it could have been misinterpretted like your source did his.  The only part that was at all "rant like" was the part about Microsoft cutting employees benefits.  The key quote there came from within Microsoft.  It was Microsofts own employees.  If mine was a rant then what was the site you quoted doing?  Rampaging insanity?

Notice, once again I did not mention MS or try to make a comparission with open source, MS, or Linux. You did however. My link was/is an info only post and was very norrowly focused on the subject of the Linux desktop--which, btw, is a PIA to develop for (have I said that already?)--and nothing else.

All the rest is baggage of your making, not mine.

Actually the site you linked to in your first post did and in your second post you referenced specifically MS Visual C.  So you did in fact make the MS vs Linux / Open source comparison.   Perhaps you should read  again what you posted.  The "baggage" as you called it started there with your source and with you. 

Your words:

For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate?

When considering posting inflamatory things about Linux (or any other topics) perhaps you should check your sources more carefully for honesty and lack of bias?  The source you used this time was biased and dishonest (or perhaps biased and stupid).

I still would like to know who your mystery developer is.

[Sirgod]

  Cripple Erm Geek Fight!!! 

Stephen

[Nemesis]

  Cripple Erm Geek Fight!!! 

Stephen

pppthhhppbtt.

[toasty0]

Oh lordy, Linux is a PIA to develop for and its UI is not friendly. And, as that one developer said, Linux is not going to save anyone except for those business owners looking to exploit the free labor of others. It is the ultimate outsourcing without leaving our shores.

So you have developed for Linux or are you relying on this "mystery" developer for information?   I assume that you have an actual basis for the PIA comments.

Is it exploiting when the labour is given by free choice?   Those who develop open source software either do it by choice or for payment.  Are those who work for IBM and produce Open Source materials exploited?

There are many situations where people freely give of their labours.  What makes those who freely give to Linux exploited and those who give of their labours to charities are not?  Are those who run our D2 servers exploited?  They give of their time and labours?  What is the difference? 

Could you give a more stupid or unrelated example--I think not. When a for profit company (like IBM) uses an open source product they are making a profit upon and thus exploiting those who donated their time to develop that product.

 

The rest of your rant is just another oft repeated rant about how MS is the evil empire and your way is the guiding light to freedom.

Perhaps you should go back to the original site that you linked to.  "windowsitpro . com".  Don't you consider it likely that someone whose site is named Windows IT Pro might have a bias vs anything non Microsoft?   Perhaps using a Windows fanatic for information on Linux might not be wise? 

Perhaps if you had instead linked to a site (such as I did in my first post) that had the basic information that your fanatic misrepresented and either gave your interpretation or allowed others to do so it would not have inspired my so called "rant". 

Go back and read that so called rant with an open mind.  Your linked site was excessively biased against Linux and for Windows.  I presented equivalent evidence and showed how it could have been misinterpretted like your source did his.  The only part that was at all "rant like" was the part about Microsoft cutting employees benefits.  The key quote there came from within Microsoft.  It was Microsofts own employees.  If mine was a rant then what was the site you quoted doing?  Rampaging insanity?

Notice, once again I did not mention MS or try to make a comparission with open source, MS, or Linux. You did however. My link was/is an info only post and was very norrowly focused on the subject of the Linux desktop--which, btw, is a PIA to develop for (have I said that already?)--and nothing else.

All the rest is baggage of your making, not mine.

Actually the site you linked to in your first post did and in your second post you referenced specifically MS Visual C.  So you did in fact make the MS vs Linux / Open source comparison.   Perhaps you should read  again what you posted.  The "baggage" as you called it started there with your source and with you. 

Your words:

For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate?

When considering posting inflamatory things about Linux (or any other topics) perhaps you should check your sources more carefully for honesty and lack of bias?  The source you used this time was biased and dishonest (or perhaps biased and stupid).

I still would like to know who your mystery developer is.

1.)"For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate? " Those are not my words. Why are you making this kind of crap up?

2.)So you have developed for Linux or are you relying on this "mystery" developer for information?   I assume that you have an actual basis for the PIA comments. I took a look a while back--mostly based on your posts--at the kernal, kernal development, on and on at what might be involved in porting SFC to run on the Linux kernal. Then I took the time to talk to a few of developers that worked for West Wood Studios locally (you know who they were, right?) for their take on such an idea. So far, no one has thought highly of the idea other than as something to do because of the monumental challenge of such a project.  So, yes, I have not developed directly for the Linux desktop. Then again, I don't doubt it when others tell me that stepping in front of a speeding bus will lead to serious injury or death. Does that answer your question?

3.)"Actually the site you linked to in your first post did and in your second post you referenced specifically MS Visual C." I did? More imagined stuff, Nem. Please, show me where in my second post in this thread I make reference to any MS Product, specifically, any IDE or programming language.

Ok, so you wanna argue the point to death. Here ya go, argue with Red Hat's Chief Exec Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers

Don't hate the messenger, Nem, hate the message.

[Nemesis]

Could you give a more stupid or unrelated example--I think not. When a for profit company (like IBM) uses an open source product they are making a profit upon and thus exploiting those who donated their time to develop that product.

Sure the for profit company makes money.  That does not make those who willingly donated their time exploited.  Have you considered that those who donate their time and efforts profit too?  They get the work of all the others who also donated effort and time.   Among the work they gain is that of the for profit companies.

1.)"For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate? " Those are not my words. Why are you making this kind of crap up?

It came from your posting so I was not "making crap up".  If they are someone elses words and they don't represent your thoughts then you should clearly indicate that when you post.

2.)So you have developed for Linux or are you relying on this "mystery" developer for information?   I assume that you have an actual basis for the PIA comments. I took a look a while back--mostly based on your posts--at the kernal, kernal development, on and on at what might be involved in porting SFC to run on the Linux kernal. Then I took the time to talk to a few of developers that worked for West Wood Studios locally (you know who they were, right?) for their take on such an idea. So far, no one has thought highly of the idea other than as something to do because of the monumental challenge of such a project.  So, yes, I have not developed directly for the Linux desktop. Then again, I don't doubt it when others tell me that stepping in front of a speeding bus will lead to serious injury or death. Does that answer your question?

I do know who Westwood is (or was haven't seen much from them lately).  I don't know of them having any expertise with Linux though.  Porting a game that uses directx to Linux would of course be difficult.  Probably more so then creating a similar program from scratch, so long as you didn't require them to link together.  Of course you would have a great deal of risk of being sued by Microsoft (over patents), Activision and Paramount (copyrights). 

I haven't tried it myself yet but perhaps you should look at the open source game Vega Strike and its derivitive Vega Trek (artwork partially by Pneumonic81 who you should remember) they apparently both work  on Windows, Mac OSX and Linux.  So it would appear that games can be done of at least similar complexity on Linux and cross ported to Windows (so long as you avoid directx) and Mac OSX as well.

3.)"Actually the site you linked to in your first post did and in your second post you referenced specifically MS Visual C." I did? More imagined stuff, Nem. Please, show me where in my second post in this thread I make reference to any MS Product, specifically, any IDE or programming language.

I quoted directly from your post so again if you are quoting someone else you should make it clear.

For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate?

If these are not your words they are at least from you post and were not clearly marked off as being someone elses words.  You will notice that when I quote others I mark it clearly as their words.

Ok, so you wanna argue the point to death. Here ya go, argue with Red Hat's Chief Exec Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers

Don't hate the messenger, Nem, hate the message.

Check the date on that article - 2003.  Things change and rapidly in the computer world.  In any case where did I say that Linux is ready for the average desktop?  Windows took a long time to go from useless to usable.  Linux can of course be expected to do the same.

To make it clear.  For the home desktop of the average user it is not yet ready.  My home desktop is not average.  For many though not all office desktops it has been ready for some time.

Hate is something I save for those who are truely despicable.  Someone who I have a disagreement with doesn't qualify.  No one on these boards has crossed that line.  The only one who ever came close was banned (making death threats brought one person close though I pity him rather than hate).

You I may disagree with but you were the person I first listed as a buddy (Stephen was 2nd) because I wanted to notice if you were online so I could keep an eye on your posts, I found them interesting.  That was of course before you started your periodic attacks on open source.  I haven't changed that setting because when you don't go off the rails you still do make interesting posts.

If Microsoft would cease to be a predator that destroys rather than competes and learn to understand that this is my computer not theirs then perhaps they could cease to be the Evil Empire and become respectable once more.  IBM was once the Evil one that everyone hated, they were brought low and have earned respect once more.  So the transition from Evil Empire to respected corporated citizen can be made.    Then perhaps I would willingly buy and use their products again instead of drawing the line in the sand and saying thus far and no farther.  XP was that line.  I would love to see Microsoft cross back but don't believe they will do so until they are humbled and current management overthrown.

[toasty0]

  Cripple Erm Geek Fight!!! 

Stephen

[Sirgod]

  Cripple Erm Geek Fight!!! 

Stephen

Muhahahahaha!!!!

 +1 to both of you.

Stephen

[toasty0]

Could you give a more stupid or unrelated example--I think not. When a for profit company (like IBM) uses an open source product they are making a profit upon and thus exploiting those who donated their time to develop that product.

Sure the for profit company makes money.  That does not make those who willingly donated their time exploited.  Have you considered that those who donate their time and efforts profit too?  They get the work of all the others who also donated effort and time.   Among the work they gain is that of the for profit companies.

1.)"For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate? " Those are not my words. Why are you making this kind of crap up?

It came from your posting so I was not "making crap up".  If they are someone elses words and they don't represent your thoughts then you should clearly indicate that when you post.

2.)So you have developed for Linux or are you relying on this "mystery" developer for information?   I assume that you have an actual basis for the PIA comments. I took a look a while back--mostly based on your posts--at the kernal, kernal development, on and on at what might be involved in porting SFC to run on the Linux kernal. Then I took the time to talk to a few of developers that worked for West Wood Studios locally (you know who they were, right?) for their take on such an idea. So far, no one has thought highly of the idea other than as something to do because of the monumental challenge of such a project.  So, yes, I have not developed directly for the Linux desktop. Then again, I don't doubt it when others tell me that stepping in front of a speeding bus will lead to serious injury or death. Does that answer your question?

I do know who Westwood is (or was haven't seen much from them lately).  I don't know of them having any expertise with Linux though.  Porting a game that uses directx to Linux would of course be difficult.  Probably more so then creating a similar program from scratch, so long as you didn't require them to link together.  Of course you would have a great deal of risk of being sued by Microsoft (over patents), Activision and Paramount (copyrights). 

I haven't tried it myself yet but perhaps you should look at the open source game Vega Strike and its derivitive Vega Trek (artwork partially by Pneumonic81 who you should remember) they apparently both work  on Windows, Mac OSX and Linux.  So it would appear that games can be done of at least similar complexity on Linux and cross ported to Windows (so long as you avoid directx) and Mac OSX as well.

3.)"Actually the site you linked to in your first post did and in your second post you referenced specifically MS Visual C." I did? More imagined stuff, Nem. Please, show me where in my second post in this thread I make reference to any MS Product, specifically, any IDE or programming language.

I quoted directly from your post so again if you are quoting someone else you should make it clear.

For example, what does it imply if your baseline compiler generates binaries that are three times the size of what most Win32 compilers (specifically MS compilers from VC6 onwards) can generate?

If these are not your words they are at least from you post and were not clearly marked off as being someone elses words.  You will notice that when I quote others I mark it clearly as their words.

Ok, so you wanna argue the point to death. Here ya go, argue with Red Hat's Chief Exec Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers

Don't hate the messenger, Nem, hate the message.

Check the date on that article - 2003.  Things change and rapidly in the computer world.  In any case where did I say that Linux is ready for the average desktop?  Windows took a long time to go from useless to usable.  Linux can of course be expected to do the same.

To make it clear.  For the home desktop of the average user it is not yet ready.  My home desktop is not average.  For many though not all office desktops it has been ready for some time.

Hate is something I save for those who are truely despicable.  Someone who I have a disagreement with doesn't qualify.  No one on these boards has crossed that line.  The only one who ever came close was banned (making death threats brought one person close though I pity him rather than hate).

You I may disagree with but you were the person I first listed as a buddy (Stephen was 2nd) because I wanted to notice if you were online so I could keep an eye on your posts, I found them interesting.  That was of course before you started your periodic attacks on open source.  I haven't changed that setting because when you don't go off the rails you still do make interesting posts.

If Microsoft would cease to be a predator that destroys rather than competes and learn to understand that this is my computer not theirs then perhaps they could cease to be the Evil Empire and become respectable once more.  IBM was once the Evil one that everyone hated, they were brought low and have earned respect once more.  So the transition from Evil Empire to respected corporated citizen can be made.    Then perhaps I would willingly buy and use their products again instead of drawing the line in the sand and saying thus far and no farther.  XP was that line.  I would love to see Microsoft cross back but don't believe they will do so until they are humbled and current management overthrown.

I'm sorry, Nem, but after reading this last post of yours I find it difficult to give a serious response...except to torture you further in your zealotry:

[Nemesis]

I'm sorry, Nem, but after reading this last post of yours I find it difficult to give a serious response...except to torture you further in your zealotry:

As you wish toasty.  Just consider how your zealotry looks from the other side of the mirror.

[toasty0]

I'm sorry, Nem, but after reading this last post of yours I find it difficult to give a serious response...except to torture you further in your zealotry:

As you wish toasty.  Just consider how your zealotry looks from the other side of the mirror.

This response is

[Nemesis]

Source of list

Signs Your Dad Was a Geek Too

11.    You ask him for computer help.
10.    He was proud when you joined Chess Club because now the family tradition would be upheld.
9.    Your allowance was always a multiple of $3.14.
8.    He likes telling you stories about how computers were before they had keyboards.
7.    He has more Legos now than you did as a child.
6.    He can beat you in at least one video game.
5.    He moderates a BBS.
4.    His ring tone: the sound of a 9600 baud modem negotiating.
3.    You learned a new coding algorithm that is named after him.
2.    He made you wear a Spock costume to your first Star Trek convention because he wanted to go as Kirk.
1.    

He named you Luke just so he could say "Luke, I am your father."

[toasty0]

Source of list

Signs Your Dad Was a Geek Too

11.    You ask him for computer help.
10.    He was proud when you joined Chess Club because now the family tradition would be upheld.
9.    Your allowance was always a multiple of $3.14.
8.    He likes telling you stories about how computers were before they had keyboards.
7.    He has more Legos now than you did as a child.
6.    He can beat you in at least one video game.
5.    He moderates a BBS.
4.    His ring tone: the sound of a 9600 baud modem negotiating.
3.    You learned a new coding algorithm that is named after him.
2.    He made you wear a Spock costume to your first Star Trek convention because he wanted to go as Kirk.
1.    

He named you Luke just so he could say "Luke, I am your father."

Mahawawahahahaha!!!!

[Nemesis]

Source of list

Yo Momma Insults for Sci-Fi

11.    Yo momma's so fat, she fills more than three dimensions.
10.    Yo momma's so ugly, even the Borg wouldn't assimilate her.
9.    Yo momma's so fat, she needs two escape pods to leave the ship.
8.    Yo momma's so fat, she turned ringworld into ellipseworld.
7.    Yo momma's so ugly, she makes robots rethink the first law.
6.    Yo momma's so fat, she gets stuck in wormholes.
5.    Yo momma's so dumb she thinks the answer to the life, the universe and everything is 41.
4.    Yo momma's so stupid, even meesa's thinkin' she dumb.
3.    Yo mamma's so fat the Hutt women hang out with her to look thin.
2.    Yo mamma's so stupid she can't calculate the trajectory for the jump to hyperspace.
1.    Yo momma's so dumb, she thinks Area 51 is an 80s rock band.