CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

>As far as I know, everyone here except for Joel Crump and Larry
>Pietraskiewicz have good salaries and can afford to buy software if they
>need it. Linux is clearly a preference, not a necessity.

I had Win11 Pro, dummy, I wanted Linux over that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 13:52:12 +0100, -hh wrote:

>
> Indeed. It’s been easily a decade that most contemporary hardware has
> become “good enough” for mainstream applications such that one doesn’t need
> to scratch for the last 5% in performance. It’s why useful lifespans have
> extended so much…
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! We have "Hole in the Head" expressing his
incompetence yet again.

For "mainstream applications," he, of course, means the applications
that idiots use, such as email and Netflix, on a daily basis.

However, there are users that perform math/physics simulations and
video/audio encoding for which a FAST machine is absolutely imperative.

"Hole in the Head" falls within the first category and thus he is content
with an 80286 running Winblows 2.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
FF

Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 2024-08-12, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-08-12 8:11 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as I know, everyone here except for Joel Crump and Larry
>>>> Pietraskiewicz have good salaries and can afford to buy software if they
>>>> need it. Linux is clearly a preference, not a necessity.
>>>
>>> Almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than Windows.
>>
>> Well, I'm sure that some do, especially if they're building their own
>> machines and don't want to spend $200 on a license.
>
> I used to be that way.

Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.
The real cost savings using Linux comes to commercial businesses, mostly large corporations, where
scaling Linux is far cheaper than Windows. But even that isn't always the case because in general
large corporations require support which means commercial versions of Redhat, suSE and so forth and
that can be expensive as well.
With user land applications moving to the cloud things are changing rapidly though.

> But I did finally break down and bought a new Windows license ~2 years ago.

It's trivial to purchase "legit" licenses for Windows all over the place. these are usually extra,
legit, corporate keys that were not needed or used.
Buyer beware though.

>
>> If you bought a
>> machine pre-built, you don't notice the cost of Windows but you would if
>> you're buying each piece separately. For what it's worth, back when the
>> first Ubuntu came out, I opted not to buy a Windows license specifically
>> because simply using the distribution would cut costs. It did an
>> admirable job, but in the end I felt I needed Windows.
>
> Pretty much my conclusion too: there’s a few tasks that just don’t
> functionally work well enough under Linux or Mac, such that forking up to
> have a Winbox is a path of less resistance (eg, fewer headaches).

For most, it's not worth the headache.
Windows works and runs the popular applications they require.
A friend of mine is a lifetime Machead. We argue all the time, lol ! His biggest issues with Macs
is that Excel does not run the super, and I mean super, complex spreadsheets with macros and so
forth that he needs to run for his job as a commercial real estate appraiser.
They have issues but work around methods are available.

>
>>> OTOH, Linux and Windows users will often choose FOSS applications over
>>> payware mostly because they are free. Quite sensible.
>>>
>>> Windows users are far more likely to pirate payware, of course.
>>
>> I try to avoid pirating anything because I feel that those companies and
>> its employees deserve to eat. In my case, open-source is simply more
>> familiar and more than good enough for what I need.
>
> It’s the value paradigm: being good (or even ‘better’) while at a lower
> functional lifecycle cost results in a winning combination…and there’s
> ample FOSS examples of this. Of course, there’s also “crappy but free” as
> well as “crappy but expensive” too - it inevitably should shake out with
> the non-FOSS stuff losing out in the competitive marketplace.

Time is money.

>> To give you an
>> example, I have a license for Outlook 2021, but I'm using Betterbird
>> because:
>>
>> a) GnuPG is implemented in the software without the need for an extension.
>> b) Usenet is implemented without the need for a second program.
>> c) Message filtering is intuitive and works as it should.
>> d) CardDAV and CalDAV are implemented directly and supports both being
>> encrypted through its support for GnuPG.
>>
>> Other than the proprietary eM Client which requires an annual
>> subscription, I can't think of a program that does all of the above _well_.
>>
>
> I’ve been debating setting up an Outlook client again, as there’s still
> some things it does quite well that are lacking in other email apps - for
> example, Apple’s Mail app is downright bad at alphabetical based search
> jumps, and text searches overall.
>

If you ae using Windows, try Mailbird or EM Client for payware.
Thunderbird for free.

> -hh
>

--
pothead
Kamala Harris = Four More Years Of Obama.
Send Her To The Curb.
Vote snit "Kook Of the Decade".

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2024-08-12, -hh wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-12 8:11 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, everyone here except for Joel Crump and Larry
>>>>> Pietraskiewicz have good salaries and can afford to buy software if they
>>>>> need it. Linux is clearly a preference, not a necessity.
>>>>
>>>> Almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than Windows.
>>>
>>> Well, I'm sure that some do, especially if they're building their own
>>> machines and don't want to spend $200 on a license.
>>
>> I used to be that way.
>
> Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.

And as IIRC Chris A pointed out a few years ago, can very well be cheaper
at retail with the WinOS license than without, basically because of
logistical economies of scale.

> The real cost savings using Linux comes to commercial businesses, mostly
> large corporations, where
> scaling Linux is far cheaper than Windows. But even that isn't always the
> case because in general
> large corporations require support which means commercial versions of
> Redhat, suSE and so forth and
> that can be expensive as well.

Precisely. And even with larger scale IT systems, Enterprise may still
decide that a COTS WinOS laptop is the better business decision vs some
thin client, etc.

> With user land applications moving to the cloud things are changing rapidly though.

These users still need their “gateway” IT system.

>> But I did finally break down and bought a new Windows license ~2 years ago.
>
> It's trivial to purchase "legit" licenses for Windows all over the place.
> these are usually extra,
> legit, corporate keys that were not needed or used.
> Buyer beware though.

Or just go NewEgg.

>>> If you bought a
>>> machine pre-built, you don't notice the cost of Windows but you would if
>>> you're buying each piece separately. For what it's worth, back when the
>>> first Ubuntu came out, I opted not to buy a Windows license specifically
>>> because simply using the distribution would cut costs. It did an
>>> admirable job, but in the end I felt I needed Windows.
>>
>> Pretty much my conclusion too: there’s a few tasks that just don’t
>> functionally work well enough under Linux or Mac, such that forking up to
>> have a Winbox is a path of less resistance (eg, fewer headaches).
>
> For most, it's not worth the headache.

Precisely. There’s an old (pre-PC) joke which was that life is a shit
sandwich.

> Windows works and runs the popular applications they require.

As much as Feeb tries to diss the mainstream, it’s still the mainstream.

> A friend of mine is a lifetime Machead. We argue all the time, lol ! His
> biggest issues with Macs
> is that Excel does not run the super, and I mean super, complex
> spreadsheets with macros and so
> forth that he needs to run for his job as a commercial real estate appraiser.
> They have issues but work around methods are available.

It’s been common for decades for the Mac version of MS-Office to be
“gimped” such as by not supporting Visual Basic stuff. Granted, that’s
also a security vulnerability too, so it isn’t necessarily a horribly bad
idea either.. and MS-Access is another “WinOS only” found in MS-Office.

>>>> OTOH, Linux and Windows users will often choose FOSS applications over
>>>> payware mostly because they are free. Quite sensible.
>>>>
>>>> Windows users are far more likely to pirate payware, of course.
>>>
>>> I try to avoid pirating anything because I feel that those companies and
>>> its employees deserve to eat. In my case, open-source is simply more
>>> familiar and more than good enough for what I need.
>>
>> It’s the value paradigm: being good (or even ‘better’) while at a lower
>> functional lifecycle cost results in a winning combination…and there’s
>> ample FOSS examples of this. Of course, there’s also “crappy but free” as
>> well as “crappy but expensive” too - it inevitably should shake out with
>> the non-FOSS stuff losing out in the competitive marketplace.
>
> Time is money.

Yup, and often enough a fanboy will argue that it’s “fun” to DIY assemble
their white boxes, so they refuse to put a price tag on their touch labor.

>>> To give you an
>>> example, I have a license for Outlook 2021, but I'm using Betterbird
>>> because:
>>>
>>> a) GnuPG is implemented in the software without the need for an extension.
>>> b) Usenet is implemented without the need for a second program.
>>> c) Message filtering is intuitive and works as it should.
>>> d) CardDAV and CalDAV are implemented directly and supports both being
>>> encrypted through its support for GnuPG.
>>>
>>> Other than the proprietary eM Client which requires an annual
>>> subscription, I can't think of a program that does all of the above _well_.
>>>
>>
>> I’ve been debating setting up an Outlook client again, as there’s still
>> some things it does quite well that are lacking in other email apps - for
>> example, Apple’s Mail app is downright bad at alphabetical based search
>> jumps, and text searches overall.
>>
>
> If you ae using Windows, try Mailbird or EM Client for payware.
> Thunderbird for free.

I was really thinking of setting up Outlook for the WinOS side.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> vallor wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about
>>>>> being a cheapskate!
>>>>
>>>> Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that, the above goes down as
>>>> yet another of his lies.
>>>
>>> From the OP’s very first post in this thread:
>>>
>>> “The 2245 is about $400 and that's CHEAP.”
>>>
>>>> I will delete his response, unread. If he produces a quote (he won't)
>>>> someone decent please let me know.
>>>
>>> Expect chrisv’s face-saving spin attempt to be that it doesn’t count
>>> because Feeb is “trolling.” /s
>>
>> Very disingenuous. You haven't met the challenge.
>
>It was sufficient AFAIC for chrisv, because if I would have cited RonB or
>others saying “expensive”/etc, then chrisv would pedantically gone after it
>for not literally using the word “cheap”.

-highhorse is lying. I am not so unreasonable as that.

But advocates talking of saving money with Linux is exactly the
*opposite* of Linux "fanboys" insisting that "Linux advocacy is never,
ever, about being a cheapskate". No one here has denied the existence
of "cheapskate" Linux advocates.

> (more idiocy snipped)

>> But nobody here has ever said using Linux is _never_
>> about cost, because that would be stupid. Again,
>> the challenge is not met.
>
> Nor have I said

Here, -highhorse accepts vallor's rebuttal, which is tacit admission
that -highhorse lied. Attempting to distract the reader, he quickly
blows past this admission with not one, but two bits of illogic.

1) No one thinks or has claimed that -highhorse thinks that it is
exclusively about only costs. 2) Our protests do not demonstrate that
his initial lying attack has some merit.

>it is _exclusively_ about only costs either: “The lady, she
>doth protest too much.”

But he did say that there are "Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate", which is a lie.

Asshole, he doth lie too much.

--
"the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever,
about being a cheapskate!" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

On 2024-08-12 6:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> vallor wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about
>>>>>> being a cheapskate!
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that, the above goes down as
>>>>> yet another of his lies.
>>>>
>>>> From the OP’s very first post in this thread:
>>>>
>>>> “The 2245 is about $400 and that's CHEAP.”
>>>>
>>>>> I will delete his response, unread. If he produces a quote (he won't)
>>>>> someone decent please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Expect chrisv’s face-saving spin attempt to be that it doesn’t count
>>>> because Feeb is “trolling.” /s
>>>
>>> Very disingenuous. You haven't met the challenge.
>>
>> It was sufficient AFAIC for chrisv, because if I would have cited RonB or
>> others saying “expensive”/etc, then chrisv would pedantically gone after it
>> for not literally using the word “cheap”.
>
> -highhorse is lying. I am not so unreasonable as that.
>
> But advocates talking of saving money with Linux is exactly the
> *opposite* of Linux "fanboys" insisting that "Linux advocacy is never,
> ever, about being a cheapskate". No one here has denied the existence
> of "cheapskate" Linux advocates.

If you take the example of the German towns abandoning Microsoft for
open-source, cost was not the issue. It had a lot more to do with the
fact that they didn't want to use proprietary software anymore. Whether
it is good or bad, there is no denying that using open software is not
just lighter and cheaper, it provides you with greater control. It is
clear why a government would want to have increased control over its
computing.

< snip >

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

On 12 Aug 2024 07:00:52 GMT, vallor wrote:

> But nobody here has ever said using Linux is _never_
> about cost ...

Certainly Open Source helps a lot with compliance costs. All the “license
management” rigmarole you have to go through with proprietary software,
counting CALs, getting nickel-and-dimed to death for every new thing you
want to do with the software, having to undergo intrusive audits ... all
that goes away. Stuff that hobbles the agility of your business is a
hidden cost, hard to even notice it’s costing you, but it’s costing you
just the same.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:55:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> ... while I _could_ buy software to do the same thing as Betterbird,
> Handbrake or MakeMKV ...

I had a look at Handbrake once. I assumed it was some kind of GUI front
end on top of FFmpeg. But no, they actually forked part of the FFmpeg
libraries into their own project.

This means it can only support, not just a limited subset of FFmpeg’s
capabilities, but an old, limited subset at that.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:53:51 -0400, -hh wrote:

> I’ve been debating setting up an Outlook client again, as there’s still
> some things it does quite well that are lacking in other email apps -
> for example, Apple’s Mail app is downright bad at alphabetical based
> search jumps, and text searches overall.

On my Linux system, all my current mail is kept in “maildir” format. That
means each message is a simple text file, and each mail folder is just a
filesystem directory. So I can use any regular file-search facilities I
like, I am not restricted to ones built into the email client.

Moral: Open Source teaches you to think in terms of different tools for
different jobs; don’t assume that one tool (particularly a GUI tool) will
do it all.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 21:04:02 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:

> ... large corporations require support ...

Which, for Open Source, they can get from anywhere. They can even hire
their own in-house experts to get it. That gives them more control over
their own destiny than they can get from any outside corporation.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 18:36:54 -0400, -hh wrote:

> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>> Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.
>
> And as IIRC Chris A pointed out a few years ago, can very well be
> cheaper at retail with the WinOS license than without, basically because
> of logistical economies of scale.

No, the PC can be cheaper with a Windows licence than without because of
all the Windows-based crapware (adware, trialware, crippleware, nagware)
that various companies pay the PC vendor to preinstall on the machine.

A few years ago, Sony were offering crapware-free options on some of their
Windows PCs ... for an extra $50 cost.

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-08-12, -hh wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-12 8:11 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I know, everyone here except for Joel Crump and Larry
>>>>>> Pietraskiewicz have good salaries and can afford to buy software if they
>>>>>> need it. Linux is clearly a preference, not a necessity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm sure that some do, especially if they're building their own
>>>> machines and don't want to spend $200 on a license.
>>>
>>> I used to be that way.
>>
>> Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.
>
> And as IIRC Chris A pointed out a few years ago, can very well be cheaper
> at retail with the WinOS license than without, basically because of
> logistical economies of scale.

Also pointed that out a few days ago :-)

>> <brevsnip>
>>
>> If you ae using Windows, try Mailbird or EM Client for payware.
>> Thunderbird for free.
>
> I was really thinking of setting up Outlook for the WinOS side.

I am sooooo glad I don't have to use Outlook (although the web app was
much less painful than the desktop app, but it couldn't encrypt things)
anymore. Same with Windows. It always felt so clumsy to me.

--
You never have to change anything you got up in the middle of the night
to write.
-- Saul Bellow

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:53:51 -0400, -hh wrote:
>
>> I’ve been debating setting up an Outlook client again, as there’s still
>> some things it does quite well that are lacking in other email apps -
>> for example, Apple’s Mail app is downright bad at alphabetical based
>> search jumps, and text searches overall.
>
> On my Linux system, all my current mail is kept in “maildir” format. That
> means each message is a simple text file, and each mail folder is just a
> filesystem directory. So I can use any regular file-search facilities I
> like, I am not restricted to ones built into the email client.
>
> Moral: Open Source teaches you to think in terms of different tools for
> different jobs; don’t assume that one tool (particularly a GUI tool) will
> do it all.

I use mutt and IMAP to manage gmail. Not the best thing imaginable, but
it suffices. See X-Mutt in the header. :-)

--
A visit to a strange place will bring fresh work.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>>>>>> Almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm sure that some do, especially if they're building their own
>>>>> machines and don't want to spend $200 on a license.
>>>>
>>>> I used to be that way.
>>>
>>> Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.
>>
>> And as IIRC Chris A pointed out a few years ago, can very well be cheaper
>> at retail with the WinOS license than without, basically because of
>> logistical economies of scale.
>
> Also pointed that out a few days ago :-)

Many times over the years that's been pointed out.

Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
Windows.

--
"Personally, I have no particular love for Photoshop's pricetag
either, but that doesn't mean that I'll globally reject it for all
possible consumers" - lying asshole "-hh", snittishly pretending
that cola advocates "globally reject" Photoshop for "all possible
consumers"

On 8/13/2024 8:20 AM, clownv wrote:

> Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
> Windows.

That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.

I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
the beginning.

Hey, which paid distro do you use, turd? Which commercial Linux apps?

DFS wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 8:20 AM, clownv wrote:
>
>
>> Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
>> Windows.
>
>
> That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
> elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.
>
> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
> the beginning.
>
> Hey, which paid distro do you use, turd?  Which commercial Linux apps?
>
big fancy programs and all you do is post ,
i deleted everything accept outlook express

% wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS wrote:
>> On 8/13/2024 8:20 AM, clownv wrote:
>>
>>> Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
>>> Windows.
>>
>> That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
>> elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.

At work I was running Debian until the edict came down to use an approved
Linux, Red Hat. Or one could use its derivate, CentOS.

>> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
>> the beginning.
>>
>> Hey, which paid distro do you use, turd?  Which commercial Linux apps?
>
> big fancy programs and all you do is post ,

He has been obsessed with Linux for, geeze, a couple decades maybe.

> i deleted everything accept outlook express

I use Linux because I like it, and the FOSS apps available for it cover my
needs quite well. The free cost is a bonus.

--
Like an expensive sports car, fine-tuned and well-built, Portia was sleek,
shapely, and gorgeous, her red jumpsuit moulding her body, which was as warm
as seatcovers in July, her hair as dark as new tires, her eyes flashing like
bright hubcaps, and her lips as dewy as the beads of fresh rain on the hood.

On 8/12/24 7:56 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2024-08-12 6:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> vallor wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>>>>>> about being a cheapskate!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that, the above goes
>>>>>> down as yet another of his lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the OP’s very first post in this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> “The 2245 is about $400 and that's CHEAP.”
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will delete his response, unread.  If he produces a quote (he
>>>>>> won't) someone decent please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Expect chrisv’s face-saving spin attempt to be that it doesn’t count
>>>>> because Feeb is “trolling.” /s
>>>>
>>>> Very disingenuous.  You haven't met the challenge.
>>>
>>> It was sufficient AFAIC for chrisv, because if I would have cited
>>> RonB or
>>> others saying “expensive”/etc, then chrisv would pedantically gone
>>> after it
>>> for not literally using the word “cheap”.
>>
>> -highhorse is lying.  I am not so unreasonable as that.
>>
>> But advocates talking of saving money with Linux is exactly the
>> *opposite* of Linux "fanboys" insisting that "Linux advocacy is never,
>> ever, about being a cheapskate".  No one here has denied the existence
>> of "cheapskate" Linux advocates.

Except: "Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that..." /s

> If you take the example of the German towns abandoning Microsoft for
> open-source, cost was not the issue. It had a lot more to do with the
> fact that they didn't want to use proprietary software anymore.

That was Munich .. and costs were very much part of their discussions.
They had an ancient NT 4 architecture that was EOL'ing, so they were
looking at Linux to avoid a ton of costs.

Ultimately, they spent a ton of time (& money) to get 85-90% of the way
there, and at one point claimed a €10M savings potential - but only
realized €4M, before negative user feedback (& probably the ~10%
remaining that they realized couldn't be adequately converted) and other
things motivated them to go back to Microsoft. FYI, it doesn't help
that their new hardware replacement costs got mixed in with OS/Software,
as this very much muddies the waters on what the true "OS/Apps" costs
actually were. More at Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux

> Whether
> it is good or bad, there is no denying that using open software is not
> just lighter and cheaper, it provides you with greater control. It is
> clear why a government would want to have increased control over its
> computing.

A fair enough point, but the counterbalance is that there's no free
lunch: when its a custom implementation, one gets effectively forced to
DIY the IT maintenance, assurity & security operations in-house rather
than buying them off-the-shelf. For which is cheaper comes down to the
question of the cost of in-house staff labor vs the COTS, particularly
since COTS classically has an inherent advantage of economy of scale.

-hh

On 8/13/24 9:19 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 8:20 AM, clownv wrote:
>
>
>> Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
>> Windows.
>
>
> That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
> elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.

This is illustrating the disconnect between what people *say* vs what
they *do* (if their claimed motivations are truthful or not).

FWIW, a similar thing happens in vehicle selection over a decade ago
with the rapid adoption of SUVs: buyers claimed that they "needed"
nothing less than an SUV, yet the number of boats, campers, off-roading,
etc didn't have any increases proportional to the increased demand,
which illustrates that there was some motivation other than the one
being claimed.

> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
> the beginning.
>
> Hey, which paid distro do you use, turd?  Which commercial Linux apps?

There's nothing wrong with being value-centric, but it is pretty sad to
watch some folk squander hours of their life on some minor entanglement
that pretty much only exists because they don't want to spend a buck:
classical instances of "penny wise, dollar foolish" behavior.

-hh

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:

> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
> the beginning.
>

While trying to neaten up the shed I came across a SuSE Linux 8.1 box
similar to this:

https://www.linux-distros.com/suse-linux-8-2/

The BestBuy sticker says $79.99 and I don't recall shoplifting it. 8.1
came out in 2002. The Canonical ShipIt program was the first I know of
where you could get free CDs mailed to you:

https://canonical.com/blog/shipit-comes-to-an-end

I suppose the Red Hat 5.2 CD that came with 'Red Hat Linux Unleashed' in
'98 was 'free' but the book was $39.99.The inflation calculator says that
would be $77.75 today. Thank you to all the maggots supposedly running the
country.

My first distro, Slackware 2.0 iirc, was free -- unless you count
downloading 46 files from a ftp site over a slow connection, copying them
to 3 1/4" floppies and spending forever loading them, keeping you fingers
crossed all the while.

Unless I built the box myself I was loading Linux on something that
started life as a Windows box so I'd already paid the M$ tax.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:16:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I use Linux because I like it, and the FOSS apps available for it cover
> my needs quite well. The free cost is a bonus.

Free is always good... DFS gets his knickers in a know over free software
but hold up your hand anybody that ever paid money for a browser with the
exception of IE or Edge which come bundled with Windows.

I can't remember the last time I bought software. Why buy a cow when
they're giving away milk for free?

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
>> the beginning.
>
>While trying to neaten up the shed I came across a SuSE Linux 8.1 box
>similar to this:
>
>https://www.linux-distros.com/suse-linux-8-2/

I ordered a box containing CD-ROM to install Red Hat when I initially
experimented with Linux, in 2003. Since that time, I've seen numerous
distros.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

-hh wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Like I said, almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than
>>> Windows.
>>
>> That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
>> elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.

Which says nothing about my point. Outside of the "enterprise", most
people have no need for paid support, for either Linux or Windows.
Why pay money for something you don't need?

>This is illustrating the disconnect between what people *say* vs what

It illustrates no such thing. That's your shit-brained "logic" again.

> (snipped, unread)

Idiot.

-hh wrote:

>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> But advocates talking of saving money with Linux is exactly the
>>> *opposite* of Linux "fanboys" insisting that "Linux advocacy is never,
>>> ever, about being a cheapskate".  No one here has denied the existence
>>> of "cheapskate" Linux advocates.
>
> Except: "Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that..." /s

Except: -highhorse cannot quote anyone saying that. His "examples",
his "best shots", were of a couple of advocates being "cheap". He has
no example of anyone denying that some Linux advoacates are "cheap".
He has no example of an advocate saying anything like "Linux advocacy
is never, ever, about being a cheapskate" or "Linux advocacy is never,
ever, about saving money".

-highhorse *lied* to attack us as "unreasonable" or "inconsistent".

> (snipped, unread)

One might wonder why -highhorse felt the need to attack in the first
place. My initial post was rather innocuous, and we basically agreed
about Fabian's silly trolling.

But I've been slapping -highhorse's ass all over usenet, recently, so
he is butthurt. So, in classic -highhorse fashion, he attacked with
idiocy and lies.

Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
about being a cheapskate".

It does not. Obviously.

Later, he argues that the tiny market share of paid-support distros
disputes my claim that almost no one uses Linux because it costs less.

It does not. Obviously.

It's just pure garbage, pure illogic, pure made-up nonsense, as usual
for a -highhorse attack against the cola advocates.

What's really funny is that if vallor had not responded, pointing out
that -highhorse failed to meet the challenge, there would have been no
rebuttal. In -highhorse's pea brain he would have felt like he "won",
and that he had cause me to "lose face". (rolling eyes)

Hilarious!

I really hope that no one is fooled by -highhorse's garbage, when it
does not get rebutted.

On 8/13/24 5:14 PM, chrisv wrote:

My, my ... the butthurt is running strong in chrisv tonight!

> -hh wrote:
>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But advocates talking of saving money with Linux is exactly the
>>>> *opposite* of Linux "fanboys" insisting that "Linux advocacy is never,
>>>> ever, about being a cheapskate".  No one here has denied the existence
>>>> of "cheapskate" Linux advocates.
>>
>> Except: "Unless -highhorse can quote someone saying that..." /s
>
> Except: -highhorse cannot quote anyone saying that.

People aren't as stupid as chrisv needs them to be:

“The 2245 is about $400 and that's CHEAP.”

> His "examples",
> his "best shots", were of a couple of advocates being "cheap". He has
> no example of anyone denying that some Linux advoacates are "cheap".

Note the specific use of quotes here, precisely as a predicted that
chrisv would resort to pedantic use of a specific word.

> He has no example of an advocate saying anything like "Linux advocacy
> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate" or "Linux advocacy is never,
> ever, about saving money".

That I bothered to go find, while sitting in an airport lounge.

>
> -highhorse *lied* to attack us as "unreasonable" or "inconsistent".

Nah, chrisv makes unforced errors at the drop of an emotional hat.

>> (snipped, unread)
>
> One might wonder why -highhorse felt the need to attack in the first
> place. My initial post was rather innocuous, and we basically agreed
> about Fabian's silly trolling.

Its only because your inferiority complex is just so predictable that
you chose to take affront: as I said, my original comment on Feeb was
that I thought “what, again?”, explaining that it seems that Feeb's
behavior is to squander away his money in incremental changes which he
hopes will improve performance "...and he’d probably save money in the
longer run" by not spending his money in this fashion.

> But I've been slapping -highhorse's ass all over usenet, recently, so
> he is butthurt. So, in classic -highhorse fashion, he attacked with
> idiocy and lies.
>

Slapping ... as in "WHIFF!" :-)

> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
> about being a cheapskate".
>
> It does not. Obviously.

Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.

> Later, he argues that the tiny market share of paid-support distros
> disputes my claim that almost no one uses Linux because it costs less.

Nah, that was DFS. My comment was simply noting that people are able to
lie about what their true motivations are.

> It does not. Obviously.
>
> It's just pure garbage, pure illogic, pure made-up nonsense, as usual
> for a -highhorse attack against the cola advocates.

Oh, so no one has ever lied to chrisv...ever?
And he himself has never lied to anyone anywhere ... ever too?
For that's the "logic" that chrisv is trying to make himself believe.

> What's really funny is that if vallor had not responded, pointing out
> that -highhorse failed to meet the challenge, there would have been no
> rebuttal. In -highhorse's pea brain he would have felt like he "won",
> and that he had cause me to "lose face". (rolling eyes)

Because it was always about chrisv! As I said:

"[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"

Once again, it was the mere mention of costs for why chrisv was
compelled to jump up to take that arrow in the chest.

And yeah, sure Scott did also opine on this as well, but it was on
chrisv's deliberate munge on my original. As such, he needs to clarify
that he did actually read the original in context prior to commenting.

>
> Hilarious!
>
> I really hope that no one is fooled by -highhorse's garbage, when it
> does not get rebutted.
>

Keep crying, chrisv: your claims rely on editing the quotes of others
to try to change what their original connotations were.

In the meantime, I do recall that there's been some COLA fans who have
insinuated that they're using Linux because MS/Apple are so "evil" that
they would never use MS/Apple. This position implies a value of "Linux
even if it costs me more", but I can't recall if anyone has literally
made that strong of a statement (maybe), but more to the point, I don't
believe that there's ever been anyone who's actually demonstrated living
up to such a position of paying more (eg, more than words: deeds).
Instead, it seems that some have taken the (dare I say) "cheap" route of
not buying used, but finding decade-old hardware in used shops, which
means that they've not actually applied an "at any [equal/higher] cost"
for their convictions. Probably the closest here is Scott, but as I've
noted, that choice has clearly been influenced by his day job.

-hh