(i.e. Linux with 0.96% market share)
I've enjoyed seeing that number change as convenient to Microsoft marketing.
then you're free to switch to another graphics card company, or invest several billion dollars to start your own.
I've been wondering if the "Open Graphics Card" projects will take off. Interesting ideas, right up there with OpenSPARC.
This thread is about the desktop.
No, you keep saying that but the thread is about lots of different things. You didn't put it in the "no hijack" area, so you're stuck. Get used to the idea.
Again the deliberately blind double-standard, giving a pass to lazy developers who don't bother to compile their software for other OSs. |
Those lazy no-good capitalist programmers who refuse to work for free!
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
You may be all hung up on the fact that you pirate the pricy applications you enjoy, I'm not.
You complain that various applications you like don't run on Linux, I point out that that's because they are not made so by those who write them. So you are blaming "Linux" for the choices of the very software houses you profess to appreciate so highly.
The simple fact is that applications compiled to run on Linux can be closed, and sold, just like any other software. To run on Linux requires being "free as in beer" no more than running on Windows requires that code be closed and proprietary.
That you seem incapable of understanding this merely reinforces my opinion that you are no developer at all, that your much vaunted bonafides are a sham.
Yes, it would have been nice if Microsoft were to offer all of their products for Linux.
And it would require nothing more than what they have already done to compile them to run on MacOS.
The reality, however, is that Microsoft is not your slave, they are out to make a profit.
Microsoft could have sold their applications to run on Linux at an time, with no change to their licensing or pricing. Had they done so, not that they were listening to me when I espoused the same thing when they first released Office, their lock on the office application suite would have lasted much longer.
But no, they decided to focus on vertical integration, attempting to leverage the "lock-in" of their applications being available on Windows only, with a nod to the Mac once Gates had a stake in Apple Computers.
I am simply analyzing the market reality from the desktop user's and desktop developer's point of view
No, from YOUR point of view. Which is fine, so long as you state it as your opinion rather than the correct way for everyone else. When you do the latter, it's annoying and easily disproven by the simple fact that people do use the "Linux Desktop" happily every day.
Just not you.
And yes, many people agree with you. Many people also agree with me. That's life.
What are you talking about?
You listed lots of ways that F/OSS works on and with Windows.
Excellent reasons to use F/OSS, and a credit to the community of developers.
It also shows how backwards and insular Microsoft products are.
Microsoft's most effective marketing tool remains simple ignorance. |
Really?
Yes.
There is a large number of people who use computers, perhaps even the majority, that think a personal computer is, by definition, "Windows".
Simple ignorance, fostered by the magnificent skill that Microsoft has shown in negotiating sole-source contracts with OEMs.
I may personally resent such skill, the same way I would a skillful killer, but I still recognize that skill.
I thought it was a vast capitalist conspiracy involving lizardmen and UFO's sending out mind control waves to force the vast majority of private sector businesses to install Microsoft products; write games, drivers, and other software with Microsoft API's; and so on...
Inventing conspiracies merely overshadows the ones that are real.
A.L. is all for the BSD, MIT and any other license that let Microsoft poach code. He's said so many times. |
I am amazed how you can continue to repeat the same fallacious economically-retarded argument over and over again.
Good sir, it is you who has said you prefer the BSD and other non-contributory licenses to the GPL.
If you want to call that a "fallacious economically-retarded argument", that's fine, but don't deny you made it.
It's not just Microsoft that prefers non-copyleft open source licenses - everyone who isn't a brainwashed communist does!
Since I'm not a brainwashed communist, your statement is a lie on its face.
That does seem to be where we most substantially disagree. To me, what you prefer is a personal choice. To you, if someone disagrees with you they're a "brainwashed communist".