In a forum post on zdnet, a user explains why Linux cannot run on a computer without Windows.
quote:You are kidding arent you ?
Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
He'd manage to get one if he ever tries to install Linux methinks - as safe as it is.
But, breaking it down to details, it gets scary :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound
>> reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that.
>> Apple tried to create their own system for years,
>> but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
...Reminds me of a cab driver who was stressing the quality of Windows Media player to me and insisting that
"software developed for Windows is the most stable" (btw, thank you for the enlightments dear driver, any clue what I do for a living?
Any pointers about playing violin while we're at it?)
...
Anybody would like to take him on a free bungee jumping course? Like, one with steel chains instead of the usual equipment?
Even without checking out the rest of his junk (as provided in Wes's link) I would have to assume that the above article was a joke - though the point of such a joke escapes me. Having checked the rest of JerryLeeCooper's crap, it seems that this level of faus-idiocy is what one generally should expect from him.
In truth, anybody that daft would be unlikely to find a shift key on his keyboard. The fact that he's used capitals (and punctuation) suggests to me that he's not really that dim.
Interesting point of view, but I have to second the fact that some users never get a clue.
And those DO stoke their knowledge strongly : "can you describe the content of the Window? There's a tree".
That one happened to me.
This, and commerce principles the guy seems to abide to : "if it's worth 9 billions development, then let's buy it".
This is basic economy in practice : set the price too low, potential customers will run away. Stroke a high development price,
customers who do not know will buy into it. "Cause it's so expensive it's gotta be good".
I'd be willing to believe in mankind as much as you do : I do love people.
I just happen to also know people : such an energy put into a public display of ignorance? If he is a Jestah for real,
he's gotta be daring - like daring. Like daring to post blatantly stupid shit to the face of the (zdnet) world and stand the
shock. If he's got the guts, he's my master in terms of courage.
But hardly people will get that far in terms of supporting a theory they don't abide to for the fun of it - afaik.
posted 01-21-2008 12:08
