Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2006 09:59 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Novell and Ximian According to a Novell confidential memo dated June 14, Novell is delaying its next release of both the server and desktop versions of SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 "to address final issues with our new package management, registration, and update system and also fix the remaining blocker defects."
Thread beginning with comment 135444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Good
by slate on Tue 20th Jun 2006 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good"
slate
Member since:
2006-04-04

Linux market share appears to be above 4% (at least outside USA).

Since you zealot fanboys are incapable of anything exxcept living in your little fantasy worlds, we'll call it 2-2.5% as the most realistic figure.

"Cracksmoking moron"? I might be a moron, but I don't smoke crack. Anyway, calling people names is quite offensive, wouldn't you say so?

To say that XP wasn't supposed to happen or something is just so laughable. But you and the other clowns around here live in your little osnews circle jerk fantasy worlds.

It may be XP mustn't be so bad, but could it be that most persons don't know better, and just use whatever is preinstalled on the pc? And could it be that resellers have to pay a higher price for Windows if they don't preinstall on the pc's they sell?

Oh, the old "god, look at me I put in a Ubuntu CD and I'm so smart. If only Linux was pre-installed". Can't you clowns come up with new material, or are you so brain dead you have to regurgitate the same crackhead nonsense everyday?

When Windows98 was new it took quite a market share, and it wasn't because it was the best desktop OS at that time.

NT would have been a better desktop. OS9 didn't even have pre-emptive multitasking and was a complete joke. Linux was still nowhere close to being desktop worthy.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[8]: Good
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Jun 2006 04:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Good"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Since you zealot fanboys are incapable of anything exxcept living in your little fantasy worlds, we'll call it 2-2.5% as the most realistic figure.

I'm not a zealot. I'm not fanatic about using one or the other system. I'm not even fanatic about using F/LOSS. I use proprietary as well as Open Source (as in OSI-approved license) and Free (Libré) Software. I've even written software incompatible with the GPL.

To say that XP wasn't supposed to happen or something is just so laughable. But you and the other clowns around here live in your little osnews circle jerk fantasy worlds.

I never wrote it wasn't meant to happen. I wrote it was created to fill the gap before the (later renamed to) Vista-release in 2003.

Oh, the old "god, look at me I put in a Ubuntu CD and I'm so smart. If only Linux was pre-installed". Can't you clowns come up with new material, or are you so brain dead you have to regurgitate the same crackhead nonsense everyday?

WTF!? Who says I'm using Ubuntu? Trust me, most windows users cannot even figure out how to burn an .iso-file to DVD or CD. And most of them are afraid even of running Linux live cd's (even the wannabe-geeks running XP and IE at home are afraid of live-cd's in general).
Fact is Windows has been preinstalled on most PC's for over a decade, and most of the Windows market share has been gained that way, be being preinstalled on PC's bought by complete newbies. Very few pc's are shipped with no OS installed.

Why do you keep calling people brain-dead, crackheads, morons etc.? Don't you see it only makes you look like the fool? It's much easier to have a debate when both parts agree to a certain standard. I'm looking forward to a debate with you on equal terms. But it won't happen until you grow up and leave that 14-year old attitude behind.

NT would have been a better desktop. OS9 didn't even have pre-emptive multitasking and was a complete joke. Linux was still nowhere close to being desktop worthy.

NT would surely have been a better desktop than Win98. I used Win NT4 as desktop and apart from some issues with DirectX and certain games (and a crappy onboard sound card), it actually worked reasonably well. Not too stable though, but much better than Windows98. I could actually have the pc running over night.

True that OS9 didn't have pre-emptive multitasking. Nor did Win9x/ME. (OS/2 did (and does) however, and it's still superior to Windows, IMHO). But it didn't prevent Windows9x from dominating the Desktop entirely.

NT4 was a better desktop than Win98, but it wasn't better than RedHat 6.0. Windows2000 gave newbies a better desktop experience than Linux did, but late Windows-versions pre-Win2K was no better on the desktop than Redhat 6.

Reply Parent Score: 2