Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2012 23:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 540579
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
Thom, people aren't refusing to see the long-term plan, we are simply arguing the fact that no matter what Microsoft's plan for the future is doesn't make Windows 8 itself any more or less viable, it only makes the future versions less viable. What happens in the future happens in the future, and what we have right now is Windows 8 -- something that works just as well and peachy as its predecessor.
You're confusing long-term plans with the present.
That comparison is dysfunctional. Android comes as a whole OS and you don't arbitrarily update parts of it, whereas under GNU/Linux the OS consists of thousands of individual packages, each of which can be updated separately. It's a whole lot easier to keep the one, large bundle functional without breakages than one that consists of so many small things and that keeps changing on a daily basis.