# Why Linus Isn't "Competing"



## Cyrus_the_virus (Nov 29, 2007)

The recent interview with Linus Torvalds cemented a number of things I've believed about Linux for a while now. Linux isn't an OS, or even a kernel: it's an embodiment of a design philosophy.  One aspect of that philosophy could be described as "ignore the competition."

Maybe that's a harsh way to put it, but Linus has said himself, again and again, he's not interested in what the competition (read:Microsoft (NSDQ:  MSFT)) does. He doesn't see himself as trying to beat the Boys In Redmond at their own game. His stated interest is writing code -- improving the Linux kernel in conjunction with the rest of the kernel development team and the third-party contributors who submit patches. Linus's attention, and the attention of everyone else working immediately with him, is perennially on Topic No. One: making Linux better. 

That's as it should be. Linux, not marketing or sales, is what Linus does.  

Some people might argue that Linus is only shooting himself in the foot by not paying attention to the competition. My question is: Who's competing with whom? It's the individual Linux _vendors_ who see themselves as competitors to anyone, and the essence of the competition is the specific feature sets that go into a given Linux distribution. It's Red Hat andNovell (NSDQ:  NOVL) who compete with each other, not Linus competing with anyone else. Those vendors compete not only with Microsoft but with other Unixes (and, of course, each other), even if most of the talk is about how they compete with Microsoft, because that's how you get attention. 

You also could argue that the very noncommercial-ness of the kernel development process is a philosophical mistake, and that Linux as a whole would be better served by making it a for-profit (and, by that token, closed-source) venture. By making it nigh-impossible to profit off Linux directly, rather than by selling services or support, Linux development as a whole is held back. 

But, again: held back compared with what? Compared with things that have entirely different developmental cycles, design philosophies, and stated goals? Linux is developed the way it is because the developers value transparency and flexibility of purpose, first and foremost. If those aren't the things you want, there are plenty of other places to go. Linus knows this and isn't uncomfortable about it.  He's stuck to his guns about this issue since it was first brought up. He knows Linux proves itself on its own terms. 

I don't think Linus is "out of touch" for ignoring Microsoft. If anything, he's as in touch as anyone in the Linux space can be. And he'd better be: he's the one who needs most to be in touch.

*Article by Serdar Yegulalp for Information Week*


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 30, 2007)

One reason i will give is here in india and all they still think only one av is there and that too norton av..to this crowd yöü cant introduce a entirely new os and ask them to work..it.they will try two days and begin to bash yöü..thats india..  
Many known friends of mine have tried and they said they are not comfortale with the os...they are also techie people..think of ordinary people.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

Open Minds and Open People who embraces FOSS are the future.
reg Linux user friendliness,it is once u setup the system,u can forgot everything including Windows Vista.
Ubuntu,Fedora,PclinuxOS,OpenSuser all offers a very good experiance in an independent scale.
Linux is ready and not idiot friendly-it is waiting for you


----------



## Gigacore (Nov 30, 2007)

"Linus Torvalds" has no "Jobs" so he is standing out of the "Gates" (Just for joke, not that i'm a anti-*nix) 


Well anyway thanks for the info


----------



## New (Nov 30, 2007)

Unless and untill MS starts legal action against pirated users ,only geeks use Linux in India.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^not exactly non-geeks too uses it. 
try Ubuntu or Fedora


----------



## New (Nov 30, 2007)

Installed Ubuntu two days ago and struggling to connect  net.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^start a thread in OSS section.will help u.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 30, 2007)

Is it like for everything someone has to open a thread when he really has no way to connect to net? 
 

Even my bro installed and hard to use.may be it should take some time..but Isnt first impression is the best impression?


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^it is because of people who are new to this OS expecting windows like things and also expecting .exe files will install on Linux  In few genuine problems where driver is missing we have to do some tweaks.@new doesnt mention anything regarding his connection.with dialup internet or aDSL Linux works better.with mobile phones u have to use terminal for configuring the connection.and dont expect terminal to be equivalent to that DOS prompt on ur winblows!.
And You have to remember Linux is the work of Community and like Vista lacking proper drivers Linux too lacks for some hardware.the blame goes to H/W manufacturers!.
Any way nobody is expected to work on terminal for all purposes on Ubuntu.
I know,what i buy is gr8 attitude these Vista boys have.time will be there to make them straight.Use Linux for 2 weeks.then the FUD about Linux will be wiped off from even hardcore windows users!.
Linux is another BIG Superior OS,u cant compare it to Vista or any winblows!.UNIX model is here for past 37+ years and u cannot compare windows systems to compete with them.
I will say Vista shud compare itself with its own OS like Vista vs XP.fscking fanboys


----------



## New (Nov 30, 2007)

^I agree with you..I asked the question in the thread "how to connect mobile to net" in OSS section.. But there is no replay since last night..Can you tell me where to save the file wvdial.. (which we edit).


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^ i think there is a sticky thread which answers ur query.  we will discuss it there in OSS section now on


----------



## New (Nov 30, 2007)

Fine..Thank you..


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 30, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> ^it is because of people who are new to this OS expecting windows like things



Expecting Internet to work is "WIndows like thing"? U mean only Windows connects to net? LOLZ...



> And You have to remember Linux is the work of Community and like Vista lacking proper drivers Linux too lacks for some hardware.the blame goes to H/W manufacturers!.



Absolutely right, it is the fault of Hardware manufacturers that they have not released drivers for older hardware for Windows Vista




> Any way nobody is expected to work on terminal for all purposes on Ubuntu.
> I know,what i buy is gr8 attitude these Vista boys have.time will be there to make them straight.Use Linux for 2 weeks.then the FUD about Linux will be wiped off from even hardcore windows users!



WHy do u bring us Windows users in your bashing again & again for no reason?


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 30, 2007)

let me make this reason clear why linux is good:

AT&T made C              ---1
AT&T made UNIX         ---2
AT&T wrote UNIX in C   ---3
The same team worked for both ---4

1+2+3+4 => C was made for designing UNIX --- 5

6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.

5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7

Linux was made as a free OS which can complement UNIX. It hence has several standard unix commands working for it. It also borrowed nearly every initial idea from unix. ---8

Linus and other early developers(of vertion 3 onwards) also added some functions they wanted from UNIX which were non existant in UNIX to Linux. ---9


7+8+9 => Linux is as good as it can get. Solaris, MAC OS, BSD also in same catogary ---10

MAC OS and Solaris were initially(mac still is) closed source, so not much developement. ---11

11 => BSD and Linux are the only canditates left for a good OS.

BSD was controvorcial due to its apparenly "Satanic icon" and due to freeBSD's old logo. It also lacked eye-candy, drivers, etc by default
. So it sadly is not popular enough despite having several good features. ---12

11+12 =>Linux is the best OS, due to popularity and functionality.

Closing thoughts: If we use some more of BSD code in linux, it can still be made better. there are some small bits in BSD which make better in certain feilds.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

you have to say that Apple made darwin(open source) from which OS X is made.and apple tingered with freebsd code(which OS X is based on) to make it loss the original unix qualities and making it a lil unstable.
and GNU tools are used in Linux,while BSD got its own tools(same commands) but with their own version.and one big down is BSDs doesnot install on logical partitions !
and ur explanation is very nice and 100% agreed.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 30, 2007)

but I think you are over doing that glorifying linux and windows user bashing part, Parka... Learn something from Linus. He is the perfect example of a gentleman cum researcher. So is Bill Gates, who never did GNU bashing...

Lagtha hai ki thune paani ke badale kutch aur piya


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^sahi samcha re!waah! :bows:


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 30, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> let me make this reason clear why linux is good:


Wow! I'm buying a ticket too.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> AT&T made C              ---1
> AT&T made UNIX         ---2
> AT&T wrote UNIX in C   ---3
> The same team worked for both ---4


Chinese invented abacus, which lead to development of PCs much later. Therefore Linux is good. Logic, logic!


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 1+2+3+4 => C was made for designing UNIX --- 5


You got it right this time.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.


Get yourself familiar with history of computers before making such absurd claims.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7


It wasn't. Early UNIX releases weren't even multiuser systems.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> Linux was made as a free OS which can complement UNIX. It hence has several standard unix commands working for it. It also borrowed nearly every initial idea from unix. ---8


Linux is NOT an OS. Linux kernel development was started because a few Minix users weren't happy with Tanenbaum's attitude towards adding features to his educational OS.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> Linus and other early developers(of vertion 3 onwards) also added some functions they wanted from UNIX which were non existant in UNIX to Linux. ---9


This sentence doesn't even make any sense.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 7+8+9 => Linux is as good as it can get. Solaris, MAC OS, BSD also in same catogary ---10


Linux is nowhere near "as good as it can get". It's in a state of evolutionary process just like everything else.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> MAC OS and Solaris were initially(mac still is) closed source, so not much developement. ---11


Epitome of bullcrappola! Solaris has always been THE favorite system of ISPs, datacenters and universities all around the world. Linux can only dream of having as good a code-quality and advanced features that Solaris has.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 11 => BSD and Linux are the only canditates left for a good OS.


What weed do you smoke?


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> BSD was controvorcial due to its apparenly "Satanic icon" and due to freeBSD's old logo. It also lacked eye-candy, drivers, etc by default
> . So it sadly is not popular enough despite having several good features. ---12


Never knew "eyecandy" was the deciding factor in choice of solid, enterprise level operating systems that we are talking about here.


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 11+12 =>Linux is the best OS, due to popularity and functionality.


And Windows is crap because of its huge user base? There is no such thing as a "best" operating system, and Linux is ONLY A KERNEL for chrissake!


			
				MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> Closing thoughts: If we use some more of BSD code in linux, it can still be made better. there are some small bits in BSD which make better in certain feilds.


Such as? Stop trolling and get yourself educated before making such posts in future.

Consider it a friendly advice.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

If sun comes opensolaris with GPL3,then Linux will...eh  dont want to say!
and afaik sun and opensolaris community is making this OS "Linux-compatible" i mean the driver support etc 
I think it is "Project Indiana"


----------



## infra_red_dude (Nov 30, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> 6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.
> 
> 5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7


Very true. Fully agree to it 

Saying, because UNIX is nearly perfect in all respects and hence Linux is too is NOT correct. Linux is a UNIX-system like OS. But keep in mind that UNIX and GNU/Linux are NOT even remotely related as far as code base is concerned. There is actually NO UNIX code in GNU/Linux. This is one of the reason why Linux is FOSS.


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

...and i never believes that disgruntled Minix devels(coz of andy tanbam) made Linux.  does have any proof? and i believe Linus does the coding major part.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 30, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Wow! I'm buying a ticket too.
> 
> Chinese invented abacus, which lead to development of PCs much later. Therefore Linux is good. Logic, logic!
> 
> ...


1. By competition I ment the leavel we have today


2. I said destined to be. I know a lot about unix history and computer history.


3. know that its not an OS. evey fool knows that. But a kernel was amost everything those days, as the OS was only a handful(or a hundred handfuls) of commands


4. not to you perhaps... I ment that linux had most of the unix features though some were added later.


5. yes linux is still evolving. I said that it had chosen a good parent OS to begin with.


6. Don't think I am a Solaris ignorant fool. I mean popular use. It still lacks mainstream home appearence. It is awssome, and used by several servers and mainly workstations. but not as much in everyday desktops.


7. I don't smoke. I am just narrowing down popular OSS OSes to see why linux survives the way it does now


8. eye-candy attracts noobs. noobs get urge to learn stuff now, they become pros. then the enterprise builds. I just tried to look for a reason why BSD has not made it.
this also must have been included, I agree *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD#Net.2F2_and_legal_troubles


9. as I said, I was only trying to find reasons why linux lives. and yes, Windows is good for home use. all know it. and I KNOW LINUX IS A KERNEL. I JUST HATE TYPING GNU/LINUX + X + GNOME/KDE TO BE MORE ACCURATE. LINUX THESE DAYS IS USED SIMPLY TO REFERED TO AN OS BUILT ON A LINUX KERNEL.


10. BSD has stricter security. It also has several stuff you would be better off reading the net for information than from harassing my fingers. For people like you who understand something else of what someone is trying to say, only some english PhD can convay something correct to you. If you think this is trolling, see what iMav posted to get the Ubuntu is still a Gibbon thread closed(agreed, I and Prakash were involved too, but on the milder opposing side). And yes, if DirectX was to be available on all OSes, I suppose windows could not have made it. this one product made microsoft powerful. Otherwise we would see only macbooks most of the time instead of dell lappys and sony vaios. And many would be selling OpenSUSE and Ubuntu in their PCs.

NEW Conclution: *UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE THESE DAYS ARE IN A HURRY TO GET THINGS DONE. THINGS MIGHT NOT BE TOLD THE WAY YOU WANT TO HERE AND YOU NEED TO PUT UP WITH INCOMPLETE AND VAGUE REPLIES. WE DON'T GET PAID FOR POSTING IN ELOBORATE RESEARCHED ARTICLE STYLE FORMATS.*


----------



## Yamaraj (Nov 30, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> ...and i never believes that disgruntled Minix devels(coz of andy tanbam) made Linux.  does have any proof? and i believe Linus does the coding major part.


Linus only maintains the Linux kernel now. It has grown too big for a man to comprehend, grasp, code and debug. As for the proof, you could have Google'd. Anyway!

*netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/



> Linus Torvalds set out to write his own operating system as a result of his dissatisfaction with Minix and its creator, Andy Tanenbaum.


Source: *status.lsu.edu/start/2006/01/


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Linux is NOT an OS. Linux kernel development was started because a few Minix users weren't happy with Tanenbaum's attitude towards adding features to his educational OS.


 OK I know all this.although i cant find anywhere some other minix devels also wrote the code for Linux kernel along with Linus  
anyways,thanks for the links.nice esp the history part
and i need to post below things here 


> For one thing, DOS was still reigning supreme in its vast empire of personal computers.* Bought by Bill Gates from a Seattle hacker for $50,000*, the bare bones operating system had sneaked into every corner of the world by virtue of a clever marketing strategy. *PC users had no other choice*. Apple Macs were better, but with astronomical prices that nobody could afford, they remained a horizon away from the eager millions.


 *netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/#In%20The%20Beginning


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 30, 2007)

my god! i never knew that abt DOS... bought from a hacker...


----------



## praka123 (Nov 30, 2007)

^...and that is Bill Gates,the marketing genius.


----------



## Ecko (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't just develop 
Be user friendly too

---------------------------------------
Just downloaded live suse 10.3
was unable to open a window like interface frm its cmd


----------



## infra_red_dude (Nov 30, 2007)

Ecko said:
			
		

> Don't just develop
> Be user friendly too


The problem with new users is that they are so used to Windows that everything else seems difficult. Ask a person who has used Linux right from the begining of his computer life. He'll feel Windows is difficult to manage. Its all how you are used to.

Ask a Mac OS X user about "user friendliness" of Windows 



			
				Ecko said:
			
		

> Just downloaded live suse 10.3
> was unable to open a window like interface frm its cmd


Kindly start a separate thread in OSS section. People will surely help you out 

Btw, the second part of the sentence didn't make any sense to me. Plz rephrase it in the thread.


----------



## praka123 (Dec 1, 2007)

offtopicecko:u mean to launch a GUI app a file manager(Konqueror) from Konsole(the terminal).this is because Konsole does not allow exporting users X credentials,hence u cant launch.press alt+f2 to get a run dialog inside type xterm or gnome-terminal and use them to launch ur gui app from terminal.if u want konsole to launch gui apps,u need to install a xwrapper called "sux".then as root u can open File Manager or whatever app it is.


----------



## Cyrus_the_virus (Dec 1, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> offtopicecko:u mean to launch a GUI app a file manager(Konqueror) from Konsole(the terminal).this is because Konsole does not allow exporting users X credentials,hence u cant launch.press alt+f2 to get a run dialog inside type xterm or gnome-terminal and use them to launch ur gui app from terminal.if u want konsole to launch gui apps,u need to install a xwrapper called "sux".then as root u can open File Manager or whatever app it is.



No, he meant this : *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73985


----------



## Jayanth.M.P (Dec 16, 2007)

The fundamental problem with linux guys are that they want to *be different*.... Linux can also easily adopt the methods of windows...

Please dont give me that "YOU are used to that" crap.... we are used to do a lot of stuff in some or other way, its the irresponsibility of the developer to follow what people are most used to. Its just like electronics. ..... current flows from -ve to positive but even then *we make* it as +ve to -ve bcoz of convention. Lets take the most basic of examples .... Language... Do you think there is no other language in the world that is better in terms of features and sophistication other than English.....well there are plenty....then why are we making English the International language ? 

Its not about whats right and whats wrong, both linux and Windows are equally good. Its about building on whats more popular already. This will help operating systems improve faster, they should do this instead of trying to build a whole new standard.

Why cant major linux distributions be made simple or "conventional" to use. As of today Windows is much easier to use and troubleshoot. I agree that this is more because of the popularity but again..... why does something become popular... my reason bcoz it good.

Guys i am not anti linux or anything..... but i dont like it when people say linux is better than windows and its safer or things like that. Open Source is more of a communist idea.....its been known that excellence is achieved faster when there is competition...... thats why we follow capitalist economy right ? This dosnt mean that Microsoft should be allowed to dominate......just that competition should exist. When we dont ask for things which are physically quantifiable for free then why keep that notion for intellectual matter.

I have seen a lot of this argument.....my conclusion. As of today windows is better bcoz of its simplicity (widely used). You want to make linux better stop trying to make it different and start trying to make it better.

@infra: seeing the popularity of Windows and Linux, if you calcuate a proabablity of "being used to" factor, which will be more Linux or Windows ? so is it wrong for someone to be used to Windows ?

@praka123 : How many of you guys who like Linux here are "non tech" people ? I can count such people on my fingers. If you work on something for a long time you will definitely start liking it. For this [SIZE=-1]*Stockholm*[/SIZE] syndrome is a very good example.  When you buy something or use something its more often that "you liked it" or "its easy" rather that "its better than that". Ferrari Vs McLaren is your example there.

The problem with *us* tech guys is that we never see it in the simple form a common man can see.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 16, 2007)

^^you are more ignorant than I thought.

there is no such thing as "Conventional". infact, the Linux interface is much older. and mature.

I can use the OS and troubleshoot problems much more easily in linux than in windows.

don't talk about things you don't understand.

Just because you find windows easier, it does not mean everyone does.

Things don't always become popular due to being better. In windows' case, its due to aggressive marketing and lying to the public.

And I know there is competition. But Linux is a way of life, not just an OS.

OSS is NOT communism. Its more like community resources. You give back to the community something in return for what it did to you. Its more like nationalism.

Personal experiences are not absolute truth for everyone in the world. I hate attacking newbies, but unthought and rash posts like yours provoke me.


----------



## Jayanth.M.P (Dec 17, 2007)

^^

I dont believe that you are attacking or flaming...... truth emerges only when there is an argument. We are arguing and nothing more....... threads like this help us understand things better.

Please see the meaning of convention in dictionary before you talk about old and new.Old dosnt mean mature in every case. I gave you examples there to make you understand what i want to convey.

You can dosnt mean everybody can.......lets take a poll there if you want. Anybody will agree that its easy to find solutions to problems of Windows because of its popularity. Troubleshoot is not finding a solution to a new problem.....its find solution to problem you encountered now..

Please show me how OSS is not like communism....... Please explain to me the OSS way of life. Its more alike than otherwise.

Things i mentioned are about user interface of linux. I dont understand the core things of linux very well so please tell me about it.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 17, 2007)

Jayanth.M.P said:
			
		

> ^^
> 
> I dont believe that you are attacking or flaming...... truth emerges only when there is an argument. We are arguing and nothing more....... threads like this help us understand things better.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as "user interface of linux". Linux is just a hyper effitient kernel. The OSes built around it are the ones which use GUI. And all need not follow the same look and ape windows. Ever heard of Apple Mac?

And yes, for Linux n00bs like you we do have OSes that look and feel like windows XP. Just ask in the OSS section if you know what I mean. Linux MiNT, Linux XP, OpenSuSE, Mandriva One, Xandros, etc suit you I suppose.

who said linux is not popular? I find lots of excellent resources for troubleshooting linux, to an extent not even found in windows, all due to effitient doccumentation and error reporting. Linux is more popular than you think, though its still mainly a Power User oriented platform. Wait till morning to see the replies you get to get an idea of linux's popularity.

Linux gives you total control of your system and maximum security, a thing Micro$oft can only dream of. Administrating it is damn easy for any guy with decent brains. With stuff like Bash Shell Scripting, Apt, etc managing linux is very easy. GUI tools exist for anything you want, as an added bonus.

Linux is definitely more mature and better. Yes, both mature AND better than windows. The only reason windows became popular is because during the days UNIX was popular(it stil is), it was costly. So ppl used M$-DO$, purchased by Bill Gates from a small company for 50,000$. Linux was not popular due to UNIX's cost, that's all. People found a "Cheaper" alternative in DOS but did not look further to see a free alternative.

The OSS way of life is not like communism, because in the later, you are forced to give away all the land, resources, etc you own to the govt. But in OSS, you work for humanity as a whole, at your own choice. You decide to help others because you have a spirit of openness in you. Ask Richard Stallman... See some of his explanations of the OSS life, then you will know what it REALLY is.

Linux is also a DIY item. Its for enthusiasts, who like to be given the bare minimum and the tools to make it maximum, and make it as per their choice. Distros for n00bs still exist, like MiNT.

And yes, convention is still not applicable here. Its something that has been continued to be followed since something existed, or its a rule just ment for regularisation. Windows has a convention to use control pannel, right side down launch menu etc. KDE has convention to use right side down or up launch menu. Gnome has a convention to use dual gnome bars. These are conventions.

Remember:

LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS

*Linux is not for fools, its for smart people wanting a smart OS.*


----------



## Cyrus_the_virus (Dec 17, 2007)

Jayanth.M.P said:
			
		

> but i dont like it when people say linux is better than windows and its safer or things like that. Open Source is more of a communist idea.....


lol.. *gigasmilies.googlepages.com/24.gif The most ignorant guy that I have ever seen.. this is not a personal attack but what you said is the most bizzare thing anyone would say!.. I though @iMeov was the most ignorant person around here.. but seems like there are other people..

Dude.. just because you don't like to hear that Linux is more secure doesn't make windows more secure than Linux. You seriously need to go back to school and open your book and learn what a kernel is and what makes Linux more secure.. stop making these kind of useless comments..

And just because you're used to something doesn't mean everyone is used to it and just because your brain is not compatible with change and need for adoption doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else's ... Be happy with what Windows offers you coz you'll never change even if windows changes.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 17, 2007)

@cyrus: that guy is hopeless, but curious. Might as well knock some sence into him. Do you think this qualifies for n00b of the week?


----------



## Cyrus_the_virus (Dec 17, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> @cyrus: that guy is hopeless, but curious. Might as well knock some sence into him. Do you think this qualifies for n00b of the week?



certainly do.. when do i vote?


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 17, 2007)

Cyrus_the_virus said:
			
		

> certainly do.. when do i vote?


after getting him registered and after shantanu restarts polling.


----------



## vish786 (Dec 17, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> let me make this reason clear why linux is good:
> 
> AT&T made C              ---1
> AT&T made UNIX         ---2
> ...



......

no offense meant but please please.... *Dont make ur own 3 ball theories*... leads to  wrong info 2 _others.

"Little knowledge is worse than no Knowledge " 


_


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 17, 2007)

vish786 said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> no offense meant but please please.... *Dont make ur own 3 ball theories*... leads to  wrong info 2 _others.
> 
> ...


thats an old post dude... my views keep maturing


----------



## x3060 (Dec 17, 2007)

hey , he just joined right now . . . why slaughter him . . . . yes , he is ignorant , stubborn , arrogent , ms fan boy . . but that does not mean that we should just kill him . . man , the last thing we want is another imav . . oh, i was not harsh , was i ?:-l. .

offtopic . . . but no body beats asassin in NOTW


----------

