On Aug 15, 6:25=A0pm, proteanthread <rt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=3D20080809033233244
>
> <SNIP>
> =A0put this article from Law.com's Legal Technology page, "Commentary:
> The Penguin Doesn't Fly, Avoid Linux" in News Picks because I found it
> hilarious, in the Rob Enderle kind of way. But then I thought I'd look
> up the author on Google, and lo and behold, I find he said something
> that appears to be not exactly true. I'm not talking about the FUD
> stuff. I'm talking about his assertion that he couldn't get any
> answers to a request for help from Mandriva Forum:
> And, Linux proponents claim that if there is any kind of problem, or a
> viral threat or other OS disaster, there is an army of Linux
> programmers standing by to remedy the situation.
> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
> Puppy Linux without success -- and my e-mails to the developers were
> ignored. Ark Linux developers could not explain why my computer=92s Wi-
> Fi card didn=92t work. The Ubuntu forum could not explain why a DVD
> player would not eject. The Mandriva sup****t site did not respond to
> queries at all. And it took a tech sup****t person from Wine, a program
> supposed to allow Windows applications to run on Linux computers, 6
> days to finally respond to my requests for help; which he was unable
> to resolve.
>
> I know. I love that touch about a viral threat in Linux. Hilarious.
> But look what I just found: two pages of responses to a request for
> help from someone with his name. If it's the same individual, it's not
> so funny now.
> <SNIP>
>
> and the original article:
>
> http://legaltech.law.com/commentary-the-penguin-do.html
>
> <SNIP>
> Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing. Next,
> that it is quicker, more flexible, more customizable and more
> resilient to crashes and headaches inherent to Windows, while less
> subject to attack, identity theft, adware, spyware and malware. And,
> that new life can be wrung from old computers staggering under the
> burden that Windows necessarily inflicts on them.
>
> Linux and freeware proponents also maintain that a free operating
> system and free software comes without the ethical and legal
> conundrums associated with Microsoft=92s business practices. For
> example: preventing computer manufacturers from installing competing
> operating systems and software on new computers; providing OS upgrades
> that alter and/or nullify existing programs; and failing to provide
> sufficient information to allow competing free software distributors
> to inter-operate their wares with Windows.
> <SNIP>
Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
To do the same thing, a different way,
is nuts to them.
They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
Not gonna happen. Many have a system that works,
and do not want it to change. This is their money.
You do not have Legal templates for different courts
in OO. (this is different from pleading paper.)
Cheaper to buy MS and Bit Defender then relearn linux.
Time is money.
|
