Re: Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, HangEveryRepubliKKKan

wrote
on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:34:36 -0800
:
> "Kier" wrote
>> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
>> able to achieve it?
>
> Linux hasn't achieved critical mass yet? Fuck man, according to the
> Lintards it achieved critical mass in 1985 and then again in 1986, and then
> again in 1987, and in 1988 critical mass was just around the corner.

1972 was the point where Linux initially was predicted
to achieve critical mass in 1973, despite the fact that
it hadn't been created yet. (As one might imagine, this
sort of thing is generally only a minor setback.)

The reason it's not 1969 was because Unix was relatively
new then, and therefore everyone was predicting that *it*
would achieve critical mass instead of Linux during the
1969-1972 timeframe.

>
> Then it achieved critical mass in 1990, and was on the verge in 1991, and in
> 1993 it was almost there, and then in 1994, it had achieved the milestone
> and had finally reached critical mass.

No no...you've got it all wrong. As of this year, Linux
will achieve critical mass *next* year, allowing for an
impressive string of 35 years of unbroken declarations of
critical mass next year.

Contrast this to Microsoft's mere pittance of
monopolization since about the late 1980's on the desktop
(with MS-DOS). They've only been top dog for about
18 years. Clearly, Microsoft needs to try harder here.

>
> In 1995, it was just months away, and in 1998, it was once again almost
> there, and in 2000 Linux was taking over from Windows, then in 2001, it's
> percentage of the market had actually declined, but it was almost there.
>
> And then in 2006 Windows was dead and Microsoft bankrupt,
> and Linux was soon to be king... But now in 2007, Linux has
> not yet reached critical mass, and Microsoft profits are up 23%.

That started in 1987 -- about a year after Windows' initial release
of 1.0 to the public.

>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahah...... It's always tomorrow in Lintard Land.....
>

Yes.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

"Kier" wrote
> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
> able to achieve it?

Linux hasn't achieved critical mass yet? Fuck man, according to the
Lintards it achieved critical mass in 1985 and then again in 1986, and then
again in 1987, and in 1988 critical mass was just around the corner.

Then it achieved critical mass in 1990, and was on the verge in 1991, and in
1993 it was almost there, and then in 1994, it had achieved the milestone
and had finally reached critical mass.

In 1995, it was just months away, and in 1998, it was once again almost
there, and in 2000 Linux was taking over from Windows, then in 2001, it's
percentage of the market had actually declined, but it was almost there.

And then in 2006 Windows was dead and Microsoft bankrupt, and Linux was soon
to be king... But now in 2007, Linux has not yet reached critical mass, and
Microsoft profits are up 23%.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahah...... It's always tomorrow in Lintard Land.....

Re: Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote in message
news:M%m_i.13330$9F1.2014@read1.cgocable.net...
> "Kier" wrote
>> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
>> able to achieve it?
>
> Linux hasn't achieved critical mass yet? Fuck man, according to the
> Lintards it achieved critical mass in 1985 and then again in 1986, and
> then
> again in 1987, and in 1988 critical mass was just around the corner.

Linux didn't suface until 1991. It arrived at version 0.0.1 in 1991.
You must be talking about Unix.

"In 1991, Linus Torvalds began to work on a non-commercial replacement for
MINIX while he was attending the University of Helsinki. This eventually
became the Linux kernel." (source: Wikipedia)

Re: Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Martin Langsholt

wrote
on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:49:24 +0100
:
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote in message
> news:M%m_i.13330$9F1.2014@read1.cgocable.net...
>> "Kier" wrote
>>> What do you regard as 'critcal mass', and why do you think Linux won't be
>>> able to achieve it?
>>
>> Linux hasn't achieved critical mass yet? Fuck man, according to the
>> Lintards it achieved critical mass in 1985 and then again in 1986, and
>> then
>> again in 1987, and in 1988 critical mass was just around the corner.
>
> Linux didn't suface until 1991. It arrived at version 0.0.1 in 1991.
> You must be talking about Unix.
>
> "In 1991, Linus Torvalds began to work on a non-commercial replacement for
> MINIX while he was attending the University of Helsinki. This eventually
> became the Linux kernel." (source: Wikipedia)
>

Don't confuse him too much with facts. :-) In any event,
the inaugural announcement came out on August 25, 1991
(Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>).

The initial version came out shortly afterwards.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

RE: Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

Please post back and let everyone know, when it reaches meltdown.

Thanks,
Milt

"unknown" wrote:

>

Re: Linux almost at critical mass (ahahahahahahahah)

That reminds me. I haven't been to mass in quite awhile. I hope GOD isn't
pissed off.


"Milt" wrote in message
news:52DBDD8A-C5F5-4DC9-BAAF-4EA028C87DC3@microsoft.com...
> Please post back and let everyone know, when it reaches meltdown.
>
> Thanks,
> Milt
>
> "unknown" wrote:
>
>>