Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Tom

Interesting post. Agree, sometimes these software wars becomes irksome, as my late mother and father used to say and raised us with this motto "how do you know you don't like it if you have not tried it". This was from our young years with foodstuffs that traditionally many young children don't / have never tried, up to the real things in life. But I am in a similiar vein in what MS charge for their O/S and Office suites when they are riddled with known and unknown bugs.

At least I have always tried to keep an open mind, and thankfully was raised on other O/S's (not necessarily desktop/workstation friendly) and systems pre-dating MS. I cut my teeth on IBM VAX, Pick, LISP, FORTRAN, COBOL, AT&T and SCO Unix, CP/M, BASIC and Xerox GEM, before the adventure into IBM and MS systems with the very first and crude DOS, and then Apple O/S starting some 36 years ago.

I can with experience say I have tried them all, and why my entire business and home office is OSS and FOSS, even to desktop. I give my staff the choice of MS or FOSS, thankfully they all eventually migrate to FOSS, which allows me to plow the monies recovered from ongoing and unnecessary licensing fees into better, faster and more up to date hardware. Even to the level of my servers.

To end off, the major difference I have between MS software and FOSS, and you covered briefly in your reply, is that when one discovers a bug, or has a problem, one can get a solution or have it fixed promptly without waiting for a major release or service pack, unlike proprietory and closed code. This is the same for malware, it takes so long for the commercial software to produce a fix and prevention compared to it almost being a non-entity in FOSS.

I would be intrigued and grateful, if you could email me privately, your tweaks you do for the virtual memory slowdown of it's fragmentation (by the way MS refers to it as the pagefile). And that's another feather in FOSS's cap, one never has fragmentation or needs to defragment it, unlike MS. I might know or remember them, but it's not coming to memory as I type this.


On 30/07/2013 03:27 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
I think disdain is possibly closer than hatred.  I think bioth are quite far away from the reality 
though.  I think it's simply that people would rather develop tools that are more robust and less 
susceptible   to malware and slow-downs.

I think once you start using OpenSource tools you begin to realise that MS seem to have deliberately built-in 
vulnerabilities and their slow-downs.  FOSS doesn't seem to suffer anything like as much, although a bit of 
"system rot" is inevitable in almost any system.

I'm just installing Win7 on a handfull of machines and am able to make a couple of tweaks that prevent their 
"Virtual Memory" from getting so heavily fragmented.  In previous versions of their OS i have found it 
significantly reduces the slow-downs if you can do this early on.  On Win7 it takes an extra couple of clicks but 
it's still really easy.  I always wonder why the default is to set it to fragment as quickly as possible.  It's 
only with Win7 that their de-fragger tool can defrag system files such as the Virtual Memory (err that is Swap to 
Gnu&Linux geeks lol).

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Virgil Arrington <>
To: Amit Choudhary <>;
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:30
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

I certainly hope the primary motive for FOSS such as LO is not a disdain for
MS. I personally don't care how much money MS makes. I hope the LO
developers are motivated by a desire to produce a great product that can be
used worldwide. Hatred usually doesn't provide a very effective motive for
productive action.


-----Original Message-----
From: Amit Choudhary
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Amit Choudhary
<> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Brown <> wrote:
Hi Amit

I understand where you are coming from, and the good news is, in your
favour, that MS in both it's O/S and office suite are losing market share
in a big way. Here's an article from Ubuntu founder and my countryman
Mark Shuttelworth on his take on MS and Ubuntu. I like his statement that
the no.1 bug in Linux has now been
  fixed/closed, in that MS no longer
dominates majority market share.

But the numbers don't lie. I checked MS revenues and profits on and it doesn't look like MS is losing market share. MS
losing share might be an illusion.

Period Ending                                           Jun 30, 2012
Jun 30, 2011       Jun 30, 2010

Net Income Applicable To Common Shares $16,978,000       $23,150,000
       $18,760,000  (All numbers in thousands)


To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.