[Thork]

That doesn't sound intuitive, it sounded like the user gave a long stream of verbal commands, which computers can do, they simply have to be programmed as macros first.

Speaking plain English to a computer isn't intuitive?

[Rushy]

Speaking plain English to a computer isn't intuitive?

I don't know about you, but I typically don't speak in a stream of execution commands.

[Thork]

Speaking plain English to a computer isn't intuitive?

I don't know about you, but I typically don't speak in a stream of execution commands.

Be easier than looking for them.

[Rushy]

Be easier than looking for them.

A person speaking in that manner already memorized commands the computer recognizes. Only a person familiar with the functions of the computer would say things like "open a new document" or "change to [...] .pdf"

The scenario you described is already entirely possible. There are plenty of computer programs that can recognize commands that are so blatantly stated. e.g. http://www.nuance.com/dragon/index.htm

[Thork]

No, I mean just being able to talk to the computer and tell it what you want it to achieve. And it actually getting it no matter how dumb you are with computers. That would be more intuitive than any operating system in existence ... obviously.

"computer, I want to write an app for my mobile phone. Make it show news feeds from the huffington post and let people share them. Make the pictures a bit bigger. Make the font an bit more easy to read. Nice font but make it bigger. too much. Perfect. and then make an icon that is a dolphin hoping through a hoop and load it onto my phone. Add some adverts and put it into the store for me. Ok, now show me some naked ladies but turn the volume to mute. No, lesbian nonsense. yuck, white girls only please. make it hd. Don't take any calls or make any notifications until this film is over. Oh and make sure my webcam is off this time. "

[xasop]

Unix doesn't play games very well. Bit of a fail for a desktop OS.

I'm not sure how you managed to be wrong so often in such a short post. The first ever UNIX application was a game, and desktops didn't even exist when UNIX was first created, which is the only period of its development relevant to a thread about making an OS.

Windows should not be used as a good example of anything. It has never been Microsoft's goal to make a good OS, only to make an OS they can sell.

That makes it a good OS unless you're using some narrow definition of good.

That would make perfect sense if the average computer user made an educated decision about which OS to run. The average computer user doesn't even know what an OS is, which means that making a good OS is a waste of money if your goal is to make an OS that sells. Microsoft understands this, which is why their strategy has always been to eliminate the competition instead.

[Rushy]

No, I mean just being able to talk to the computer and tell it what you want it to achieve. And it actually getting it no matter how dumb you are with computers. That would be more intuitive than any operating system in existence ... obviously.

Up to this point nothing you said even remotely indicated that was what you meant. Maybe you should have just outright stated that instead of using some bogus example of a guy barking orders at a computer.

That would make perfect sense if the average computer user made an educated decision about which OS to run. The average computer user doesn't even know what an OS is, which means that making a good OS is a waste of money if your goal is to make an OS that sells. Microsoft understands this, which is why their strategy has always been to eliminate the competition instead.

Microsoft has the highest market share because it is the only company that provides extensive enterprise level support for its OS. Apple does somewhat, but isn't particularly great at it, and as a result most businesses use Windows. Linux's enterprise support is pretty much nonexistent, which is why lots of companies use Linux for their backend but don't ever let it see the light of day.

Microsoft meets its customers needs, meaning it makes a good OS. To say differently would be to deny that corporations are viciously profit driven. After all, if Linux were better than Windows, they'd use it for everything because it is free.

[Particle Person]

Microsoft has the highest market share because it is the only company that provides extensive enterprise level support for its OS.

It isn't that simple. Remember this?

[xasop]

Linux's enterprise support is pretty much nonexistent

Did you seriously just make that claim? This might well be the most wrong thing anyone has ever said on FES.

See also: http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux

Microsoft meets its customers needs, meaning it makes a good OS.

Even if this were true, providing good customer service and providing a good OS are two completely different things.

To say differently would be to deny that corporations are viciously profit driven. After all, if Linux were better than Windows, they'd use it for everything because it is free.

That's a lovely straw man you've built.

[Rushy]

Did you seriously just make that claim? This might well be the most wrong thing anyone has ever said on FES.

See also: http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux

And? I didn't say it doesn't exist, posting a link of a seldom-used Linux system doesn't refute my claim that their enterprise support is nothing compared to Microsoft.

Even if this were true, providing good customer service and providing a good OS are two completely different things.

No, they're not.

That's a lovely straw man you've built.

In other words, you can't explain why greedy corporations aren't willing to use a free system that is better than one that costs millions of dollars. Yes, it must just be that they're dumb and you're not.

[xasop]

I didn't say it doesn't exist

Linux's enterprise support is pretty much nonexistent

ok

Even if this were true, providing good customer service and providing a good OS are two completely different things.

No, they're not.

Thanks for the tip. I will make sure to compliment the waiter on the fine operating system next time I go to a really good restaurant.

In other words, you can't explain why greedy corporations aren't willing to use a free system that is better than one that costs millions of dollars. Yes, it must just be that they're dumb and you're not.

Why do you expect me to explain that? You brought Linux into this discussion, not me.

[Rushy]

ok

Are you just choosing not to understand English now?

Thanks for the tip. I will make sure to compliment the waiter on the fine operating system next time I go to a really good restaurant.

Okay, I get what you're doing.

Why do you expect me to explain that? You brought Linux into this discussion, not me.

Yeah, my job is done here, you're out of steam.

[Fortuna]

Linux's enterprise support is pretty much nonexistent

LOL

[Lord Dave]

No, I mean just being able to talk to the computer and tell it what you want it to achieve. And it actually getting it no matter how dumb you are with computers. That would be more intuitive than any operating system in existence ... obviously.

"computer, I want to write an app for my mobile phone. Make it show news feeds from the huffington post and let people share them. Make the pictures a bit bigger. Make the font an bit more easy to read. Nice font but make it bigger. too much. Perfect. and then make an icon that is a dolphin hoping through a hoop and load it onto my phone. Add some adverts and put it into the store for me. Ok, now show me some naked ladies but turn the volume to mute. No, lesbian nonsense. yuck, white girls only please. make it hd. Don't take any calls or make any notifications until this film is over. Oh and make sure my webcam is off this time. "

"Computer, I want to write a letter to my grandson."
-would you like to type and print a letter, e-mail, or use another messaging program?
"What?"

Intuitive fails with terminology.  As the example above shows, what you say can mean multiple things.  Yes a letter traditionally means snail mail, but it could be an email if you aren't familiar with that term.

The computer must know what you mean before it can do what you want.  And that takes either direct brain reading or training.

[xasop]

Are you just choosing not to understand English now?

I'm just quoting you. You do remember saying those things, right?

Okay, I get what you're doing.

Now if only you could do the same, your arguments might make some amount of sense.

Yeah, my job is done here, you're out of steam.

I haven't seen any evidence of you starting any kind of "job", let alone finishing one. You still haven't explained how Linux is relevant.

[Rushy]

Why don't you explain how Linux is unrelevant?

[xasop]

Why don't you explain how Linux is unrelevant?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You brought it into this discussion, so you presumably had some reason for doing so, and therefore should be able to articulate that reason. If you can't, it isn't relevant.

[Rushy]

Why don't you explain how Linux is unrelevant?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You brought it into this discussion, so you presumably had some reason for doing so, and therefore should be able to articulate that reason. If you can't, it isn't relevant.

I'm not the one who brought relevancy into question here. I just brought true facts to the table and now you're trying to unfact my trues.

[Pete Svarrior]

Are you just choosing not to understand English now?

He does that a lot. Originally, I thought he's just trolling. Nowadays I suspect it's just due to lack of social experience. He picks interpretations of conversations which can be argued for if you just ignore all of society.

In this case, the only winning move is not to play. No matter what you do, he won't get out of this chain of reasoning for a while, so it's probably best to leave him be and try again later; or not try at all.