Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: YouTube Linux advocate: Linux could surpass Windows on the desktop
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 06:23:10 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <9oachj1q6jtuh7smvrang6nukd7n6h39m3@4ax.com>
References: <vf3anm$f7na$3@dont-email.me> <vf4nf5$qklk$1@dont-email.me> <esobhjpnc2kv3tske0da3vc2dkronkcrbg@4ax.com> <vf4sha$rasf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:23:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2f8966a4384291c9e64695cdfbb3d19";
	logging-data="966626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UUr2nWVUIZRi1ixT417H+fSTZEKYcNAQ="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:enQnEriUbVCjoCc9FXqIqMu0qJk=
OS: Debian 12, with Wine 9.0 for WinAPI
Bytes: 2288

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>>>Like I said, the only way Windows is able to hold on to its “dominance”
>>>in the “desktop” market is through the ever-shrinking definition of
>>>“desktop”.
>> 
>> That's a platitude ...
>
>... where you immediately contradict yourself without even drawing a 
>breath:
>
>> ... the desktop market is not what it once was ...


Dude, come on.  The existence of other kinds of devices in no way
changes the unique usefulness of desktop/laptop computers.  It changes
what percentage of CPUs are made for them, I know, we can agree on
that, but that doesn't make desktops a "niche".  So my point stands.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.