Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:It's so telling of the whole phenomenon. You don't buy a Mac when you want a serious computer. You buy it because you want to be "different", or "fashionable"... or a hipster douchebag.

Many actual computer scientists and programmers use a Mac for their normal work. This is because of the UNIX backbone of the system. The only reason Windows is so widely used is because it's efficient for businesses where many of the people don't know how to use a serious computer environment (i.e. Linux). So why don't you stop talking about things you don't understand? Or maybe that's not fair, since it means you basically couldn't say anything.

Metsfanmax wrote:

natty_dread wrote:It's so telling of the whole phenomenon. You don't buy a Mac when you want a serious computer. You buy it because you want to be "different", or "fashionable"... or a hipster douchebag.

Many actual computer scientists and programmers use a Mac for their normal work. This is because of the UNIX backbone of the system. The only reason Windows is so widely used is because it's efficient for businesses where many of the people don't know how to use a serious computer environment (i.e. Linux). So why don't you stop talking about things you don't understand? Or maybe that's not fair, since it means you basically couldn't say anything.

Excuse me, when was I endorsing Windows? Also, is it common practice for discussion moderators to flame users now? Of course, it's not that surprising: it's often the case with people of low intellect to resort to personal attacks when they are unable to present an argument in a sensible and rational manner.


The vast majority of servers are Linux-based PC:s. The market share for linux-based OS:s is growing constantly. As for Macintosh, maybe it has an operating system built over a unix kernel, but why would you go for a proprietary system when you can get a real unix-based system on a PC for free? Macs may have some niche applications, but I posit that even in those cases most people only use them because they are unaware of the alternatives for Microsoft on PC.


It's kinda telling that the only way Mac fanboys can argue against PC is to equate it with Windows.

natty_dread wrote:The vast majority of servers are Linux-based PC:s. The market share for linux-based OS:s is growing constantly. As for Macintosh, maybe it has an operating system built over a unix kernel, but why would you go for a proprietary system when you can get a real unix-based system on a PC for free? Macs may have some niche applications, but I posit that even in those cases most people only use them because they are unaware of the alternatives for Microsoft on PC.

I cannot speak for the people who choose to use the Mac OS, so I can't be certain why they prefer the proprietary system. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that for most people in the industry, the freedom allowed by the "real" UNIX-based system is quite irrelevant (for the same reason that people who do programming in the C environment can do it in a Windows environment and often do). As a result, you make the obvious choice -- the one that allows much easier communication and interfacing between the non-technical and technical members of your operation. For people who actually do the work, they know that it doesn't actually matter who wins the eternal OS debate. All that matters is you get done what you need to. Insisting on using a non-Mac or WIndows OS because it makes you not a hipster is an equally dumb move, you know.

It's kinda telling that the only way Mac fanboys can argue against PC is to equate it with Windows.

"PC" does not mean "non-Mac computer," since a personal computer can have the Mac OS installed on it. That, however, is meaningless, since everyone knows what they mean when they say "PC," even if the terminology is incorrect.

Back to the real discussion..the Big one didn't come, bit like the end of the world as my previous post. Joke CC and the OP you are stupid..

Agent 86 wrote:Back to the real discussion..the Big one didn't come, bit like the end of the world as my previous post. Joke CC and the OP you are stupid..

Don't bother, computer nerds have taken over this thread! I think it began with natty being dissatisfied with the first prize, an ipad 2. Which is created by apple, and somehow that was enough to make everyone go nuts .

lord voldemort wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, back on OT: PC v. Mac. I look forward to the next version of Win 7. The performance of Microsoft's upcoming big one will be vastly superior to the lame interface, the low user-customization, the unnecessarily increased physical performance demand, and the bulky features of OS X Lion.

The OS X Lion is just a cheap trick which causes Apple's unsuspecting users to doll out more cash for additional parts and software for very little additional benefit. The headlines should read: "OS X Lion: Don't Overlook Its Diminishing Returns"

you pay for software os?

I do?

EDIT:

MODS: I can only use 40 smileys. I humbly request access to a cap of 2,000 smileys please.

Gillipig wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:Back to the real discussion..the Big one didn't come, bit like the end of the world as my previous post. Joke CC and the OP you are stupid..

Don't bother, computer nerds have taken over this thread! I think it began with natty being dissatisfied with the first prize, an ipad 2. Which is created by apple, and somehow that was enough to make everyone go nuts .

Can you two please stay on topic? I'll report you to lord_voltemord!!!!!!!!!!!

Gillipig wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:Back to the real discussion..the Big one didn't come, bit like the end of the world as my previous post. Joke CC and the OP you are stupid..

Don't bother, computer nerds have taken over this thread! I think it began with natty being dissatisfied with the first prize, an ipad 2. Which is created by apple, and somehow that was enough to make everyone go nuts .

Forgive me for being slow on the uptake....
I don't know about macs & pcs but it looks a thoroughly respectable update to me.
If the behind the scenes work was done on improving email facilities and adding more functionality to the very basic billing system then lack took a step toward the efficient management of his mailing list to generate revenue. Seem to remember there was a thread asking for that sort of stuff. Even more lack threw in a whole new feature set for tournaments - an offering to all those round here who have such an exaggerated sense of entitlement about what they should be getting for their measly $25.

natty_dread wrote:The vast majority of servers are Linux-based PC:s. The market share for linux-based OS:s is growing constantly. As for Macintosh, maybe it has an operating system built over a unix kernel, but why would you go for a proprietary system when you can get a real unix-based system on a PC for free? Macs may have some niche applications, but I posit that even in those cases most people only use them because they are unaware of the alternatives for Microsoft on PC.

First, vast majority of servers are UNIX based or FreeBSD based (FreeBSD which cannot be called UNIX due to license despise being UNIX derivation itself). You cannot call them Linux based because Linux itself is a derivation of UNIX.
Next, I would not call it a constant growth when linux-like OS take only 5% of the market share today, nearly the same they had in the beginning of 2010. So again I insist you check your numbers and present your sources when you call statements "constant growth", "vast majority" and others before you can be taken serious in this discussion.

Yeah, where's your sources by the way?

Also, I thought you said you're not speaking to me anymore.

So anyway, Dako...

http://www.unixmen.com/news-today/1629- ... -for-march

Linux For Web Servers

Linux has a market share of 63.7%, while windows has 33.7% and BSD too at a good 2.4%, Solaris is 0.1%.

63.7% seems like a majority to me.

Also, it seems over 90% of super computers and data clusters run Linux.

Now I showed you mine, care to show yours?

Do you use server OS to play Conquer Club?

Dako wrote:

natty_dread wrote:The vast majority of servers are Linux-based PC:s. The market share for linux-based OS:s is growing constantly. As for Macintosh, maybe it has an operating system built over a unix kernel, but why would you go for a proprietary system when you can get a real unix-based system on a PC for free? Macs may have some niche applications, but I posit that even in those cases most people only use them because they are unaware of the alternatives for Microsoft on PC.

First, vast majority of servers are UNIX based or FreeBSD based (FreeBSD which cannot be called UNIX due to license despise being UNIX derivation itself). You cannot call them Linux based because Linux itself is a derivation of UNIX.
Next, I would not call it a constant growth when linux-like OS take only 5% of the market share today, nearly the same they had in the beginning of 2010. So again I insist you check your numbers and present your sources when you call statements "constant growth", "vast majority" and others before you can be taken serious in this discussion.

Don't bother. Natty is an obvious troll. I'm done too.

Metsfanmax wrote:Don't bother. Natty is an obvious troll. I'm done too.

Right, the old "I can't think of a counterargument so I'll just accuse you of being a troll" cliché. Nice move, again, Metsfanmax. How deep are you going to dig that hole for yourself?

Dako wrote:Do you use server OS to play Conquer Club?

Is that relevant to the discussion? I'm still waiting for your sources that are going to prove my statements wrong. Are you going to provide them or are you going to throw down your toys & storm out again?

I've seen a few trolls in my time on the internet. Anyone who says this:

natty_dread wrote:Ooh, hit a nerve, did I?

Go ahead, get me banned.

is a troll. So yeah, have a nice life.

Metsfanmax wrote:I've seen a few trolls in my time on the internet. Anyone who says this:

natty_dread wrote:Ooh, hit a nerve, did I?

Go ahead, get me banned.

is a troll. So yeah, have a nice life.

Yeah, take a part of my post totally out of context and try to justify your intellectual dishonesty with it. By now, it's pretty much par for the course for you.

You know, that's a classic troll tactic. Isn't it true that thieves are the first ones to accuse others of stealing?

natty_dread wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I've seen a few trolls in my time on the internet. Anyone who says this:

natty_dread wrote:Ooh, hit a nerve, did I?

Go ahead, get me banned.

is a troll. So yeah, have a nice life.

Yeah, take a part of my post totally out of context and try to justify your intellectual dishonesty with it. By now, it's pretty much par for the course for you.

You know, that's a classic troll tactic. Isn't it true that thieves are the first ones to accuse others of stealing?

So you're one of the first ones to try to get someone banned? Snap.

You know, I'm trying to express my opinion cordially here, without insulting anyone personally. I'm providing facts and sources to back up my statements when asked.

People may not agree with my views, but is that any reason to accuse me of trolling? Is that any reason to attack me personally, flame me, insult my intelligence? Especially when the other side are both moderators on this site.

Shouldn't moderators promote a healthy atmosphere for discussion and debate on all of the forums, not throw insults at users simply because they disagree with them? Shouldn't moderators be setting a better example? It's no wonder GD is in such a sad state it is today, if this is the state of moderation on CC today.

natty_dread wrote:You know, I'm trying to express my opinion cordially here, without insulting anyone personally. I'm providing facts and sources to back up my statements when asked.

People may not agree with my views, but is that any reason to accuse me of trolling? Is that any reason to attack me personally, flame me, insult my intelligence? Especially when the other side are both moderators on this site.

Shouldn't moderators promote a healthy atmosphere for discussion and debate on all of the forums, not throw insults at users simply because they disagree with them? Shouldn't moderators be setting a better example? It's no wonder GD is in such a sad state it is today, if this is the state of moderation on CC today.

3 big ones???

200 maps

The Conquer Cup

game 10000000

I'd say the game 10000000 is the biggest of all three!

Conquer Cup is doing my head in! No-one seems to understand the point of an escalating game.. I had some absolute knob of a private first class wipe out my 6 stack and 4 more territories of which he gained no benefit from it!!

Stupid, stupid tournament conquerclub.. I'm appalled!

jammyjames wrote:I'd say the game 10000000 is the biggest of all three!

Conquer Cup is doing my head in! No-one seems to understand the point of an escalating game.. I had some absolute knob of a private first class wipe out my 6 stack and 4 more territories of which he gained no benefit from it!!

Stupid, stupid tournament conquerclub.. I'm appalled!

I think (and hope) that in the next conquer cup each player will get to play more games. And hopefully the map and setting will be different. If it isn't I don't think it'll fill! I think lack chose these setting because most players are familiar with them and have played it before. Thereby maximizing the number of players interested in joining. But it's also unfortunately one of the unfairest settings. You can be a brilliant player with these setting and still get completely floored if someone who doesn't understand how to play it has it in for you. I think next time there should be more focus on how enjoyable the games are. 5 or 6 player escalating games on Classic can be brutally unfair. I think a lot of people are going to feel like they didn't get their moneys worth, and if the goal is to complete several conquer cups it would be wise to take that into consideration.

natty_dread wrote:Shouldn't moderators be setting a better example? It's no wonder GD is in such a sad state it is today, if this is the state of moderation on CC today.

Your two statements are separate; one has nothing to do with the other. We can debate whether or not moderators should be setting a better example (and while I am one who has said as much in the past, I don't see an example of it in this instance), you are not currently being moderated (banned, officially shut down, what have you) in this thread at all, or by these moderators. So your declaration actually doesn't make sense, when taken in context with your question and the rest of the debate.

jammyjames wrote:I'd say the game 10000000 is the biggest of all three!

Conquer Cup is doing my head in! No-one seems to understand the point of an escalating game.. I had some absolute knob of a private first class wipe out my 6 stack and 4 more territories of which he gained no benefit from it!!

Stupid, stupid tournament conquerclub.. I'm appalled!

That is any esc multi player tourney--I find more clueless players in everyone I join. They do not want to get better either--they think their way is all that matters, but wonder why they never reach above sgt or hang onto Major for more than a day.

Serbia wrote:We can debate whether or not moderators should be setting a better example

Very well. I posit that they should.