Why is linux stable?
Kadaitcha Man
stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has little
to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there actually
is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards compatibility.
Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back in the
early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a finished OS.
roodwriter
Great argument! You've convinced me! I can hardly wait! Now tell me where
I'm going to buy a copy of DOS that will run all my equipment. Also I'm
going to need the DOS equivalent of about three dozen productivity
programs.
Better yet--did those punch card machines ever crash? Never mind DOS. I'm
going to go back in the past even further.
Forget computers. I'm hauling out my abacus. No crashes. No power problems.
No worry about thunderstorms. No upgrading. No licenses.
Life is good in my hut with my fire to provide light.
--Rod
--
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical Consumers"
and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." Both are available at
http://www.rodwriterpublishing.com/index.html
To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of my e-mail address. It's to
confuse spambots, of course.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much
>> more stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because
>> it has little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware
>> support there actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing
>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
>> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
>>
>> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back
>> in the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
>> finished OS.
>
> Great argument! You've convinced me! I can hardly wait! Now tell me
> where I'm going to buy a copy of DOS that will run all my equipment.
> Also I'm going to need the DOS equivalent of about three dozen
> productivity programs.
>
> Better yet--did those punch card machines ever crash? Never mind DOS.
> I'm going to go back in the past even further.
>
> Forget computers. I'm hauling out my abacus. No crashes. No power
> problems. No worry about thunderstorms. No upgrading. No licenses.
>
> Life is good in my hut with my fire to provide light.
I am so pleased for you.
Aaron Meyer
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable?
Because the code gets reviewed by peers, and everyone that uses it can test
it with the code. Also, you have to admit the code is written better, and
better documented with sticter standards.
> It is stable because it has
> little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there
> actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards
> compatibility.
Oh so thats what stability is... I guess I'm wrong then. Idiot...
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
I do. However, DOS is also much simpler, which is also your point. If you
want to say the structure of linux is simpler, it only proves your
ignorance.
> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back in
> the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
> finished OS.
All of this based simply on the fact that linux is more stable? Wow, I never
knew you could infer so much. Might I suggest your arguement has A FEW
HUNDRED LOGIC ERRORS IN IT!!!
--
Aaron Meyer | "The search for truth is more
RLU# 283393 | precious than its possession"
RLC# 165786 | --Albert Einstein
Visit my website at http://aaron.hopto.org
roodwriter
I owe it all to you and your forward-thinking ideas.
Care for some charred dinosaur leg? Delicious!
Kadaitcha Man
> Also, you have to admit the code is
> written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
Why does anyone have to admit that?
CyberDaemon
Because it's true?
Aww, truth hurts, doesn't it?
--
Stephen, king of the wicker people
-- Join #cola on irc.oftc.net --
'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win.' -- Gandhi
Kadaitcha Man
>> Aaron Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> Also, you have to admit the code is
>>> written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
>>
>> Why does anyone have to admit that?
> Because it's true?
Then prove it.
> Aww, truth hurts, doesn't it?
Only when you cannot prove it. Off you go. Don't keep the group waiting.
CyberDaemon
I'm not the one that started this thread, you are. Prove that the code
*isn't* written better and better documented.
Off you go. Don't keep the group waiting.
--
rapskat
Kadaitcha Man: dump details are as follows...
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has
> little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support
> there actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards
> compatibility.
Oh please. Same old tired, washed up FUD. Maybe these statements applied
5 years ago, but now they just sound like some uninformed idiot speaking
about that which he knows nothing of.
Linux is more stable, secure, powerful and flexible than Windows could
ever be in its current form.
Plus it looks better!
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
Then you never really used it for anything.
> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back in
> the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
> finished OS.
"Linux" will never really be finished. There will probably always be
someone to develop it since any and everyone can have full access to the
source code.
Unlike Windows, which will truly be finished if and when M$ ever goes tits
up.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you windroids are your own worst
enemy. By speaking ill of Linux and OSS, you are in actuality
inadvertantly promoting it.
So, keep up the good work! You are the best advocates there is.
--
rapskat - 22:49:53 up 20:48, 2 users, load average: 2.34, 2.08, 2.06
Running LGX - Linux + GNU + XFree86: Gentoo flavored
email: this nick @dfnow.com
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man said (Article <b3p9b8$262$0...@pita.alt.net>):
>
>> CyberDaemon wrote:
>>
>>>> Aaron Meyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, you have to admit the code is
>>>>> written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
>>>>
>>>> Why does anyone have to admit that?
>>
>>> Because it's true?
>>
>> Then prove it.
>>
>>> Aww, truth hurts, doesn't it?
>>
>> Only when you cannot prove it. Off you go. Don't keep the group
>> waiting.
>
> I'm not the one that started this thread, you are. Prove that the code
> *isn't* written better and better documented.
>
> Off you go. Don't keep the group waiting.
LOL. Fuck off, you stupid cunt. I made no claim. I have no burden of proof.
ray
Rather peculiar logic - linux is immature, unfinished because it doesn't
crash??
Kadaitcha Man
You dumbfuck. It's your insane, linux-diseased mind that caused you to
arrive at that off the wall conclusion about what was being conveyed.
Mark
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has little
> to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there actually
> is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards compatibility.
>
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash?
Hmmm 16-bit, single user, single tasking OS "out of the box".
With many years of DOS experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever
crashing.
Did you run MS Windows on top of it?
>
> So, what does that all say?
Nothing at all.
It says that Linux is where DOS was back in the
> early to mid 1980's.
Never knew dos was a multi-user, multi-tasking, 32/64 bit,
multi-platform os.
It also says that Linux is nowhere near a finished OS.
Where do you get your shit from. And it is shit.
You are stupid. And and idiot.
Jeff
Comparing Linux to DOS? You are really showing your ignorance here.
Roy Culley
Nah, just another wintroll lying. To paraphrase:
If Gates got a cent for everytime a wintroll lied he'd be a
billionaire. Oh wait, he is.
Martin
Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
As someone who uses both Windows XP and Mandrake 9, I'm sure that for
every person I turn on to Linux, idiots like Roy are turning off
twenty.
If you feel you really want to see his "Witty" retort, just press Ctrl
and F3 together.
Martin
sqr
You have just opened yourself to a whole can of whoop ass...
--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--
http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
"Jeff" <in2fa...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.03.01....@notmail.com...
sqr
> inadvertantly promoting it.
Is that the same as a kid in school who never receives love so he would
rather take a punch in the face?
--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--
http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
"rapskat" <rap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.03.01....@hotmail.com...
Donn Miller
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has little
> to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there actually
> is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards compatibility.
Ironically, my Windows 2003 Server RC2 has been very stable. I'd be
willing to bet that the stability is comparable to Linux. Maybe it just
likes my laptop, I dunno.
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash?
Dos could crash quite a bit, actually, because there was no crash
protection for "bad apps".
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mahmood Al-Aksri
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much
>> more stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because
>> it has little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware
>> support there actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing
>> backwards compatibility.
>
> Ironically, my Windows 2003 Server RC2 has been very stable. I'd be
> willing to bet that the stability is comparable to Linux. Maybe it
> just likes my laptop, I dunno.
>
>> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash?
>
> Dos could crash quite a bit, actually, because there was no crash
> protection for "bad apps".
No mention was made of any apps... unlesss you imgained it.
Donn Miller
Mahmood Al-Aksri wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
>>Dos could crash quite a bit, actually, because there was no crash
>>protection for "bad apps".
> No mention was made of any apps... unlesss you imgained it.
Is it necessary? Think. DOS apps could access practically any part of
the HW. What does this mean?
" >
Linux is stable because it is built on a solid core and peer review of
the code allows bugs to be spotted and fixed very quickly. If you have
been in computer for a while do you remember DOS 5 it was a buggy horror
show nobody I knew used it or would recomend it.
-----
Yet another Linux FAQ 2.2
http://www.cafecomputer.com/faqindex.htm
Ian Pegel
Because if you don't the hard men of COLA will come round and kick shit
out of you. Why else?
--
Ian
Here with a loaf of bread beneath the bough
A flask of wine, an onion, a book of verse -- and thou
Beside me singing in the wilderness
And wilderness is paradise enow.
mlw
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has little
> to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there actually
> is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards compatibility.
This is clearly in error. Linux has great hardware support. Sure, the
cheap crap hardware that is intended for a wintendo paradigm, i.e. "when
you are using our hardware, you ought not be doing anything else"
attitude, will not run on Linux, but this is a good thing (tm).
Support for mainstream quality hardware is abundant.
>
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
Then you probably haven't used it all that much. There are plenty of
times when applications leave DOS in an uncertain state. This is why you
had to reboot it all the time.
The "reason" why the UNIX/Linux style OS is much more stable is
perfectly clear to any compsci 101 student. Little or no shared
resources between processes. What shared resources there are are clearly
documented and protected. The OS is built on many "simple" modules in
kernel space with the more complex systems in user space. (Like XFree,
Samba, etc.)
The original DOS lineage of Windows shared almost everything across
processes. This is why program (a) could bring down program (b) or even
the whole system. And every system component was effectively in kernel
space. (Under real mode, no protected, under 386, the Executive module.)
The original Windows NT sought to avoid this by making a very UNIX like
separation. Unfortunately for Windows, but perhaps fortunate for
UNUX/Linux, each successive version of NT, through XP, has reduced this
protection. In addition, starting in NT 4.0 the GUI had been moved into
NT kernel space, which means it is possible to crash the system simply
by printing.
As Microsoft adds features and APIs to the NT base, they are eroding
the stability of what was once a pretty good system by implementing
much of this crap in kernel space.
mlw
If memory serves:
DOS 3.3 was the most stable version ever.
DOS 4.x with the horror show.
DOS 5.x was stable.
Rick
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has
> little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there
> actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards
> compatibility.
You prove your ignorance.
>
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
Hmmm .. I don't either, but then I only rarely used DOS. Others seem to
have such memories.
>
> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back in
> the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
> finished OS.
AHahah ahahaha ahahahahahah oh, you were serious.... isn't that cute.
--
Rick
Roy Culley
"Martin" <martint...@spammers.arnsbrae.plus.com> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>
> Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
> so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
> message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
> to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
Not at all. I was simply replying in a thread started by a low life
wintroll. Blame Kadaitcha Man for cross posting.
begin 644 wanker.jpg
Anyone who uses OE for reading news is a wanker. So as not to
hurt these poor creatures feelings I will exploit the begin bug
so they won't read it. They are beyond help.
end
begin OE_crap.vbs
> As someone who uses both Windows XP and Mandrake 9, I'm sure that for
> every person I turn on to Linux, idiots like Roy are turning off
> twenty.
I hardly think so sunshine. I mean you must be a real twat if you post
using OE express when there are so many superior newsreaders available
to you out the box in Mandrake. You are just a little smart arsed
wintroll.
end
> If you feel you really want to see his "Witty" retort, just press Ctrl
> and F3 together.
Or they could just click on the last attachment they see with this
post to open up some text editor window thingy to read it.
Carbon
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much
> more stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it
> has little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware
> support there actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing
> backwards compatibility.
Actually, linux is more stable because it provides more intelligent
hardware support. A bad graphics driver in linux will only crash the
gui, but it will lock an {nt,w2k,xp} machine solid. Why? Because nt
and its derivatives run the graphics drivers in ring 0 of the OS, and
drivers generally are the least stable, poorest controlled part of any
operating system. Basically, Microsoft chose performance over
stability. You could argue this is fine for home users who are used to
BSODs (it isn't), but the real damage was to cripple windows in the
server market. This is a fatal flaw in Windows that isn't going away.
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
>
> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back
> in the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
> finished OS.
What utter cluelessness.
Brainfried Sysadmin
> No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
> stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has
> little to no native hardware support, and for what hardware support there
> actually is, only rare attempts are made at providing backwards
> compatibility.
>
> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many years of DOS
> experience, I have no recollection of DOS ever crashing.
>
> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where DOS was back in
> the early to mid 1980's. It also says that Linux is nowhere near a
> finished OS.
Can SOMEBODY P L E A S E make a rational argument either way?
There are so many logic errors and baseless extrapolations in this that it
is pathetic! What's more, it's just plain wrong.
I personally am SICK and TIRED of this pathetic nonsense put on the table
by Windows advocates.
Hardware support? Linux supports far more hardware devices than Windows -
from wristwatches to supercomputers. Sure, Linux is a bit weak in the
consumer market, but it's only due to market forces, NOT due to any flaw
in Linux.
Comparing DOS to Linux is laughable. That's like comparing a bi-plane to
a rocket ship.
The truth is, Linux builds upon Unix which has been around for over 3
decades. Where the fuck was Windows? Linux will eventually replace Unix.
Quit talking out your ass!!!!
Martin
> BeGiN <ZA18a.7588$Vx2.656026@wards>,
> "Martin" <martint...@spammers.arnsbrae.plus.com> writes:
>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>> Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
>> so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
>> message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
>> to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
>
> Not at all. I was simply replying in a thread started by a low life
> wintroll. Blame Kadaitcha Man for cross posting.
I accept you didn't start the cross post, but still, why go to the bother of
setting up your emails to be invisible to many people viewing them. There
may be the odd time when someone using Windows goes to COLA to help them
decide whether to try linux - they wouldn't even be able to read your post!
Do you really want to advocate linux, or make some petty point about OE?
>
> begin 644 wanker.jpg
No comment needed here really.....
>
> Anyone who uses OE for reading news is a wanker. So as not to
> hurt these poor creatures feelings I will exploit the begin bug
> so they won't read it. They are beyond help.
I use both OE (with fixed line length to stop annoying users of other
newsreaders) and Knode. I cannot bring myself to understand how you can
arrive at the conclusion that I'm a "Wanker," based on what newsreaders I
use! You appeared to be trying to communicate with fellow usenet users in a
Windows group. Why on earth would you want to make your post invisible to
them? That doesn't make any sense.
>
>> As someone who uses both Windows XP and Mandrake 9, I'm sure that for
>> every person I turn on to Linux, idiots like Roy are turning off
>> twenty.
>
> I hardly think so sunshine. I mean you must be a real twat if you post
> using OE express when there are so many superior newsreaders available
> to you out the box in Mandrake. You are just a little smart arsed
> wintroll.
OE works just fine for me. As I already told you, I have fixed the line
length to help linux users. I'm very familiar with Mandrake newsreaders -
take a look at the header for this post.
I don't accept that I'm a "Wintroll." I just don't go in for all this
anti-microsoft name-calling. I prefer to sell the benefits of Linux, which
are manifest, rather than trying to "Insult" people into looking at it,
which would appear to be your favoured methodology.
As to the "Smart arsed" epithet. Yes, I'll hold my hand up to that. But
being smart is good right? You should try it. Seriously, if you really do
want to be an effective advocate for linux you should stop and rethink how
you are going about it. Calling OE users wankers and twats simply alienates
you, and is more likely to turn them away. Don't you think?
Regards
Martin
Roy Culley
Martin <mar...@spammers.arnsbrae.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Not at all. I was simply replying in a thread started by a low life
>> wintroll. Blame Kadaitcha Man for cross posting.
>
> I accept you didn't start the cross post, but still, why go to the
> bother of setting up your emails to be invisible to many people
> viewing them. There may be the odd time when someone using Windows
> goes to COLA to help them decide whether to try linux - they
> wouldn't even be able to read your post! Do you really want to
> advocate linux, or make some petty point about OE?
COLA is infected by wintrolls who spread nothing but FUD and lies.
They will often resort to obscenities as well. Many of these people
use OE express. If by using the begin bug these wintrolls can't read
my messages and hence can't post their FUD and lies in response then I
think that is a good thing.
You say OE works fine for you yet it has this known bug plus the
quoting problem. MS seem unwilling to make any effort to fix these
bugs. Not the sort of SW I would want to use.
My purpose in reading and posting to COLA is to share knowledge
and experience with Linux with other like minded people. The
fact that the wintrolls try very hard to disrupt the newsgroup
makes it a very unpleasant place for anyone who happens by
COLA. Certainly my exploiting the 'begin ' bug is trivial
compared to the FUD, lies and filth that predominately comes
from the wintrolls.
Jules Dubois
<martint...@spammers.arnsbrae.plus.com> wrote in message
<<ZA18a.7588$Vx2.656026@wards>>:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>
> Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
> so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
> message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
> to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
I can't even
begin to understand why you're crossposting this nonsense to COLA.
end
--
begin ILoveYou.vbs.txt
M268@>6]U<B!N97=S<F5A9&5R(&1E8V]D960@=&AI<R!T97AT+"!I="!I<R!D
M969E8W1I=F4N($9O<B!D971A:6QS+`IS964@:'1T<#HO+W-U<'!O<G0N;6EC
M<F]S;V9T+F-O;2]D969A=6QT+F%S<'@_<V-I9#UK8CM%3BU54SLR-C4R,S`*
`
Kadaitcha Man
> For it was written by Kadaitcha Man:
>
>> Aaron Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> Also, you have to admit the code is
>>> written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
>>
>> Why does anyone have to admit that?
>
> Because if you don't the hard men of COLA will come round and kick
> shit out of you.
I don't envy their task then. I'm full of it.
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:01:41 +1100, "Kadaitcha Man" <fo...@haha.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Aaron Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> Also, you have to admit the code is
>>> written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
>>
>> Why does anyone have to admit that?
>
> you're going to have to let other people see it.
Big deal, that's one of the expected outcomes of peer review.
[snip]
> Maybe as MS lets more and more people see its code, they'll start to
> neaten it up somewhat.
LOL. An automatic assumption that our code isn't neat.
You fuckheads could not carry on a debate to save your pathetic lives.
Kadaitcha Man
> Linux is more stable, secure, powerful and flexible than Windows could
> ever be in its current form.
Where did windows get into this? The comparison was between Linux and DOS.
Mark
> DrSquare wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:01:41 +1100, "Kadaitcha Man" <fo...@haha.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Aaron Meyer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, you have to admit the code is
>>>>written better, and better documented with sticter standards.
>>>
>>>Why does anyone have to admit that?
>>
>>Code is generally written more neatly and is better documented when
>>you're going to have to let other people see it.
>
>
> Big deal, that's one of the expected outcomes of peer review.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Maybe as MS lets more and more people see its code, they'll start to
>>neaten it up somewhat.
>
>
> LOL. An automatic assumption that our code isn't neat.
"Our code" so you are employed by MS. But know didly scwat about
operating systems in general.
>
> You fuckheads could not carry on a debate to save your pathetic lives.
So says a broven idiot.
Mark
You obviously know nothing about operating systems in general so you
have know idea that NT based MS Windows is ment to be a better unix than
Unix. You are a fool.
Kadaitcha Man
Hang on, that's a very long bow you are drawing there. The discussion is
about DOS and Linux. It is about nothing else. Why do you persist in trying
to bring "NT based MS Windows" into it? Fools cannot focus on the matter at
hand.
Kadaitcha Man
>>> Maybe as MS lets more and more people see its code, they'll start to
>>> neaten it up somewhat.
>>
>>
>> LOL. An automatic assumption that our code isn't neat.
>
> "Our code" so you are employed by MS.
OOPS!
Donn Miller
mlw wrote:
> Then you probably haven't used it all that much. There are plenty of
> times when applications leave DOS in an uncertain state. This is why you
> had to reboot it all the time.
True. Dos was a simple application loader that allowed wide-open
unrestricted access to any part of the HW. And when a certain app did
something to a HW address it shouldn't have, the machine could be hosed,
making a reboot (or many times a hard reset) necessary.
> The "reason" why the UNIX/Linux style OS is much more stable is
> perfectly clear to any compsci 101 student. Little or no shared
> resources between processes. What shared resources there are are clearly
> documented and protected. The OS is built on many "simple" modules in
> kernel space with the more complex systems in user space. (Like XFree,
> Samba, etc.)
Yep. Also, Linux (or *nix) features a kernel which restricts access to
certain HW addresses and features, in contrast to DOS. With Linux and
unix, the kernel restricts what a normal user app can do. For example,
it's harder to do direct HW writes to certain parts of the HW without
Linux kernel calls. And this is designed to protect the system from
those apps which normally would lock up the machine or render it
unstable, as is the case with DOS.
Mark
Mark
not a true multi-user OS.
fre...@aol.com
>NT based MS Windows is ment to be a better unix than
>Unix
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yea they keep telling us that!
Since NT 3.5! HAHHAHA
Still waiting!
Gerhard Buchenwald
> "Martin" <martint...@spammers.arnsbrae.plus.com> writes:
> > Roy Culley wrote:
> >
> > Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
> > so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
> > message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
> > to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
>
> Not at all. I was simply replying in a thread started by a low life
> wintroll. Blame Kadaitcha Man for cross posting.
>
>
> Anyone who uses OE for reading news is a wanker. So as not to
> hurt these poor creatures feelings I will exploit the begin bug
> so they won't read it. They are beyond help.
>
>
> > As someone who uses both Windows XP and Mandrake 9, I'm sure that for
> > every person I turn on to Linux, idiots like Roy are turning off
> > twenty.
>
> I hardly think so sunshine. I mean you must be a real twat if you post
> using OE express when there are so many superior newsreaders available
> to you out the box in Mandrake. You are just a little smart arsed
> wintroll.
>
> end
>
> > If you feel you really want to see his "Witty" retort, just press Ctrl
> > and F3 together.
>
> Or they could just click on the last attachment they see with this
> post to open up some text editor window thingy to read it.
Roy Culley is a lying sack of shit that most people in COLA have
already dismissed as a zealot linux troll.
He never says anything of value but instead trys to convert everyone
to shit Linux.
We missed you the first time Culley, but we will be back!
Buchenwald
Roy Culley
>
>> BeGiN <ZA18a.7588$Vx2.656026@wards>,
>> "Martin" <martint...@spammers.arnsbrae.plus.com> writes:
>>> Roy Culley wrote:
>>>
>>> Roy actually went to the bother of starting his message with "Begin,"
>>> so that anyone using OE would only see an attachment and not his
>>> message. It does seem a very strange thing to do when you are posting
>>> to a group like alt.os.windows-xp.....
>>
>> Not at all. I was simply replying in a thread started by a low life
>> wintroll. Blame Kadaitcha Man for cross posting.
>
> I accept you didn't start the cross post, but still, why go to the bother of
> setting up your emails to be invisible to many people viewing them. There
> may be the odd time when someone using Windows goes to COLA to help them
> decide whether to try linux - they wouldn't even be able to read your post!
> Do you really want to advocate linux, or make some petty point about OE?
Second attempt. First reply doesn't appear to have got through.
COLA is dominated by lying, FUD spreading and often obscene wintrolls.
These low life forms often use OE so exploiting the 'begin ' bug seems
a good idea to me. They can't reply to what they don't see.
The solution of course lies with MS. This isn't a new bug. MS know
about it:
<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q265230>
and yet can't be bothered to fix it. Their 'WORKAROUND' is just a
farce. Now why don't you ask MS why they won't fix this bug.
>> begin 644 wanker.jpg
>
> No comment needed here really.....
I was just demonstrating how really screwed up MS's OE uudecode
code is. As there are alternatives to the buggy and insecure OE
anyone who should know better that uses it is a wanker. There
are alternatives. Some even free.
Roy Culley
buchen...@yahoo.com (Gerhard Buchenwald) writes:
>
> Roy Culley is a lying sack of shit that most people in COLA have
> already dismissed as a zealot linux troll. He never says anything
> of value but instead trys to convert everyone to shit Linux.
Is Buchenwald flatty? No not this time I think. drsquare I reckon.
Probably a grudge because he's excluded from the COLA Stats. Which
reminds me ...
> We missed you the first time Culley, but we will be back!
> Buchenwald
A bit ironic that I was born in Germany. It must be drsquare. I know
of no one else on COLA so lacking in everything but most especially
moral and ethical values.
Mark
Roy Culley
It is netiquette to state in your reply when setting Followup-To:.
GreyCloud
How about some spaghetti with that code??
Guffaw!!
GreyCloud
>
> >
> > Or they could just click on the last attachment they see with this
> > post to open up some text editor window thingy to read it.
>
> Roy Culley is a lying sack of shit that most people in COLA have
> already dismissed as a zealot linux troll.
> He never says anything of value but instead trys to convert everyone
> to shit Linux.
>
At least it's better than shit winblows.
> We missed you the first time Culley, but we will be back!
We who?? Got a turd in your pocket??
Kadaitcha Man
I take it that you are either unaware of, or you conveniently ignore the
fact that XP was a complete object oriented rewrite from the ground up.
RonB
> I take it that you are either unaware of, or you conveniently ignore the
> fact that XP was a complete object oriented rewrite from the ground up.
"You rewrote Windows on Tuesday and still it crashes on Friday? Maybe what
you've got is a really lousy OS. Memory leaks and instability could be
early signs of XP, M$ or Windows. Try FDISK then install Linux for long
lasting relief."
--
RonB
"there's a story there...somewhere"
Mark
rapskat
Martin: dump details are as follows...
> There may be the odd time when someone using Windows goes to COLA to
> help them decide whether to try linux - they wouldn't even be able to
> read your post!
Anyone stupid enough to use OE wouldn't use LGX anyway.
--
rapskat - 01:48:53 up 1 day, 23:48, 4 users, load average: 0.12, 0.16, 0.24
Running LGX - Linux + GNU + XFree86: Gentoo flavored
email: this nick @dfnow.com
end
NOTE: If the preceding text is not being displayed,
it is because you are using a Newsreader that is not
compliant with Usenet Standards. Please upgrade to a
Standards Compliant client or contact your System Administrator.
rapskat
Kadaitcha Man: dump details are as follows...
Funny, that's what is said about all of the latest Windows releases.
What XP really is, is Windows 2000 with updated drivers and a colorful
interface for the masses, dumbed down to the point that even you can
pretend to use it. With some "value adds" thrown in there for good
measure.
--
rapskat - 01:51:26 up 1 day, 23:50, 4 users, load average: 0.07, 0.12, 0.21
Kadaitcha Man
>> I take it that you are either unaware of, or you conveniently ignore the
>> fact that XP was a complete object oriented rewrite from the ground up.
> Funny, that's what is said about all of the latest Windows releases.
I lied. Sue me.
GreyCloud
Guffaw!! Another pile of steaming excrement.
GreyCloud
We'll take that in due considerations of your future posts.
Nigel Feltham
So you must work in MS PR department then if lying comes this natural.
--
begin sig
Not the moderator of Comp.Os.Linux.Advocacy
It's unmoderated and anyone who claims otherwise is a clueless moron - this
includes you kerke the jerke.
Lee Sau Dan
Kadaitcha> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many
Kadaitcha> years of DOS experience, I have no recollection of DOS
Kadaitcha> ever crashing.
Try this in DOS:
C> DEBUG
- g=ffff:0000
What happens?!
This can't happen on Unix for normal users.
Kadaitcha> So, what does that all say? It says that Linux is where
Kadaitcha> DOS was back in the early to mid 1980's. It also says
Kadaitcha> that Linux is nowhere near a finished OS.
All that this says is that you're idiot.
Do you mean a finished OS should be crashing all the time, then?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Kadaitcha Man
news:m3y93yl...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de
>>>>>> "Kadaitcha" == Kadaitcha Man <fo...@haha.com> writes:
>
> Kadaitcha> Who remembers DOS? How often did DOS crash? With many
> Kadaitcha> years of DOS experience, I have no recollection of DOS
> Kadaitcha> ever crashing.
>
> Try this in DOS:
>
> - g=ffff:0000
>
> What happens?!
Yeah? So what happens when you type that into linux?
chrisv
wrote:
>True. Dos was a simple application loader that allowed wide-open
>unrestricted access to any part of the HW.
I miss those simple days... Need digital I/O to the "real world"?
Just buy (or make) a card with an 8255 and a simple address decoder,
fire-up BASIC and peek and poke to your heart's content. No drivers,
no layers of abstraction...
The Ghost In The Machine
<fo...@haha.com>
wrote
on Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:27:04 +1100
<b3s4nb$kc8$0...@pita.alt.net>:
They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random skepticism here
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<b44k6b$7ts$0...@pita.alt.net>:
* * *
$ debug
bash: debug: command not found
$ g=ffff:0000
$
* * *
OK, now what?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- was that supposed to be dangerous?
Rex Ballard
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:2opij-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
> <fo...@haha.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:27:04 +1100
> <b3s4nb$kc8$0...@pita.alt.net>:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mark wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> LOL. An automatic assumption that our code isn't neat.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Our code" so you are employed by MS.
> >>>
> >>> OOPS!
Was that Mark or Kadaitcha that worked for MS?
Too many indents :-)
> >> How about some spaghetti with that code??
> >> Guffaw!!
> >
> > I take it that you are either unaware of, or you conveniently ignore the
> > fact that XP was a complete object oriented rewrite from the ground up.
I thought that Windows 2000 was the big kernel rewrite (it does show), and
that Windows XP was just an attempt to get some of the best features of KDE,
GNOME, and AfterStep into the Microsoft Windows interface. :-)
> They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
Was it Windows 95 or Windows 98 where they aquired the Sun Dos Emulator so
that they could run multiple command.com windows which could both run at the
same time?
Erik Funkenbusch
>> They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
>
> Was it Windows 95 or Windows 98 where they aquired the Sun Dos Emulator so
> that they could run multiple command.com windows which could both run at the
> same time?
Jesus, Rex. Windows has been able to run multiple Command.com windows
since Windows 3.0 386 enhanced mode.
Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
GreyCloud
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I think ol' Rex has found a way under
your skin.
Rex Ballard
Minor point of fact. Only ONE of each could actually RUN at a time.
The other Command.com windows would freeze, while you played in the
active window. In fact, the minute the command window was not the
active window, it stopped processing.
It made sense, since many MS-DOS applications were time sensitive,
using timing loops for everything from synch with the video to copy
protection, but it illustrates a key limitation on Windows 3.0.
> Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
More Eric picking the nits.
Erik Funkenbusch
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.03.06....@despam-funkenbusch.com>...
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:43:22 -0500, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> >> They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
>> >
>> > Was it Windows 95 or Windows 98 where they aquired the Sun Dos Emulator so
>> > that they could run multiple command.com windows which could both run at the
>> > same time?
>>
>> Jesus, Rex. Windows has been able to run multiple Command.com windows
>> since Windows 3.0 386 enhanced mode.
>
> Minor point of fact. Only ONE of each could actually RUN at a time.
> The other Command.com windows would freeze, while you played in the
> active window. In fact, the minute the command window was not the
> active window, it stopped processing.
No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
freeze the other tasks.
> It made sense, since many MS-DOS applications were time sensitive,
> using timing loops for everything from synch with the video to copy
> protection, but it illustrates a key limitation on Windows 3.0.
>
>> Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
>
> More Eric picking the nits.
More Rex being entirely wrong, for something he claims to know a lot
about.
GreyCloud
>
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 18:48:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.03.06....@despam-funkenbusch.com>...
> >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:43:22 -0500, Rex Ballard wrote:
> >> >> They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
> >> >
> >> > Was it Windows 95 or Windows 98 where they aquired the Sun Dos Emulator so
> >> > that they could run multiple command.com windows which could both run at the
> >> > same time?
> >>
> >> Jesus, Rex. Windows has been able to run multiple Command.com windows
> >> since Windows 3.0 386 enhanced mode.
> >
> > Minor point of fact. Only ONE of each could actually RUN at a time.
> > The other Command.com windows would freeze, while you played in the
> > active window. In fact, the minute the command window was not the
> > active window, it stopped processing.
>
> No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
> MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
> freeze the other tasks.
>
Which version of windows?? If it is 3.1... it was not
pre-emptively... it was co-operative.
Your description needs to be re-written to make sense.
Win95 on up was pre-emptive... remember.
> > It made sense, since many MS-DOS applications were time sensitive,
> > using timing loops for everything from synch with the video to copy
> > protection, but it illustrates a key limitation on Windows 3.0.
> >
> >> Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
> >
> > More Eric picking the nits.
>
> More Rex being entirely wrong, for something he claims to know a lot
> about.
He may know quite a bit beyond what you know.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 18:48:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.03.06....@despam-funkenbusch.com>...
>> >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:43:22 -0500, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> >> >> They said Win95 got rid of DOS, too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Was it Windows 95 or Windows 98 where they aquired the Sun Dos Emulator so
>> >> > that they could run multiple command.com windows which could both run at the
>> >> > same time?
>> >>
>> >> Jesus, Rex. Windows has been able to run multiple Command.com windows
>> >> since Windows 3.0 386 enhanced mode.
>> >
>> > Minor point of fact. Only ONE of each could actually RUN at a time.
>> > The other Command.com windows would freeze, while you played in the
>> > active window. In fact, the minute the command window was not the
>> > active window, it stopped processing.
>>
>> No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
>> MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
>> freeze the other tasks.
>
> Which version of windows?? If it is 3.1... it was not
> pre-emptively... it was co-operative.
> Your description needs to be re-written to make sense.
> Win95 on up was pre-emptive... remember.
No. Win 3.x pre-emptivlely multitasked dos applications. It
co-operatively multitasked Windows applications.
http://www.byte.com/art/9403/sec3/art1.htm
"As in Windows 3.1, DOS applications still multitask preemptively, while
Win16 applications multitask cooperatively."
>> > It made sense, since many MS-DOS applications were time sensitive,
>> > using timing loops for everything from synch with the video to copy
>> > protection, but it illustrates a key limitation on Windows 3.0.
>> >
>> >> Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
>> >
>> > More Eric picking the nits.
>>
>> More Rex being entirely wrong, for something he claims to know a lot
>> about.
>
> He may know quite a bit beyond what you know.
He has yet to show it.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Rexx drops a bomb every once in a while, but most of the time it's tons of
> words that lead nowhere.
That's why i've coined his blathering as "Rex-no-babble".
Bo Grimes
Since I've never seen any indication that you do irony, I'm going to assume
you just don't know the definition of babble.
Take a look and then think about what "Rex-no-babble" means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=babble
If you're trying to play off of "technobabble" consider dropping the dashes
(Rexnobabble) so that it means what you clearly want it to mean.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=technobabble.
Sorry to ruin your joke, but you ruined the punchline by putting it in such
a way that it means the opposite of what you intended.
No wonder you get the definition of "zealot" wrong.
--
Bo G
"Mankind does nothing save through initiatives on the part of inventors,
great or small, and imitation by the rest of us. Individuals show the way,
set the patterns. The rivalry of the patterns is the history of the
world." (William James) Linus is just such an inventor; Linux is just such
a pattern.
Bob Hauck
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 18:48:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
>> > Minor point of fact. Only ONE of each could actually RUN at a time.
>> > The other Command.com windows would freeze, while you played in the
>> > active window. In fact, the minute the command window was not the
>> > active window, it stopped processing.
That was true /by default/, but you could set DOS windows to "run in
background" in the PIF file, if your machine supported 386 enhanced
mode and if you actually ran Windows in that mode.
>> No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
>> MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
>> freeze the other tasks.
> Which version of windows?? If it is 3.1... it was not
> pre-emptively... it was co-operative.
Actually, Erik is correct. Under Win3.1 DOS apps were preemptively
multitasked _if_ you were in 386 enhanced mode. If you were in standard
mode then only one DOS app could run at a time. Windows apps were
always cooperative.
The DOS multitasking was very poor because the underlying DOS was not
re-entrant. But it did multitask.
> Your description needs to be re-written to make sense.
> Win95 on up was pre-emptive... remember.
Win95 and up are preemptive for Windows apps as well as DOS.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
GreyCloud
>
> >> No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
> >> MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
> >> freeze the other tasks.
> >
> > Which version of windows?? If it is 3.1... it was not
> > pre-emptively... it was co-operative.
> > Your description needs to be re-written to make sense.
> > Win95 on up was pre-emptive... remember.
>
> No. Win 3.x pre-emptivlely multitasked dos applications. It
> co-operatively multitasked Windows applications.
>
Gee, you better tell that to Charles Petzold then in his
book "Programming Windows 3.1".
From his description a dos program was v86 program. In that
mode no multi-tasking was present at that point.
You couldn't run a dos program and run a windows program at
the same time.
> > He may know quite a bit beyond what you know.
>
> He has yet to show it.
Could it be that you two are just rivals??
GreyCloud
Guffaw!! As opposed to the Ewik sock-puppet shuffle eh??
Donn Miller
Actually, that would describe you and flatfishes posts. You know the
part where you don't even know what X was if it bit you in the ass, but
yet you knew all this stuff about it. You and flatty are a pair of
boring predictable wankers: X is slow, fonts look like shit, blah blah
blah. Rex's posts are among the best in here, and if nothing else, his
attitude is still good.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob Hauck
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> No. Win 3.x pre-emptivlely multitasked dos applications. It
>> co-operatively multitasked Windows applications.
> Gee, you better tell that to Charles Petzold then in his
> book "Programming Windows 3.1".
That book mostly describes "standard mode", which was the 286-compatible
mode. It also says that you had to lock and unlock memory segments,
which is only true in real and standard modes. IIRC he does have a
short chapter on 386-enhanced mode, but doesn't spend a lot of time on
the subject.
Remember, at the time a lot of people still had 286 computers and so
most Windows programs were written for standard mode. Such programs
would still run in enhanced mode so it was the safe choice. Real mode
was just worthless.
> From his description a dos program was v86 program. In that
> mode no multi-tasking was present at that point.
That was true in standard mode, but not in 386-enhanced mode.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> >> No, Rex. That's false. When running in 386 Enhanced mode, the other
>> >> MS-Dos windows are multitasked pre-emptively. In standard mode it would
>> >> freeze the other tasks.
>> >
>> > Which version of windows?? If it is 3.1... it was not
>> > pre-emptively... it was co-operative.
>> > Your description needs to be re-written to make sense.
>> > Win95 on up was pre-emptive... remember.
>>
>> No. Win 3.x pre-emptivlely multitasked dos applications. It
>> co-operatively multitasked Windows applications.
>
> Gee, you better tell that to Charles Petzold then in his
> book "Programming Windows 3.1".
> From his description a dos program was v86 program. In that
> mode no multi-tasking was present at that point.
>
> You couldn't run a dos program and run a windows program at
> the same time.
Unfortunately, Programming Windows 3.1 was really just Programming Windows
3 with a few new chapters added to cover things like TrueType fonts, etc..
The content hadn't changed much, and mostly covered standard mode. IIRC
it did have a chapter on 386 Enhanced mode. Perhaps you should look at
that.
GreyCloud
I'm just going on his statement that win3.1 doesn't have
pre-emptive multi-tasking. He called it co-operative
multitasking.
Mark
Mark
T. Max Devlin
Just admit, it was a big mess.
>"As in Windows 3.1, DOS applications still multitask preemptively, while
>Win16 applications multitask cooperatively."
We must remember that the term 'multitask preemptively' in Win3.x meant
something different than it did in, say, a Unix operating system, which had
actual multi-tasking.
>>> > It made sense, since many MS-DOS applications were time sensitive,
>>> > using timing loops for everything from synch with the video to copy
>>> > protection, but it illustrates a key limitation on Windows 3.0.
>>> >
>>> >> Just more of your Rex-no-babble.
>>> >
>>> > More Eric picking the nits.
>>>
>>> More Rex being entirely wrong, for something he claims to know a lot
>>> about.
>>
>> He may know quite a bit beyond what you know.
>
>He has yet to show it.
That's bullshit. Sure, he mis-states something or is mistaken kind of
regularly when he starts to babble, but you'd be way more wrong way more often
if you actually said as much as he does, Erik Funkenbusch.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Peter Köhlmann
You muddle here 2 different things. One thing is windows apps. Those
*were* co-operative multi-tasking. Worked even quite well for that.
The other thing was DOS-apps. Those really were pre-emptive (sort of)
multi-tasked in a win386-environment. They had to relinquish the
processor when their time was up or when waiting for I/O. It was a
kludge, but it worked (sort of). OS/2 did it *lots* better. And then came
this shitty Win95, and all the idiots of the world had to get that
instead the really working OS/2
--
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be
someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe
it happened according to his own pet theory.
Erik Funkenbusch
Windows apps, yes. DOS apps, no. Dos apps cannot cooperatively multitask
because they tend not to call any functions which could yield, they also
tend to use busy loops because there wasn't an easy way to sleep.
T. Max Devlin
>No doubt everyone is sick and tired of hearing about just how much more
>stable Linux is. Well, why is it stable? It is stable because it has little
>to no native hardware support, [...]
Okay, you haven't the first clue what the fuck you're talking about, thread
over.