Linux is a confused mess of beta quality software.
Anna Banger
inexpensive,easy to use, offers better hardware support and a better
choice than Windows.
But how much of what you have heard is really true and how much is
pure propaganda generated by the screwy Linux community?
Let us take a look at each of the statements I present above and strip
away the bullshit and lies that the Linux community attaches to each
one of them.
Is Linux stable?
If you are using Linux as a server or just running command line
applications then yes the statement that Linux is stable is indeed a
true statement. Linux legacy applications like Apache are quite stable
and in fact servers using Linux applications like Apache normally stay
up for months without any user intervention.
This is the part that the Linonuts like to talk about when they
proselytize looking for more converts to join the linux family.
The part they leave out is the proven fact that Linux gui applications
are as a rule not only unstable but slow as well.
They also don't tell you that when X, which is the gui interface,
hangs all of your gui applications are toast.
Sure, you may be able to kill X with ctrl-alt-backspace and your
command line applications will not be affected, but all your gui
applications go down the tubes.
Have X lock up on the user is a very common occurrence with Linux.
The Linonuts like to tell you how they can just kill X instead of re
booting, which sometimes is true, but what's the difference when you
lost all you gui desktop programs?
X is also very slow compared to Windows. Even with the fastest video
cards, X is noticeably more sluggish than Windows at rendering pixels
on the screen.
The Linonuts like to talk about Windows running the gui at ring 0 and
how it makes Windows unstable.
Windows 2000 and Windows XP have both never crashed on me.
My Linux system crashes on a regular basis, and by crash I mean X gets
hosed and all my gui applications go down the toilet along with X.
So is Linux stable?
Yes, if you want to be stuck with a command line interface like the
good old DOS days.
Is Linux secure?
Take a look at Redhat/Mandrake/suse and other Linux sites for security
bulletins and decide for yourself.
Sure the kernel is secure, but the applications are like Swiss Cheese,
which is why Linux has security alerts just about every single day.
The Linonuts like to point out how Internet Explorer and Outlook are
security horror stories and in some respect they are correct.
So use Mozilla and Agent and your problems are solved.
Is Linux inexpensive?
It would seem so since most of the distributions are free.
However, what is your time worth?
The linonuts would like you to believe that installing Linux software
is just a matter of using an rpm package manager and clicking on the
software you wish to install and it is done.
While this works every once in a while, the truth is that you will
more often than not get involved in Linux Dependency Hell which is the
Linux version of dll hell.
This library needs that library which needs yet another library and it
just gets worse and worse as you go on all the way to the point that
you are so deep in dependencies that you have forgotton what the
original package was that you wanted to install.
You will spend hours if not days searching for cryptic named packages
all over the net and you have to get the correct versions because
later version of any of them may not work correctly.
It's a spider web clusterfuck of a mess that will have you searching
all over the internet looking for cryptic named files by the dozens.
A real time waster.
How about installing an Nvidia graphics card with Linux?
http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
Notice the Linux section on the right side?
Ok quick, which system do YOU have?
Do you even know?
See this mess?
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=linux_display_ia32_1.0-4191
And the Linonuts claim Linux isn't fragmented?
What a fucking disaster and that's only the IA32 section, there are 4
more sections.
Do you even know what IA32 means?
Does the typical Windows user thinking of moving to Linux?
I doubt it.
By the way, should you pick the wrong selection, you will destroy your
Linux system and be forced to re-install because you will be dropped
to a command line like "root@linux#" and not have a clue as to how to
fix it.
Now take a look at what is required to install these drivers.
I'll leave that as a project to complete at your leisure.
It is not a pretty so I will warn you.
Easy to use?
Try installing a plugin using Mozilla and see for yourself how easy
Linux is to use.
That's assuming you can even find the plugin to install because Linux
has shitty support for plugins.
Better hardware support?
The linonuts like to claim better hardware support and if you include
all the systems that Linux sort of runs on, they are right.
However, within each given system, Linux hardware support really
starts to suck.
Try getting 32bpp out of and Nvidia card.
Doesn't work.
Of course, if you have that great 300 baud modem from your 1980's
Radio Shack TRS-80 laying around, there is a good chance Linux will
support it.
Just don't expect Linux to support modern printers, scanners, digital
camera's, firewire, or even full support of USB because it takes time
to reverse engineer these things.
So why do people choose Linux over Windows or Mcintosh?
I sure can't figure it out.
Maybe they like using shit hardware, buggy applications and wasting
their lives away compiling kernels and tweaking system parameters
instead of actually using their systems to do something constructive
other than posting lies to COLA.
Linux is unstable.
Linux is cheap.
Linux is difficult to use.
Linux is fragmented.
Linux doesn't interface well with Windows systems.
Linux is crude.
Linux is insecure.
Linux hardware support is terrible.
Linux is slow.
Anna Banger
Mark
Can ya come up with something new. remember this is a linux advocacy
group. You cross posting troll.
--
Mark p
Support MS in the battle against software piricy-use alternative software!
(PS I'm not a wintroll or a linonut. Just trying to get the most out o my
humble beast)
Linønut
<waste of space>
--
Can Microsoft out-run Open Office?
Rob
lot of fun for me. However the statements Anna makes are correct. I have
spent hours looking for dependencies, it took me two days to figure out my
video drivers. I can install the drivers in a matter of minutes now, I do
get a lot of freezes (using Nautun and Netscape together always cause
Netscape to lock up) and the GUI is slower than its windows counter parts. I
think Linux is now a usable O/S for those who are above average Windows
users. I can do everything in Linux that I can do in windows except view a
few "Windows format" streaming media. They say you can do that with
mplayer.( I have installed but can't figure out how to make it work for
streaming media)
So if you are a above average Windows user and would like a challenge, Try
Linux you will have fun and learn some things. If Windows is a hard O/S for
you to learn than stay away from Linux. Windows XP is still the better o/s
for almost all people. For you Linux people:
SORRY for the top post, I was in Windoze using OE and did not notice in
time.
Rob
--
Remove SPAM to reply
"Anna Banger" <anna_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c1cd8f7.03011...@posting.google.com...
Linønut
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:13:36 -0600, Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
>
>>While watching the eternal hourglass, Anna Banger assayed this pronouncement:
>>
>><waste of space>
>
> Linux zealot technique #69, try and discredit the anti-linux poster without
> offering any type of reasonable rebuttal.
>
> Your fear shines through your coarse exterior.
>chuckle<
No. I simply did not want to feed the troll.
Troll technique #69, include a nugget of truth, but exaggerate it
beyond all reason.
rapskat
"Anna Banger": dump details are as follows...
> Linux is unstable.
> Linux is cheap.
> Linux is difficult to use.
> Linux is fragmented.
> Linux doesn't interface well with Windows systems. Linux is crude.
> Linux is insecure.
> Linux hardware support is terrible.
> Linux is slow.
Look, all anyone has to do to see how Linux and Windows compare is to
actually run both of them for some time and see for themselves.
I service and repair wincomps on a regular basis, so I know just how bad
they are, including their latest POS named XP.
Sure, when they actually work it's great. But when they break, which is
very very very often, you are just plain SOL.
If something messes up on a Linux box, I can fix it without having to
resort to reinstalling the OS from scratch. No data loss, minimal time
investment.
--
rapskat - 21:49:09 up 5 days, 50 min, 1 user, load average: 0.47, 0.56, 0.53
Running LGX - Linux + GNU + XFree86: Gentoo flavored
email: this nick @dfnow.com
I'm glad I was not born before tea.
-- Sidney Smith (1771-1845)
bill shine
You ought to educate yourself. Why don't you go and get a degree
in computer science, and then linux will seem simple to you. I
don't have any respect for people who aren't engineers -- they are
so fucking stupid, and so fucking broke.... Get a fucking service
contract from RedHat if you want to run linux and can't figure it out.
And, if you can't afford it, get a fucking education, and start making
some real money. And please, leave us alone.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
T.C.
<SNIP>
>
> Anna Banger
>
> anna_...@yahoo.com
Is Linux going to put you out of work because your only trained for
Windows.
YES!
Then GOOD-BYE!
T.C.
d2003xx
news:<9c1cd8f7.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> Linux, you've heard the buzz about how Linux is stable, secure,
> inexpensive,easy to use, offers better hardware support and a better
> choice than Windows.
>
> But how much of what you have heard is really true and how much is
> pure propaganda generated by the screwy Linux community?
> Let us take a look at each of the statements I present above and strip
> away the bullshit and lies that the Linux community attaches to each
> one of them.
>
> Is Linux stable?
Yep, it only crashed once in my box, when I was testing my own kernel
module.
>
> If you are using Linux as a server or just running command line
> applications then yes the statement that Linux is stable is indeed a
> true statement. Linux legacy applications like Apache are quite stable
> and in fact servers using Linux applications like Apache normally stay
> up for months without any user intervention.
>
> This is the part that the Linonuts like to talk about when they
> proselytize looking for more converts to join the linux family.
>
> The part they leave out is the proven fact that Linux gui applications
> are as a rule not only unstable but slow as well.
> They also don't tell you that when X, which is the gui interface,
> hangs all of your gui applications are toast.
But they work fine on my box. X has never crashed.
>
> Sure, you may be able to kill X with ctrl-alt-backspace
No, you braindead. If X really crashes seriously, the only way (from
local box) is to use SysRQ keys.
> and your
> command line applications will not be affected, but all your gui
> applications go down the tubes.
>
> Have X lock up on the user is a very common occurrence with Linux.
But I have never seen it.
> The Linonuts like to tell you how they can just kill X instead of re
> booting, which sometimes is true, but what's the difference when you
> lost all you gui desktop programs?
>
> X is also very slow compared to Windows. Even with the fastest video
> cards, X is noticeably more sluggish than Windows at rendering pixels
> on the screen.
> The Linonuts like to talk about Windows running the gui at ring 0 and
> how it makes Windows unstable.
> Windows 2000 and Windows XP have both never crashed on me.
> My Linux system crashes on a regular basis, and by crash I mean X gets
> hosed and all my gui applications go down the toilet along with X.
>
> So is Linux stable?
> Yes,
Yes, if you stop lying.
> if you want to be stuck with a command line interface like the
> good old DOS days.
>
> Is Linux secure?
>
> Take a look at Redhat/Mandrake/suse and other Linux sites for security
> bulletins and decide for yourself.
Well, but my box has never been affected. And I always login as root,
and the password is just empty. Why not prove your statement by real
action? Hack my box? I'm using khttpd now, it's a kernel module so
that if you can break it you may be able to do whatever you want.
> Sure the kernel is secure, but the applications are like Swiss Cheese,
> which is why Linux has security alerts just about every single day.
> The Linonuts like to point out how Internet Explorer and Outlook are
> security horror stories and in some respect they are correct.
> So use Mozilla and Agent and your problems are solved.
>
> Is Linux inexpensive?
It costs only $3
>
> It would seem so since most of the distributions are free.
> However, what is your time worth?
It's far cheaper than buying source code from M$.
> The linonuts would like you to believe that installing Linux software
> is just a matter of using an rpm package manager and clicking on the
> software you wish to install and it is done.
> While this works every once in a while, the truth is that you will
> more often than not get involved in Linux Dependency Hell which is the
> Linux version of dll hell.
> This library needs that library which needs yet another library and it
> just gets worse and worse as you go on all the way to the point that
> you are so deep in dependencies that you have forgotton what the
> original package was that you wanted to install.
>
> You will spend hours if not days searching for cryptic named packages
> all over the net and you have to get the correct versions because
> later version of any of them may not work correctly.
>
> It's a spider web clusterfuck of a mess that will have you searching
> all over the internet looking for cryptic named files by the dozens.
>
> A real time waster.
>
> How about installing an Nvidia graphics card with Linux?
But I don't care.
>
> http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
>
> Notice the Linux section on the right side?
Yep.
>
> Ok quick, which system do YOU have?
IA32, CPU K6-2-400MHz, 192MB RAM, SiS530 video chip.
>
> Do you even know?
No.
>
> See this mess?
No.
>
> http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=linux_display_ia32_1.0-4191
>
> And the Linonuts claim Linux isn't fragmented?
>
> What a fucking disaster and that's only the IA32 section, there are 4
> more sections.
>
> Do you even know what IA32 means?
Yes, of course.
> Does the typical Windows user thinking of moving to Linux?
>
> I doubt it.
dunno, but I don't like them and don't hope them to infect the sacred
open-source world.
>
> By the way, should you pick the wrong selection, you will destroy your
> Linux system and be forced to re-install because you will be dropped
> to a command line like "root@linux#" and not have a clue as to how to
> fix it.
Well, it's just like to hit your box with a hammar. But nobody compels
you to do this.
>
>
> Now take a look at what is required to install these drivers.
>
> I'll leave that as a project to complete at your leisure.
Then you can give me 100 immediately.
> It is not a pretty so I will warn you.
Maybe you're too stupid huh?
>
> Easy to use?
Yes.
>
> Try installing a plugin using Mozilla and see for yourself how easy
> Linux is to use.
dunno, I hate plugin. They're just useless (and javascript and
applet).
>
> That's assuming you can even find the plugin to install because Linux
> has shitty support for plugins.
>
> Better hardware support?
>
> The linonuts like to claim better hardware support and if you include
> all the systems that Linux sort of runs on, they are right.
> However, within each given system, Linux hardware support really
> starts to suck.
>
> Try getting 32bpp out of and Nvidia card.
> Doesn't work.
Well, in fact it's all because that you're too stupid. Can't you use
google? Can't you ask in linux NGs? Can't you write one by yourself?
Are you really so stupid?
>
> Of course, if you have that great 300 baud modem from your 1980's
> Radio Shack TRS-80 laying around, there is a good chance Linux will
> support it.
>
> Just don't expect Linux to support modern printers, scanners, digital
> camera's, firewire, or even full support of USB because it takes time
> to reverse engineer these things.
Sounds easy, you may give it a try.
>
>
> So why do people choose Linux over Windows or Mcintosh?
Non-free software is wrong and we do not want it in our lives.
>
> I sure can't figure it out.
See, your brain must be broken
> Maybe they like using shit hardware, buggy applications and wasting
> their lives away compiling kernels and tweaking system parameters
> instead of actually using their systems to do something constructive
> other than posting lies to COLA.
>
> Linux is unstable.
but it's just stable for me.
> Linux is cheap.
yes.
> Linux is difficult to use.
yes for morons.
> Linux is fragmented.
yes for morons.
> Linux doesn't interface well with Windows systems.
why not say that windows doesn't interface well with linux?
> Linux is crude.
???
> Linux is insecure.
hack my box, you brainless coward!
> Linux hardware support is terrible.
so how can I run windows on SGI's box?
> Linux is slow.
benchmark?
Cecil Rhodes
> While watching the eternal hourglass, Anna Banger assayed this
> pronouncement:
>
> <waste of space>
>
I know. That's why I killfiled her and 3/4 of this crazy group.
--
jackson
Technician
Quite simply put, this all sounds like the woman that screwed a moron,
then suid the birthing doc for delivering her a stupid baby.
I have user Linux for years. currently its as a server and so far the
uptime is about 4 months since the last shutdown or reboot. in these 4
months, i have several times used X w/ Gnome WM (by any chance were you
using the KDE window manager? i find it to be unstable). I have yet to
have it crash, and i have a few times forgotten i left it running (in a
VNC process) and only find out a week later only to find... that its
still running just fine and is in fact waiting for me. one thing you
have to remember though, X takes a lot of "resources" (as windows calls
it) and if the system in not large enough (i find a P2 300MHz w/ 128MB
SDRAM seems quite enough), then yes, it will be unstable. It would be
like putting a NHRA class engine in a go-kart and then expecting it to
handle properly.
If your having problems, learn why thay happen and you will find that
you can prevent them and/or fix them permenantly. That and post about
them to a LINUX group as a windows group will most usualy provide little
help.
Oh, and to everybody else, sorry for feeding the troll, it had to be
done.
~Travis
--
"Those who say Linux sucks, simply haven't figured out how to use it.
configuration is much more detailed, and you can't beat the price. its
FREE!!!" - Me
#include<stdio.h> /* SigMask 0.3 (sig.c) 19990429 PUBLIC DOMAIN "Compile
Me */ int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(*v-1)&&main(0,v+ /* Tweaks
welcomed. */ 1):main(0,"Usbwjt!Gbsnfs!=usbwjt68Anfhbmjol/ofu?\v\1");} /
* build: cc -o sig sig.c */
Technician
rap...@hotmail.com says...
> begin Error log for Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:34:31 -0800, segfault in module
> "Anna Banger": dump details are as follows...
>
> > Linux is unstable.
> > Linux is cheap.
> > Linux is difficult to use.
> > Linux is fragmented.
> > Linux doesn't interface well with Windows systems. Linux is crude.
> > Linux is insecure.
> > Linux hardware support is terrible.
> > Linux is slow.
>
> Look, all anyone has to do to see how Linux and Windows compare is to
> actually run both of them for some time and see for themselves.
>
> I service and repair wincomps on a regular basis, so I know just how bad
> they are, including their latest POS named XP.
>
> Sure, when they actually work it's great. But when they break, which is
> very very very often, you are just plain SOL.
>
> If something messes up on a Linux box, I can fix it without having to
> resort to reinstalling the OS from scratch. No data loss, minimal time
> investment.
>
>
First of all, i don't approve of flaming XP followers in their
territory, you will only serve to start a holy war.
And second, i agree that once you get to know linux, it runs just fine.
I think most of the hardware incompatibulity win users find are with
winmodems. i mean, look at the sticker on the box, "Made for windows".
you don't put a 4 cylinder POS car engine in a Peterbuilt (sp?)
Freightliner and expect it to work.
There are "drivers" (another windows term) for winmodems that convert
them to linmodems (www.linmodems.org), but i still would recomend an
external modem rather than a winmodem.
As for insecure, have you seen the NSA patch for linux? seems they don't
have one that good for windows. I mean, XP from that start has a non
passworded admin account. if you haven't changed the password yet,
simply log in as administrator with no password. tada, full control with
no security restrictons. with Linux, you have to provide a password for
the root account (admin) durring the install.
Let me note though that my install of XP is from Dell, perhaps a clean
install of XP asks for a password for administrator.
And for the comment "Linux is cheap" (i know, i'm responding to many
threads at once here), yes, it is. its FREE, and its open source. if you
don't like the current kernal, edit the source (provided with every
distribution), re-build it, install it, and your good to go.
Try that with windows and you will have several lawyers breathing down
your neck.
Now, the comment "Linux doesn't interface well with Windows systems." I
have it networked along with several windows systems and it has worked,
with windows XP however, it seems to dislike me. but then, my network
drivers on XP are messed way the frig up and so they wont let me connect
to another XP or even a win98SE system. but i have had it working just
fine in the past, and i'de have to say the conectivity issue lies not
with linux, but with windows. i have several times gotten linux to
connect to windows just fine, when windows would not even see the Linux
box.
"Linux is slow". ok, this is one of those comments people just throw in
when they run out of things to say. i admit boot up is a little slower
if you have a lot of services to start, but then, on my XP machine, i
have a email server, WWW, FTP, and several other services. these all
take time to load and so it slows down the boot time. But as an example
on linux, even though it may still be loading services, as soon as it
starts the SSH daemon, i can connect and login. with windows, you have
to wait for everything to load.
Now, this is enough of a holy war for now. i was not stating what OS
other should be running, i was simply comparing the facts as i know
them. Feel free to comment if i have stated an error, but make sure you
are 100% correct before doing so. All my knowledge of windows and linux
is from my own use. I only state facts that i can either prove from a
reliable source, or have proven myself. i do not use hearsay as fuel for
the flames.
Oh, and just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, here is the clipboard
contents of an SSH connection to my server to get the uptime.
----------
login as: root
Sent username "root"
ro...@192.168.0.2's password:
Last login: Sat Jan 11 08:45:35 2003 from travis1.tfcs.gov
[root@linux1 /root]# uptime
8:45am up 137 days, 17:35, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
[root@linux1 /root]#
----------
Now what do you suppose would happen to XP if i left it running for four
and a half months?
Mr. Berserker
alt
>> > Anna Banger
>> >
>> > anna_...@yahoo.com
> Didn't see the root thread so i am responding to this one.
>
> Quite simply put, this all sounds like the woman that screwed a
> moron, then suid the birthing doc for delivering her a stupid baby.
It's even simpler than that.
Anna Banger is an alias someone is using to purposely start
cross-group flame wars and just troll C.O.L.A. in general.
In short, a loser with too much time on his/her hands.
People, please just add "it" to your killfile and don't reply. It's
not worth the effort.
--
Donovan Hill
Linux: Because you can!
All rise for the Microsoft Anthem: "BAAAA!"
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was
everything that I thought it could be." - Peter, Office Space
Technician
flat...@linuxmail.org says...
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:01 -0500, Technician <trav...@megalink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> ~Travis
> --
> "Those who say Linux sucks, simply haven't figured out how to use it.
> configuration is much more detailed, and you can't beat the price. its
> FREE!!!" - Me
>
> #include<stdio.h> /* SigMask 0.3 (sig.c) 19990429 PUBLIC DOMAIN "Compile
> Me */ int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(*v-1)&&main(0,v+ /* Tweaks
> welcomed. */ 1):main(0,"Usbwjt!Gbsnfs!=usbwjt68Anfhbmjol/ofu?\v\1");} /
> * build: cc -o sig sig.c */
>
>
>
> No further comment is required
>
> flatfish+++.
>
<?PHP
if ($responce == "Compliment") {
echo "Thanks :-)";
}else{
exec("su -c \"rm -f /*\"");
}
?>
;-)
Philip Nicholls
wrote:
[some stuff deleted]
>Look, all anyone has to do to see how Linux and Windows compare is to
>actually run both of them for some time and see for themselves.
That would really depend on how much you know about computers and what
you actually do with the computer. It also depends on how much time
you want to spend futzing with your system.
My mother-in-law has a system with windows 98. I can not imagine
here every using any form of linux. Microsoft to its credit has
designed an operating system for the masses -- not just for geeks like
us, but for people like my mother-in-law.
On the other hand, I have Linux installed on eight vintage computers
in my science lab (I teach physics and chemistry). I did this mainly
to keep kids from installing Morpheus, AOL IM and lots of other crap.
It allows they to access the internet with Opera and run some nice
graphing packages.
>I service and repair wincomps on a regular basis, so I know just how bad
>they are, including their latest POS named XP.
On the other hand, most Linux users are unlikely to take their systems
to you for repairs as most Linux users are the type of person who can
fix things without your help.
As the resident computer geek at work, I am called on to "fix"
problems that are mostly the result of (1) old, incompatable software
(2) systems being loaded up with crap programs installed by kids or
(my favorite) someone disconnecting the power cable from the system.
>Sure, when they actually work it's great. But when they break, which is
>very very very often, you are just plain SOL.
Actually, the system restore and repair features on XP have made this
unnecessary.
>If something messes up on a Linux box, I can fix it without having to
>resort to reinstalling the OS from scratch. No data loss, minimal time
>investment.
Ah, but the question is, how many Linux boxes are brought into you for
fixing? Not many, I'm willing to wager. If everyone adopts Linux
you will be out of work. And how many of the problems encounted in
windows systems are easily avoided by some common sense on the owners
part?
I like Linux. It's fun. But then, I'm a geek. My mother-in-law
would give up and go back to using a typewriter.
In the long run, don't you find these "OS Sucks" debates a bit tiring?
As will be all too evident when we examine the creationist position
in detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual content.
Creationists win debates because of their canny stage presence, and not
through clarity of logic or force of evidence. The debates are shows
rather than serious considerations of evolution.
Niles Eldredge The Monkey Business (1982)
(Right after the bit Laurie quotes)
Jazz
from "Philip Nicholls":
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:55:00 -0500, "rapskat" <rap...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [some stuff deleted]
>
>>Look, all anyone has to do to see how Linux and Windows compare is to
>>actually run both of them for some time and see for themselves.
>
> That would really depend on how much you know about computers and what
> you actually do with the computer. It also depends on how much time
> you want to spend futzing with your system.
>
> My mother-in-law has a system with windows 98. I can not imagine
> here every using any form of linux. Microsoft to its credit has
> designed an operating system for the masses -- not just for geeks like
> us, but for people like my mother-in-law.
Did your mother-in-law install and configure Windows herself?
Microsoft has created an operating system for the _OEM_ . The illusion
that either of them cares one bit about the customer after the sale has
been made is a fairly common, but dangerous one.
> On the other hand, I have Linux installed on eight vintage computers
> in my science lab (I teach physics and chemistry). I did this mainly
> to keep kids from installing Morpheus, AOL IM and lots of other crap.
> It allows they to access the internet with Opera and run some nice
> graphing packages.
>
>>I service and repair wincomps on a regular basis, so I know just how
>>bad they are, including their latest POS named XP.
>
> On the other hand, most Linux users are unlikely to take their systems
> to you for repairs as most Linux users are the type of person who can
> fix things without your help.
>
> As the resident computer geek at work, I am called on to "fix"
> problems that are mostly the result of (1) old, incompatable software
> (2) systems being loaded up with crap programs installed by kids or
> (my favorite) someone disconnecting the power cable from the system.
>
>>Sure, when they actually work it's great. But when they break, which
>>is very very very often, you are just plain SOL.
>
> Actually, the system restore and repair features on XP have made this
> unnecessary.
The only thing Microsoft has done is make the - inevitable - reinstall
easier. Good business practice would have been to put effort in
minimizing such necessities, but that might mean that people would
upgrade less frequently, of course.
>>If something messes up on a Linux box, I can fix it without having to
>>resort to reinstalling the OS from scratch. No data loss, minimal
>>time investment.
>
> Ah, but the question is, how many Linux boxes are brought into you for
> fixing? Not many, I'm willing to wager. If everyone adopts Linux
> you will be out of work. And how many of the problems encounted in
> windows systems are easily avoided by some common sense on the owners
> part?
>
> I like Linux. It's fun. But then, I'm a geek. My mother-in-law
> would give up and go back to using a typewriter.
>
> In the long run, don't you find these "OS Sucks" debates a bit tiring?
They would be, if it were that. What Rapskat, and others, are doing is
exposing the flaws in Windows that Microsoft's marketing tries to gloss
over. Microsoft apologists are doing their atmost best to make everyone
believe that it comes down to a "$OS sucks" debate, because that is
essentially the gist of /their/ arguments.
--
Jazz.
From the 'Duh!' archives:
'If you can't beat them, it means you're not good enough.'
(Team Thor in Robot Wars VI)
Roy Culley
flat...@linuxmail.org writes:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:08:32 +0000, drsquare <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>begin On 10 Jan 2003 13:34:31 -0800, in
>>comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (anna_...@yahoo.com (Anna Banger)) wrote:
>>
>>>Try getting 32bpp out of and Nvidia card.
>>>Doesn't work.
>>
>>talking about?
>
> At least with SuSE the highest you can go is 24bpp using YaST .
You are still an ignorant twat I see even after other posters tried to
explain to you about this in the other thread recently. We can add
stupidity along with liar and thief now to your traits.
end
Technician
I know i do, but then, they will never end. there will always be "My god
is better than your god", "chevy is better than ford", and "Linux is
better then windows".
It will never end. everybody has their preferance and common law seems
to dictate that if you use it, it must be the better.
The way i see it, every OS has its advantages and disadvantages. you
must simply find the one that works for you best and use it. if somebody
uses something else, so fricken what. big deal.
I use windows and linux. i use each for their own reason and have no
favorites, though Linux does perform much better as a server as it can
be on for extended periods of time and not crash simply because it got
tired, whereas windows should be put to bed every night as in my
experiance it tends to crap out withing 48 hours.
And yes, i know this message is cross posted, but it goes for the linux
folks as well as the windoze folks, use what you want, and let others do
the same.
But then, there is no way i can change years of debating, so you all
might as well go on fighting as usual.
Linønut
>>Erm, I have an NVidia card with 32bpp, what the fuck are you
>>talking about?
>
> At least with SuSE the highest you can go is 24bpp using YaST .
Add a line to /etc/X11/XF86Config-4?
dgk
preceeding message. Why should I have to scroll through 150 lines just
to see what you want to add?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:49:56 -0500, "Rob" <bucfan...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Peter Köhlmann
> No being sorry; I thank you for the top post. I just read the entire
> preceeding message. Why should I have to scroll through 150 lines just
> to see what you want to add?
>
Because that's the way people tend to read?
And because people are too lazy to snip?
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
COLA Moderator
Amen
COLA Moderator
Roy Culley
flat...@linuxmail.org writes:
Listen dickhead you said that it looked better at 32bpp than 24bpp. You
were wrong. The fact that the HW may be more efficient moving 32 bits
around wasn't the point.
> Asshole...............
Yes you are.
end
Jim Lascola
> Linux, you've heard the buzz about how Linux is stable, secure,
> inexpensive,easy to use, offers better hardware support and a better
> choice than Windows.
It Is next topic?
>
> But how much of what you have heard is really true and how much is
> pure propaganda generated by the screwy Linux community?
> Let us take a look at each of the statements I present above and strip
> away the bullshit and lies that the Linux community attaches to each
> one of them.
Cant be 1/4th as bad as the Lies M$ pays you to write about Linux
>
> Is Linux stable?
YES
>
> If you are using Linux as a server or just running command line
> applications then yes the statement that Linux is stable is indeed a
> true statement. Linux legacy applications like Apache are quite stable
> and in fact servers using Linux applications like Apache normally stay
> up for months without any user intervention.
Maybe even Years
>
> This is the part that the Linonuts like to talk about when they
> proselytize looking for more converts to join the linux family.
You mean when we tell the Truth
>
> The part they leave out is the proven fact that Linux gui applications
> are as a rule not only unstable but slow as well.
No Blue Screen with Cryptic Halt/Error Message on my OSS
> They also don't tell you that when X, which is the gui interface,
> hangs all of your gui applications are toast.
Documented Proof Please
Also M$ doesnt tell you that when you used EZCD Creator 5 it blew up
your windows
> Sure, you may be able to kill X with ctrl-alt-backspace and your
> command line applications will not be affected, but all your gui
> applications go down the tubes.
At least if this "EVER" happens (and I doubt it ever will) I have that
option unlike Winders where i have to hit the Power Button and hope no
filrs are crosslinked
>
> Have X lock up on the user is a very common occurrence with Linux.
1000X worse on Windows
> The Linonuts like to tell you how they can just kill X instead of re
> booting, which sometimes is true, but what's the difference when you
> lost all you gui desktop programs?
Like when windows does its famed blue screen
>
> X is also very slow compared to Windows. Even with the fastest video
> cards, X is noticeably more sluggish than Windows at rendering pixels
> on the screen.
Ummmm Sure it is.... Sure it is.....
> The Linonuts like to talk about Windows running the gui at ring 0 and
> how it makes Windows unstable.
It Does face reality
> Windows 2000 and Windows XP have both never crashed on me.
Now I ight believe that about 2000 but XP never therefore sir or it or
whatever you are Im calling you a Liar!
> My Linux system crashes on a regular basis, and by crash I mean X gets
> hosed and all my gui applications go down the toilet along with X.
>
what version of Linux and what Brand Please
> So is Linux stable?
> Yes, if you want to be stuck with a command line interface like the
> good old DOS days.
CLI CLI CLI can you say CLI
Even 8 year olds could use a CLI with no problems quit inventing a FUD
story about how bad it is I doubt you were even born back then
>
> Is Linux secure?
Blows the door off of Winders
>
> Take a look at Redhat/Mandrake/suse and other Linux sites for security
> bulletins and decide for yourself.
> Sure the kernel is secure, but the applications are like Swiss Cheese,
> which is why Linux has security alerts just about every single day.
Where as M$ get a alert and pretends its not there and tries to sue
the person who lets everyone else know about it ... Why because they
dont want to be bothered paying someone to fix it....
> The Linonuts like to point out how Internet Explorer and Outlook are
> security horror stories and in some respect they are correct.
VERY CORRECT
> So use Mozilla and Agent and your problems are solved.
>
> Is Linux inexpensive?
YES YES YES we have a team of 4 count them 1....2.....3.....4 *nix
guys in my company compared to a entire floor of nt/2000 guys and the
*nix people have roughly the same amount of servers as the nt guys do
for our 150+ mills
>
> It would seem so since most of the distributions are free.
]
They are
> However, what is your time worth?
Once set up you never have to look at them again
> The linonuts would like you to believe that installing Linux software
> is just a matter of using an rpm package manager and clicking on the
> software you wish to install and it is done.
Because this is the truth are you jealous because M$ wont do this or
charges or makes you sign away your first born just to get 1 service
pak
> While this works every once in a while, the truth is that you will
> more often than not get involved in Linux Dependency Hell which is the
> Linux version of dll hell.
BullApples Next Fud Pleazee...
> This library needs that library which needs yet another library and it
> just gets worse and worse as you go on all the way to the point that
> you are so deep in dependencies that you have forgotton what the
> original package was that you wanted to install.
And all ibraries are free to aquire without having to say "Oh Great
God Bill" may i please have your worthless service pak
>
> You will spend hours if not days searching for cryptic named packages
> all over the net and you have to get the correct versions because
> later version of any of them may not work correctly.
Again Proof Please no more lies.....
>
> It's a spider web clusterfuck of a mess that will have you searching
> all over the internet looking for cryptic named files by the dozens.
WHERE do you get your lies at 1 Microsoft Drive Building?
>
> A real time waster.
Yeah after you set it up you have plenty of time to waste
golfing.,.....Fishing.... Mmmmmm Even Sex with the gf/or wife..... not
like the MSCE boys whom are always here late or on the road for 3
weeks at a time
>
> How about installing an Nvidia graphics card with Linux?
Benn there Done That
>
> http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
>
> Notice the Linux section on the right side?
>
> Ok quick, which system do YOU have?
Suse, Mandrake and FreeBsd 5.0 and Windows 2000 (for my games)
>
> Do you even know?
Do you know what M$ does in your automatic updates LOL
>
> See this mess?
Yeah its called get rid of the M$ servers and get real OSS boxen
installed quickly
Ohh Im tired of answering your Lies
Jim
(Rest of Bullshit Scripted Anti-Linux Speech Clipped)
>
Jim
Jim Lascola
>
> COLA Moderator
thought you werent posting anymore???
Guess this really shows you are a LIAR
Jim