Linux is better than windows because...
-
-
Thx Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
-
oh man! Why didn't you tell me earlier? I wouldn't have lost ten years on this .. how do you write it? Window$ ?
I beleive the product you are thinking of is "Micro$haft Winblow$" :-D -- David Wengier Sonork ID: 100.14177 - Ch00k
-
I beleive the product you are thinking of is "Micro$haft Winblow$" :-D -- David Wengier Sonork ID: 100.14177 - Ch00k
-
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows itslef or the concept of a single GUI platform that always looks the same no matter what system it runs on. Indeed, Linux zealots could learn a few things from the Windows GUI's pervasive presence. I have a problem with the company that created Windows, and the things THEY pollute the OS with. That being said, here's my response to the linked text (point by point). To the dickhead that posted this, you're just another anal pore and sys admin wannabe who thinks that it's cool (oops - I meant "kewl") to bash Windows and that it somehow makes you look like you might know something about what you're talking about. Until this kind of shit ends, NOTHING good will happen about Microsoft in favor of Linux. Lastly, this thread just proves that fuckin' children like the idot that started it shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near a computer connected to the internet until they can prove to have a certain level of goddamn respect and maturity. Now, for the moment you've all waited for, my point-by-point responses. =========================================================================== > 1. Linux screen blankers don't turn your PC into a Microsoft ad. My "screen blanker" is a black screen on four of my systems, and the screen turns off on the other. I checked, and I see no ads for Microsoft on any of them. > 2. It isn't fair to say the Windows GUI is a poor copy of X-windows. > Actually it's a poor copy of the Mac. It's actually a poor copy of some bizarre mating between Gem and the Mac. X-Windows is a poor copy of the Xerox thing that Apple ripped of for the Mac. > 3. Windows, being a commercial product, is so ridiculously insecure an > undergraduate student in the Phillipines could accidentally bring down > millions of systems. I wasn't aware that was an accident. The code he wrote was intended to cause harm to a computer running Windows. He certainly wrote that on purpose. His claim that it was released into the wild "accidently" is something only HE truly knows. What he *knows* to be true and what he *claims* to be be true could be two completely different things. > Microsoft's answer to this was that if anyone is > stupid enough to click on an icon generated by Microsoft's own software, > they deserve what they get. I don't think they said that. I think a Linux guy said that. > Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating > virus or worm in over 10 years. How would you know? Only five or six people hoinestl
-
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows itslef or the concept of a single GUI platform that always looks the same no matter what system it runs on. Indeed, Linux zealots could learn a few things from the Windows GUI's pervasive presence. I have a problem with the company that created Windows, and the things THEY pollute the OS with. That being said, here's my response to the linked text (point by point). To the dickhead that posted this, you're just another anal pore and sys admin wannabe who thinks that it's cool (oops - I meant "kewl") to bash Windows and that it somehow makes you look like you might know something about what you're talking about. Until this kind of shit ends, NOTHING good will happen about Microsoft in favor of Linux. Lastly, this thread just proves that fuckin' children like the idot that started it shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near a computer connected to the internet until they can prove to have a certain level of goddamn respect and maturity. Now, for the moment you've all waited for, my point-by-point responses. =========================================================================== > 1. Linux screen blankers don't turn your PC into a Microsoft ad. My "screen blanker" is a black screen on four of my systems, and the screen turns off on the other. I checked, and I see no ads for Microsoft on any of them. > 2. It isn't fair to say the Windows GUI is a poor copy of X-windows. > Actually it's a poor copy of the Mac. It's actually a poor copy of some bizarre mating between Gem and the Mac. X-Windows is a poor copy of the Xerox thing that Apple ripped of for the Mac. > 3. Windows, being a commercial product, is so ridiculously insecure an > undergraduate student in the Phillipines could accidentally bring down > millions of systems. I wasn't aware that was an accident. The code he wrote was intended to cause harm to a computer running Windows. He certainly wrote that on purpose. His claim that it was released into the wild "accidently" is something only HE truly knows. What he *knows* to be true and what he *claims* to be be true could be two completely different things. > Microsoft's answer to this was that if anyone is > stupid enough to click on an icon generated by Microsoft's own software, > they deserve what they get. I don't think they said that. I think a Linux guy said that. > Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating > virus or worm in over 10 years. How would you know? Only five or six people hoinestl
Wow, and they say that postal employees have bad days! Ease up a little John. Nick Parker
-
More stuff for point number 8 (linux backwards compatibility): I don't think IPChains will work on earlier versions of the kernel, and there seems to be some confusin on exactly which version of the compiler can/cannot be used to compile with. Further, some apps that don't use the new libs as compiled by the new compiler won't run or compile. I guess that means Linux isn't any more compativble with older versions of Linux than Windows is with earlier versions of itself. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows itslef or the concept of a single GUI platform that always looks the same no matter what system it runs on. Indeed, Linux zealots could learn a few things from the Windows GUI's pervasive presence. I have a problem with the company that created Windows, and the things THEY pollute the OS with. That being said, here's my response to the linked text (point by point). To the dickhead that posted this, you're just another anal pore and sys admin wannabe who thinks that it's cool (oops - I meant "kewl") to bash Windows and that it somehow makes you look like you might know something about what you're talking about. Until this kind of shit ends, NOTHING good will happen about Microsoft in favor of Linux. Lastly, this thread just proves that fuckin' children like the idot that started it shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near a computer connected to the internet until they can prove to have a certain level of goddamn respect and maturity. Now, for the moment you've all waited for, my point-by-point responses. =========================================================================== > 1. Linux screen blankers don't turn your PC into a Microsoft ad. My "screen blanker" is a black screen on four of my systems, and the screen turns off on the other. I checked, and I see no ads for Microsoft on any of them. > 2. It isn't fair to say the Windows GUI is a poor copy of X-windows. > Actually it's a poor copy of the Mac. It's actually a poor copy of some bizarre mating between Gem and the Mac. X-Windows is a poor copy of the Xerox thing that Apple ripped of for the Mac. > 3. Windows, being a commercial product, is so ridiculously insecure an > undergraduate student in the Phillipines could accidentally bring down > millions of systems. I wasn't aware that was an accident. The code he wrote was intended to cause harm to a computer running Windows. He certainly wrote that on purpose. His claim that it was released into the wild "accidently" is something only HE truly knows. What he *knows* to be true and what he *claims* to be be true could be two completely different things. > Microsoft's answer to this was that if anyone is > stupid enough to click on an icon generated by Microsoft's own software, > they deserve what they get. I don't think they said that. I think a Linux guy said that. > Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating > virus or worm in over 10 years. How would you know? Only five or six people hoinestl
Nicely said, John.
-
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows itslef or the concept of a single GUI platform that always looks the same no matter what system it runs on. Indeed, Linux zealots could learn a few things from the Windows GUI's pervasive presence. I have a problem with the company that created Windows, and the things THEY pollute the OS with. That being said, here's my response to the linked text (point by point). To the dickhead that posted this, you're just another anal pore and sys admin wannabe who thinks that it's cool (oops - I meant "kewl") to bash Windows and that it somehow makes you look like you might know something about what you're talking about. Until this kind of shit ends, NOTHING good will happen about Microsoft in favor of Linux. Lastly, this thread just proves that fuckin' children like the idot that started it shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near a computer connected to the internet until they can prove to have a certain level of goddamn respect and maturity. Now, for the moment you've all waited for, my point-by-point responses. =========================================================================== > 1. Linux screen blankers don't turn your PC into a Microsoft ad. My "screen blanker" is a black screen on four of my systems, and the screen turns off on the other. I checked, and I see no ads for Microsoft on any of them. > 2. It isn't fair to say the Windows GUI is a poor copy of X-windows. > Actually it's a poor copy of the Mac. It's actually a poor copy of some bizarre mating between Gem and the Mac. X-Windows is a poor copy of the Xerox thing that Apple ripped of for the Mac. > 3. Windows, being a commercial product, is so ridiculously insecure an > undergraduate student in the Phillipines could accidentally bring down > millions of systems. I wasn't aware that was an accident. The code he wrote was intended to cause harm to a computer running Windows. He certainly wrote that on purpose. His claim that it was released into the wild "accidently" is something only HE truly knows. What he *knows* to be true and what he *claims* to be be true could be two completely different things. > Microsoft's answer to this was that if anyone is > stupid enough to click on an icon generated by Microsoft's own software, > they deserve what they get. I don't think they said that. I think a Linux guy said that. > Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating > virus or worm in over 10 years. How would you know? Only five or six people hoinestl
Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating virus or worm in over 10 years First of all this moron seems to be mistaking Linux and Unix. Linux != Unix. Linux was created because Linus could not afford Unix. So their refering to unix as being linux is wrong. 7. Windows requires you agree to a license that no one has ever had the endurance to read all the way through. For all you know, it might include a demand for your first born child. With Linux, the license says: "You can do anything you want with this software. Enjoy." I have read the linux license and it does not say "You cand do anything you want with this software. Enjoy" I'm just glad I use a superior operating system that so many people are jealous of! -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
Personally, I don't have a problem with Windows itslef or the concept of a single GUI platform that always looks the same no matter what system it runs on. Indeed, Linux zealots could learn a few things from the Windows GUI's pervasive presence. I have a problem with the company that created Windows, and the things THEY pollute the OS with. That being said, here's my response to the linked text (point by point). To the dickhead that posted this, you're just another anal pore and sys admin wannabe who thinks that it's cool (oops - I meant "kewl") to bash Windows and that it somehow makes you look like you might know something about what you're talking about. Until this kind of shit ends, NOTHING good will happen about Microsoft in favor of Linux. Lastly, this thread just proves that fuckin' children like the idot that started it shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near a computer connected to the internet until they can prove to have a certain level of goddamn respect and maturity. Now, for the moment you've all waited for, my point-by-point responses. =========================================================================== > 1. Linux screen blankers don't turn your PC into a Microsoft ad. My "screen blanker" is a black screen on four of my systems, and the screen turns off on the other. I checked, and I see no ads for Microsoft on any of them. > 2. It isn't fair to say the Windows GUI is a poor copy of X-windows. > Actually it's a poor copy of the Mac. It's actually a poor copy of some bizarre mating between Gem and the Mac. X-Windows is a poor copy of the Xerox thing that Apple ripped of for the Mac. > 3. Windows, being a commercial product, is so ridiculously insecure an > undergraduate student in the Phillipines could accidentally bring down > millions of systems. I wasn't aware that was an accident. The code he wrote was intended to cause harm to a computer running Windows. He certainly wrote that on purpose. His claim that it was released into the wild "accidently" is something only HE truly knows. What he *knows* to be true and what he *claims* to be be true could be two completely different things. > Microsoft's answer to this was that if anyone is > stupid enough to click on an icon generated by Microsoft's own software, > they deserve what they get. I don't think they said that. I think a Linux guy said that. > Unix and Linux have not had a self-propagating > virus or worm in over 10 years. How would you know? Only five or six people hoinestl
-
I've noticed that when the topic of viability comes up, Linux supporters point to RedHat. I just looked up their financial statement. They have spent most of the money they got from the IPO and still haven't shown a profit. (This time they promise Q1 2002). http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir\_site.zhtml?ticker=RHAT&script=1600 Linux, like Unix was built by people with nothing better to do for people with nothing better to do. Before the Linux/Windows argument, Unix was poised to be the "killer app" of the mini computer world. Corporate america was screaming for a hardware independent O/S. They though they were really being killed by non-portable software solutions. Unix was about the only horse in the race. It still lost! The world waited for a better solution, and finally got it 10 yeasrs later in networked systems running Windows.