Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 02, 2001
 Comments:
If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs, you'll be a man my son, as the poet wrote. On the other hand, if you were the first one to lose your head as soon as things get difficult, and if you're already screaming at the victim of your pointless blame exercise and search for a scapegoat by the time the "manly" types realise that they are in shit deep enough to warrant a raised eyebrow, then come over here; you're my type of guy. I'd freely admit that I'm not the nicest of people; many would say I'm a complete prick. A complete prick whose defining pair of traits is on the one hand, a complete inability to listen to anyone else, ever, and on the other hand, an almost pathological need to find someone else to blame for my problems. This type of personality is pretty common in the investment banking industry; it is certainly possible to make a career in finance by being a nice, rational, honest human being, but I never thought I'd be any good at that, so I decided to dance with the one that brung me. I'm a short-tempered, blinkered, pig-ignorant, self-obsessed prick. Don't worry, we'll talk about your faults next week.

Some might have said that, in the circumstances, it was mighty optimistic of me to enter the world of Linux, fundamentally throwing myself at the mercy of people who would both

  • play on my sense of intellectual inferiority and
  • be extremely likely to take offence and leave me to fend for myself if I didn't treat them with respect.
They might have said that, but if they did, I didn't listen. Here's my story.
gnulinux

More stories about Gnu/Linux
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
Linux in the corporate world
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1
Alan Cox Is an Unprofessional Jerk
Richard M. Stallman: Portrait of a Pirate Hacker (in Layman's Terms)
Where Do You Stand in the GNU World Order?
Linux: From awk to sed
Adequacy Interview With Linux Torvalds

More stories by
jsm

The Gay Tax
LNUX = FC?
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Teaching Astrology In Schools
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
A New Kind of Feminist Science
I had decided a few months earlier to install Linux because it was cool (I maintain to this day, that this is the only valid reason for a desktop user to install Linux). I was all set up, I had my beautiful beloved Vaio laptop, all I needed was a Linux. I decided to go for the "Mandrake Linux" distribution, because a) one of my email buddies had told me it was the easiest to install, and b) they were giving it away free on the cover of a computer magazine that week, and I was fucked if I was going to pay for "free software". Yes, yes, I've read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", but let me point out to you that if you've been boasting to your honey for three weeks about how cool you are for installing "free software" and the first thing you do is come home with a box you paid $99.99 for, then she's going to laugh pretty hard. And the laughter of a beautiful woman can feel surprisingly emasculating, particularly when you're feeling a little dumb yourself, and a hundred bucks out of pocket. So Mandrake it was.

Here is my first comment of substance on the subject of Linux, which is certainly applicable to the so-called "newbie distro" produced by Mandrake, but which, I think, has more general application.

They broke my fucking computer.

Perhaps it is because they are French, and perhaps the words have a different connotation in that magical language, but I venture to say that when Mandrake use the word "resize", as in

"Would you like to resize your Windows partition?

(best said with a subtly sardonic Parisian accent)

... they do not perhaps realise that most people are going to assume that they mean "resize" in the sense of "make bigger or smaller by stretching or squashing, perhaps affecting the internal bits somewhat in the process, but basically retaining the structural integrity of the thing". When you use the word "resize" to a normal English speaker, he does not assume that the word means "delete a chunk of, irrevocably, without first checking whether something vital is on it, then render yourself unable to find that deleted block ever again".

This is the basic problem with the much-vaunted "newbie-friendly" Mandrake Installer; five times out of the six I tried it, its two main functions appeared to be to

  • Seek out and render inoperable any copies of Windows hanging around and
  • Itself fail to install properly.
When operating systems are something about which you have never had cause to think in your pre-Linux career, and when you find yourself staring at a blank screen where a desktop should be, reading in an old school font the words "Missing Operating System", and when you do not know what the hell those words mean, then I must tell you that you tend to go pretty sour, pretty quickly, on the people who put you up to installing the fucking thing in the first place. So it was with me and Linux. If you knew me during the Linux period, and if you gave me some advice on how to deal with my computer then know this; the only reason I didn't threaten to sue you, call you a useless shit-heel and send you the very nastiest virus I could find, is that with my computer completely fer-zucked by Linux, I was unable to get in touch with you to do so. I don't know anybody who knows a fucking thing about computers (the reason for this is that I am not working class). I am not prepared to shell out money for someone to mend my fucking computer; that's what warranties are for. I chucked away the warranty card for my computer the moment I opened the box. Cut off the web connection of my one and only computer, and I am truly and utterly on my own. So that's when I started buying books.

Books are one thing I will buy, because I am a bit of an old sap for the feel of the pages between my fingers and the wonderfully brainy weight of a briefcase full of paperbacks on esoteric subjects. On the other hand, I must confess to having developed a burgeoning resentment of the false advertising of "Free Software" and a growing sympathy for the transparently propagandistic Microsoft concept of "Total Concept of Ownership" when faced with the following calculation:

Microsoft Windows:
• Cost of operating system: $0 (came with the computer)
• Cost of applications: $299 (proper copy of Office, couple of games)
• Money spent on books relating to Microsoft Windows: $0 (the very idea of buying one would have seemed weird to me)
• Time spent reading books: 2hrs/year (occasionally looking up how to write macros in the manual)
Linux:
• Cost of operating system: $3.95 (the magazine was fucking useless except for the CD)
• Cost of applications: $0
• Money spent on books: $200 (vast numbers of them seemed to need to be bought to understand what the hell was going on and no one book explained anything properly)
•Cost of sitting around drinking nasty coffee in dingy internet cafes trying to work out how the fuck I was going to get my modem to work again: $40
• Cost of entire new fucking computer after I found out that I wasn't going to be able to, because fucking Linux doesn't support it: $500
• Time spent reading books: all my free time for a fucking week.

You see how the cost mounts up. And that was just to get my computer fucking working again. Christ knows how much time and expense I'm going to be put through if I ever decide to do anything with it.

In any case, I find it necessary to mention at this point the people who helped me get my computer back into action. These are a group of people to whom I feel a degree of gratitude, because they helped to rescue me from the peculiar hell which is the Mandrake installer with handy tips like "yes, the default size of partition is 2Mb for root and 0.5Mb for /usr, no, nobody knows why". But only a degree, because they refrained from giving me the best piece of advice possible, which would have been "don't fucking bother". This merry bunch of pranksters go by the name in the online community of "Linux advocates". The word "advocate" comes from the Scottish term for a lawyer charged with the hopeless task of defending an obviously guilty suspect, and is common parlance among computer types (see the Jargon File) for a mindless zealot who has mistaken the market share of his preferred computer operating system for the girth of his penis, and who believes it to be vitally important that "his" (no, never her) operating system is marketed as efficiently as possible by word of mouth to ludicrously inappropriate consumers.

However, in the case of Linux, it is inappropriate to call the zealots "OS advocates", as the vast majority of their time is not spent on comparing the features of Linux with those of other operating systems, but rather on making up excuses for the shortcomings of Linux on the desktop, and boasting about the stability and speed of Linux installations (usually webservers) utterly incomparable from the one they are recommending you install. You may think I am making this up; I wish I were. I have lost count of the number of times a Linux zealot has seen fit to bring up the subject of the hosting of Slashdot ("and numerous big companies like IBM!") in the context of a conversation about why I can't read my fucking documents any more. It is for this reason that I have coined the following truism:

Windows and MacOS have "advocates"; Linux has "apologists".
Conversations with Linux apologists tend to have three distinct phases:
  1. Very erudite-sounding discussion of your problem in terms of software projects which are either pre-alpha vaporware or, more likely, entirely theoretical ideas once floated on Slashdot. ("Yes, what would solve your problem would be the integration of Samba into the kernel with the correct RFS extensions. I think that this is a problem that Alan Cox is working on in the unstable release of Debian 4.9.01a")
  2. Grudging acceptance that there is no very good or workable solution to your problem under Linux, coupled with castigation of the iniquities of the software industry. ("Well, of course the real trouble is that HP won't open the driver source specifications so the project has to be carried out on the island of Nauru. Damn that DMCA! I heard Bruce Perens talking about a secret data repository under the sea like in this Neal Stephenson novel ...."
  3. Banging on for hours and hours about how fucking wonderful Apache is, if you let them. ("... and even Microsoft runs it for 83% of their intranet servers according to recent Gartner surveys and it really shows that Free Software works in the business environment and it was just put together by this bunch of guys and it just goes to prove ...."
The important concept to bear in mind when discussing software issues with Linux apologists is the "Linux Fault Threshold". Clever use of this concept helps you to avoid losing your temper with someone who might actually be able to render practical help, while ensuring that you give the correct dose of venom (60cc of scorpion juice, administered per anem with a rusty syringe) to the vast crowd of mindless apologists who just want you to use their pet operating system because it makes them feel good and gives them something to boast about on Slashdot. I provide this as a service to all the blind, alcoholic, incontinent grandmothers out there who appear to be installing Linux without any trouble if the Slashdot comments on any article remotely related to user interface design are to be believed.

The Linux Fault Threshold is the point in any conversation about Linux at which your interlocutor stops talking about how your problem might be solved under Linux and starts talking about how it isn't Linux's fault that your problem cannot be solved under Linux. Half the time, the LFT is reached because there is genuinely no solution (or no solution has been developed yet), while half the time, the LFT is reached because your apologist has floundered way out of his depth in offering to help you and is bullshitting far beyond his actual knowledge base. In either case, a conversation which has reached the LFT has precisely zero chance of ever generating useful advice for you; it is safe at this point to start calling the person offering the advice a fucking moron, and basically take it from there. Here's an example taken from IRC logs to help you understand the concept.

<jsm> Why won't my fucking Linux computer print?
<linuxbabe> what printer r u using?
<jsm> I don't know. It's a Hewlett Packard desktop inkjet number
<linuxbabe> hewlett r lamers. they dont open source drivers <------LFT closely approached!
<linuxbabe> but we reverse engineered them lol. check the web. or ask hewlett for linux suuport??<------ but avoided, he's still talking about the problem
<jsm> Thanks. I already did that. But I can't install the drivers on my fucking computer. I've got a floppy disk from HP, but my floppy drive is a USB drive and Linux doesn't have fucking USB support.
<linuxbabe> linux DOES have USB support!!!!!!
<jsm> yeh for fucking infrared mice, and for about a thousand makes of webcam it does. Get real here. For my fucking floppy disk drive, I am telling you through bitter experience it does not. Even if someone has written the drivers in the last week
<jsm> which I sincerely doubt, how the hell am I going to install them given that my floppy drive doesnt work?????
<jsm> this ought to be in the kernel. what good is a fucking operating system that doesnt operate?
<linuxbabe> Imacs dont have floppy drives at all <----- useless point, but not LFT. All apologists make pointless jabs at other OSs
<linuxbabe> so you ought to be greateful that Linux does. drivers like that shouldn't be bundled in the kernel
<linuxbabe> makes it into fucking M$ bloatware. bleh
<linuxbabe> download drivers from the web!!!! apt-get is your friend
<jsm> So everyone keeps telling me. Unfortunately the fucking modem doesn't work under Linux either, and since the Linux installation destroyed Windows, that leaves me kind of fucked.
<linuxbabe> Linux doesnt destroy windows
<jsm>mandrake installer does. It "resized" my Windows partition and now the fucker won't work
<linuxbabe> you shuold have defragmented. windows scatters data all over your hard drive so the installer cant just find a clean chunk to install into. it isn't linux fault <---- distinct signs of LFT being approached
<linuxbabe> that windoze disk management blows
<jsm> so why doesn't my fucking modem work?
<linuxbabe> what computer hav u got
<jsm> A Sony Vaio PCG
<linuxbabe> that doesn't have a modem
<jsm> I assure you it fucking does. I used to use it to check my email back in the days when Windows worked.
<linuxbabe> its got a winmodem. thats not a modem <----- nitpicking over technical terms is a sign of impending LFT
<jsm> what do you mean?
<linuxbabe> a winmodem isnt a proper modem. it just uses proprietary windoze apis. doesnt do the work of a modem at all.
<jsm> Very interesting. Now how do I get the fucker to work with Linux?
<linuxbabe> well the trouble is that micro$oft won't open up the drivers they just keep it proprietary and becos theyr a monopoly all the lameass manufacturers fall into line

LFT REACHED !!!!!

<jsm> So in other words, my fucking modem is never going to work with Linux at all?
<linuxbabe> no no no. in the first place you never had a modem you had a winmodem. in the second place its M$ fault that the drivers are closed and you can go to jail for trying to reverse engineer them like this guy dimitri skylab and the DMCA. its nothing to do with linux that M$ fills the world with its proprietary crap
<jsm> But in terms of actually getting my computer to work with Linux, I get the impression that it won't?
<linuxbabe> M$ should have to open up the drivers have you read CatB? and vaio sucks because they won't open up their standards either.
<jsm> Congratulations on wasting half an hour of my life, you fucking loser. And stop pretending to be a fucking woman. Your advice is useless. You, and the other hundred members of the so called fucking Linux community for which you stand, have broken my computer, wasted my time, patronised me senseless, revealed your lack of real knowledge, patronised me again and you *still* can't get something as simple as a fucking laptop computer to fucking work. Your so called free fucking software, like your
<jsm> so called fucking free advice, is still too fucking expensive. I cannot believe that you have so little fucking self-respect that in order to find the attention you clearly crave, you have to spend your life lying about the usability of a fucking computer operating system, purely for the joy of creating problems which you can then pretend to solve. You are worse than a fucking fireman who sets buildings on fire. I have had enough of your fucking Munchausen-by-proxy version of tech support. Now get off
<jsm> this fucking channel, hunt down someone who knows what they're fucking doing and bring them here or I will never, repeat never, use your fucking system ag ....

---DISCONNECT ---

That's basically what it's like. Don't ever, ever believe anyone who tells you that you can get technical support from "the community". Because "the community" with whom a computer journalist, website operator or Open Source loudmouth interacts, is not the same community that is open to you.

Next episode: Linux the hard way -- I discard all Microsoft products and head for StarOffice


OT: Apache. (3.75 / 4) (#17)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:48:57 AM PST
Apache is one godawful piece of shit software. I mean, several megabytes of code for something that basically copies files over TCP/IP? Are you fucking kidding me? Plus, the monstrosity takes up an ungodly amount of system resources. Wake up, serving files over HTTP is not exactly rocket science. It's a second-year college project at most. Saying that Apache is bloated is an understatement; it simply boggles the mind -- personally, I have no idea what they did to accomplish this. I wouldn't be able to make such a bloated HTTP server even if I was working full-time on adding bloat and getting paid for it. Horrible is not the word for it.

Heck, even the official GNU version of "Hello World" weighs in at over 250 kilobytes! As a compressed tarball! I am not kidding you, go check for yourself if in doubt. No comment here, words would fail me.

P.S. If you think Apache is bad, take a look at BIND.


--
Peace and much love...




Isolated Incident (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:45:48 PM PST
You're right. Bloated shitty software would never capture a majority of the market share. Unless of course, you're talking about Apache or Microsoft.


Reason (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:54:43 PM PST
The reason apache is so darn bloated is that it is designed to do a lot more than just serving regular webpages. It's designed to handle dynamic pages such as php, and others. It's dumb to use apache for regular webpages. Since apache is a hog for this. You are better of using something much less bloated like THTTP.


 
Rocket science? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:53:37 PM PST
Wake up, serving files over HTTP is not exactly rocket science. It's a second-year college project at most

Ah, so that's where Microsoft got IIS from!

:)


 
Bloated? (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:53:55 PM PST
What are you talking about? This line was taken from `top' of Apache running on Mandrake-Linux:

14659 nobody 768 S 0:01 0.0 0.1 httpd

For clarity, those items are: PID, Owner, MEMORY SIZE IN BYTES, Status, Time running(minutes), %CPU, %MEM

I have six instances of Apache running, which means that I'm using a whopping 4.5KB of memory. Now I don't know about you, but that much memory just sends my system thrashing.


Apache sux (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:28:28 AM PST
It absolutely kills the 12mb ram 486 it runs on here. I wish I could afford Windows 2000, bet that would whup ass.


wtf? (1.00 / 2) (#124)
by jiminim on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 08:56:12 AM PST
How the hell do you plan to run w2k with 12mb RAM?

-Jim
-- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

 
Can We Say Dumb Ass... (1.00 / 1) (#128)
by Solo on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:48:07 AM PST
What is your major malfunction little boy. You really don't believe that you can get W2K to run on anything less than:


Minimum Requirements
Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU

Memory 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness

Hard Disk 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space

Does 486 with 12 Meg Ram Meet the Min Requirements for W2K as given by Microsoft, I think not...


 
Doh (0.00 / 1) (#212)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:28:15 AM PST
Can you people even begin to spell the word sarcasm.

He is kidding.


Spelling (none / 0) (#219)
by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 02:23:43 PM PST
"Can you people even begin to spell the word sarcasm."

S... a... r... k... no, no.

S... e... r... no, that's not it.

S... a... r... c... h... a... that's not right.

S... q... a... r... NO!

P... s... a... NO!

S... k... a... r... a... s... i... hmm, that seems wrong too.

No, no we CAN'T even being to spell the word "sarcasm."


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

 
correction (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:41:05 AM PST
MEMORY SIZE IN BYTES

No, actually it is memory size in kilobytes, so it is almost 5 megs, not 5 kb.


You're wrong too (none / 0) (#222)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:01:00 AM PST
Actually it is size in kB, BUT all that memory is shared amongst the six processes (it's threaded). So apache only uses 700k or ram. Oh wow.


wow (none / 0) (#241)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 11:55:39 PM PST
and it goes on. no, memory is not shared between processes and the apache 2 (the first to support real threads) is still beta.

yes, 5mb is rediculous for a 99.9% idle vanity webserver.




 
Apache is like Perl... (none / 0) (#55)
by sdem on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:23:17 PM PST
...jack of all trades and master of none. Take Perl for instance. If you want to write, say, a 3D shooter in Perl, you could certainly do it. However, it would be slower than molasses on a cold day, since it wasn't designed with 3D graphics in mind. If you really want to write a decent 3D shooter, you would use C++ or possibly C, because, although it would take longer, they are designed to handle that kind of task and therefore, the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Now, look at Apache. Of course it's a bloated pile of shit, it is designed to do everything but slice bread. If you want to use dynamic web pages using, say, Scoop and mod_perl, you can do that easy, and the facilities are already built in. Similarly, you can handle things such as authentication, directory attributes, and other things, including SSL. If you've ever looked at the documentation, there are more or less a million and one different options that you could play around with in the configuration if you really wanted to.

If you want to get a small, fast web server for static pages, go with something like Tux. If you want to get something designed to specifically run Perl or PHP, you should probably look at proprietary servers, although I'm not really familiar with those so you'd probably have to do some research.

Honestly, the only other open source software package that can even come close to the Apache kitchen sink approach is Emacs, which contains, among other things, its own web browser, news reader and elisp interpreter, which I think we can all agree is totally overboard for a goddamn text editor.

If you think Apache is bad, take a look at BIND.

You are right, of course. BIND really sucks. Personally, I prefer the clean, standards-compliant Windows 2000 DNS services, as they make things easier when managing enterprise-class networks, as any competant network administrator will tell you.


how about TeX (none / 0) (#122)
by jsm on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:53:26 AM PST
Honestly, the only other open source software package that can even come close to the Apache kitchen sink approach is Emacs, which contains, among other things, its own web browser, news reader and elisp interpreter, which I think we can all agree is totally overboard for a goddamn text editor.

You're forgetting TeX, the Turing complete typesetting program.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
your problem (3.00 / 3) (#19)
by alprazolam on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:06:51 PM PST
I think you way overcomplicated the situation. You seem to have tried to get information about running Mandrake through IRC. Well there's your problem. The only people who use IRC are worthless shit eating goober wannabe perl hackers. The proper way to have somebody install any version of Linux (and same goes for just about any operating system, really) is have somebody smart in these matters doing it. "Business people" have no business attempting to modify the software on their computer, and that's that.

Also Linus didn't want people to be able to install it just because they thought it was cool, so he purposefully made it difficult.

In closing, the solution to your problems are obvious: 1) stay off of IRC and 2) Don't change the software on your computer without consulting a professional.


let's see here (2.00 / 2) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:02:25 PM PST
I really wish you guys at adequacy.org qould quit attacking Windows as a whole when your problems are with a certain distro. They are NOT all equal. If you want a distro that runs on your older system look at other distros. Hopefully we won't see articles like:
"I downloaded Yellow Dog and the POS won't run on my PC"

Note: Yellow Dog is a Linux distro designed to run on Macs.

Why spend so much on books when all the HOWTOs can be found at linux.com or linux.org

OEM Windows is NOT free. The manufacturers pay licesing fees to MS which they pass on to the customer.

Resizing a partition is just that. Is "squishes everything into unused space. Resising a partition using a utility included with Linux distro is the same as with PArtition Magic.

I gather from the article that you are someone who want to point and click your way around an OS and if you can't it's a piece of shit. Linux is not for you.

Is Linux ready for the desktop? Yes and No. If you are looking for a multimedia OS then NO it's not.

MOST Linux distros DO support USB. Just like Windows it is supported through DRIVERS. Hewlett-Packard offers very nice support for Linux.

This belief that driver support and this driver and that driver should be BUILT INTO the kernel is rediculous. Believing that "well it is in Windows" is too. Many people mistakenly believe that the Windows OS and the Windows kernel are the same thing. NTKERNEL does not have a built in GUI, drivers, etc. It is what it is. A KERNEL. A kernel, plus a GUI, software libraries, and everything else makes up the OS. Linux is a kernel. Red Hat Linux, Linux Mandrake, Open Linux, etc. are OSes (aka distros). Same goes with WINDOWS. If everything was built into the kernel, the program would be HUGE. There would also be no control over which services to install because everything would need to be loaded.


 
Linux: Not Ready for the Desktop (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:15:08 PM PST
Also Linus didn't want people to be able to install it just because they thought it was cool, so he purposefully made it difficult.


And yet people still act as if he has a chance against user-friendly Windows? Sure, Windows might have problems, but Microsoft doesn't purposely make it a pain in the ass just to get a few laughs. And Linux had the nerve to say that Linux would crush MS. I can't wait until he's homeless on the streets going: "Man was I retarded to make such a crappy OS!"

As for a motto for a Linux, I think this one would be perfect and I'm sure even the Linux users would agree: Linux: Not Ready for the Desktop.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

Very true! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:48:41 PM PST
Microsoft doesn't purposely make it a pain in the ass just to get a few laughs

Very true! Well said!

In fact, they deliberately made it a pain in the ass so they could cash in on the after-sales support :)


 
Linus homeless!?! (1.00 / 1) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:28:00 PM PST
<<I can't wait until he's homeless on the streets going: "Man was I retarded to make such a crappy OS!">>

Linus Torvalds lives in Santa Clara, California, USA. He moved here from Helsinki, Finland.

He currently works for Transmeta.

Linus doesn't sit around in his house JUST hacking the linux kernel.

For those of you who absolutely MUST jump on the word HACK or CRACK, hacking the kernel is in no way a reference to hacking or cracking a network.

There are also good hackers, bad hackers, and in-betweens. They are known as WHITE HATS, GREY HATS, and BLACK HATS.

White Hats >> Think of them as the GOOD GUYS. They are typically hired by companies to test and monitor network security.

Black Hats >> The BAD GUYS. They typically hack systems and walk a fine line between hacking and cracking, while sometimes crossing it.

Grey Hats >> White hats that use unconventional means of flushing out the bad guys.

Along these lines there are a few other, like BLUE HATS, GREEN HATS, etc. These are mostly bullshit in an attempt for teenage wannabe hackers to make a name for themselves. There the guys who find daddy had written down his password to a porn site. They believe this SOMEHOW makes them hackers. Sometimes they are also used for those who hack other OS kernels.

Along the lines of WHITE and GREY hats the term Red Hat was created for those who hack the Linux kernel. At least this is the rumor of where the name Red Hat originated.


Hats - Reminds me of D&D Alignments (1.00 / 2) (#134)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:10:17 PM PST
White Hat -- Lawful Good, Paladins

Grey Hat -- Chaotic Good, typical Bard or Ranger

Black Hat -- Chaotic Evil, Bastarat, Assassin

  I attack the darkness!!!


Reminds me of self-important WANKERS (5.00 / 2) (#162)
by dmg on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:49:04 AM PST
  • White Hat -- No life fat spotty pasty faced geek
  • Grey Hat -- No life fat spotty pasty faced geek who has read 'pearl in a nutshell'
  • Black Hat -- No life fat spotty pasty faced geek who knows a small amount of Unix (usually ancient sendmail exploits)

    You are all wannabees. There are only about 100 true hackers in the world. Most of them do not inhabit the United States of America.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

  • And DMG is one of them (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by bc on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:29:12 AM PST
    I remember once he taught me about TweakUI, and how to hack my registry with it. That was amazing hacking. If only the linux people had the same skills and comprehensive knowledge.


    ♥, bc.

     
    You absolute damn MORON dumbhead no-life **GEEK**! (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:04:20 PM PST
    The Player's Handbook clearly states that Bards can't be Chaotic Good in alignment.


     
    Since you are so dismissive of wannabe hackers... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:19:52 AM PST
    ...I can only assume that you are an accomplished hacker. As such, I recommend that you leave this sute and do not come back. Hackers and other criminals are not welcome here.


     
    Varies (none / 0) (#228)
    by dorward on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 12:27:42 AM PST
    Try irc.openprojects.net (#linpeople and #linuxhelp) there are some intelligent people there.


     
    Why Linux Apologists Exist (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Logical Analysis on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:11:58 PM PST
    You know, I think part of the problem is that people have a hard time believing that they are wrong.

    Take for instance your typical linux apologist: He's been working for MONTHS on just getting his operating system installed and his computer somewhat working again. He's spend HUNDREDS of dollars and WEEKS of reading books trying to figure out how to perform the various tasks required to run linux. (As you mentioned)

    Now this guy.. is he going to have the guts to look back on the last six months of his life and say "God, what a fucking waste of time. Now where'd I put my Windows 2000 install disc?"

    Nope. He's going to say "That was time well spent. Now I'm going to try to learn how to use Emacs/vi/XWindows/etc" then proceed to waste the next sixth months doing something he could have done in six minutes on Windows or Macintosh.

    People have a hard time criticizing themselves.. telling themselves they made a mistake and wasted time. So instead they convince themselves that they in fact are right and to reassure themselves of their rightness they go around and tell everyone else how great it is. Yet, in fact, they fucked up.

    So, Linux apologists, isn't it about time you be honest with yourself?

    (Looking forward the the next article)


    A Comment (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:54:12 PM PST
    I guess I better start off with what I've said in my previous posts regarding this topic... I am not a Linux fanatic and Linux is not ready for the average consumer's desktop. I am saying this to ward off the knee-jerk response of accusing me of being die-hard "Linux apologist". I use both Linux and Windows 2000 at home. I think they are both great operating systems and both have their merits. This discussion pertains to Linux, so I'll just stick to it.

    I admit, I've spent an inordinate amount of time famliarizing myself with the Linux operating system. To most people, the time I've spent would not be worth it in the least. However, computers are my hobby. I enjoy learning about them and Linux provides a great way to do that. As those of you who have tried it out have learned, Linux does not have a glossy user-friendly interface for all it's functions. You actually have to learn about the protocols being used and the commands being issued. This is the main reason why I say Linux is not for the average consumer. However, for me, this is perfect. This is the type of thing I am interested in. The kind of thing I would like to know about. Microsoft products do not provide an oppurtunity like this. Linux does.

    The average consumer does not want to spend time learning the ins and out of their computer system. It's damn near a requirement to do that to really familiarize yourself with the Linux operating environment. The average consumer shouldn't touch Linux becuase it really wasn't made with them in mind.

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



     
    Six months (none / 0) (#33)
    by donkpunch on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:55:53 PM PST
    Now this guy.. is he going to have the guts to look back on the last six months of his life and say "God, what a fucking waste of time. Now where'd I put my Windows 2000 install disc?"

    Probably not. It took me closer to 24 months.

    Yes, I wish I had that time back.


    my initial linux experience (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:22:41 AM PST
    Was somewhat different, I don't even remember what version it was, but it was slack with a 1.2.x? kernel if i remember right, it was a while back.

    Now don't get me wrong, I had no interest in getting any kind of shiny desktop thing, I was interested in the word 'linux' itself, as I was always envious of unix heads. So if I could get something installed that I could telnet to and try to do the basics, I would be a success.

    So, from complete ignorance to working bash prompt took me I think a few weeks (In reality, I only remember a few hours work tho, much was the 56k download and reading). And this was with doing everything wrong mind you, I'm nothing if not unlucky. From there I explored the various dirs and started "man"ing every filename I saw in /bin, etc. My goal was basic unix-like literacy.

    Sure, its more complicated now, there are so many more devices to support, etc, but Linux just installs nicer nowadays too. Redhat basically installed during a lapse of attention of mine when I was pondering how hard Redhat was going to be to install, and I looked back and the computer started doing all kind of crazy stuff, like giving me a KDE desktop, etc. But that doesn't mean you don't have to do a bit of research. For all the other wannabes reading, heres a heads up on the basic "compatibility list" for a Linux installation; if you don't have the needed resources (compatible hardware, suitable distro, reading ability, brain) then do like the other fellow said, just buy the t-shirt.

    24 months? sheesh, I have a feeling thats not all that has been wasted here :-D Please guy, have mercy on yourself, hug your Windows CD.

    --
    Anonymous user #42


    From Linux Zealot to Linux User (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by donkpunch on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:36:18 PM PST
    Going from Linux Zealot ("I'll never use another MS product again") to Linux User ("I'll use Linux for POSIX coding and general-purpose server") took about 24 months.

    No, it wasn't totally wasted. I did learn Berkely Sockets (and how WinSock is just ever-so-slightly different). I learned a lot about Unix in general. I learned to love no-nonsense programming editors and command-line compiler utilities.

    I also learned there are just some areas where Linux will probably NEVER compete with paid-license software. I spent 24 months waiting for a professional-level audio editing/mixing/MIDI sequencing package. That time was definitely wasted, but it was my fault, not "The Linux Community's" fault.

    There are just some packages that are insanely difficult or boring to code. Audio software falls into this category. There is not enough ROI to bother writing this software for a small community that will probably "warez" it the first chance they get. I certainly wouldn't do it, so I was a fool to think someone else would.



    Open source video editing (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 02:01:25 PM PST
    I was interested in your comment because I do a little Video capturing and editing (not the same as audio editing I know) and all the programs I use are open source. They also all run only under Windows. My point is, this is the kind of thing where commercial software SHOULD have an advantage over open source and free software, but that just isn't the case. The open source stuff is good quality, not bloated, and has features the commercial stuff can't touch.

    If you're curious the programs and utilities I'm referring to are Virtual Dub, Huffyuv codec, AviSynth, VCDImager, VCDImagerEasy, cdrdao and possibly Tmpgenc. (Not sure of the licensing of that last one, but you can get it for free.)


    Hardware compatibility (none / 0) (#138)
    by donkpunch on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:04:38 PM PST
    The big difference here might be hardware. Pro audio and sequencing hardware is, by and large, only marginally supported by Linux.

    Could I have gotten something to work with a regular Soundblaster? Of course, but the sound quality would be completely unacceptable. I'd just as soon record with my son's Fisher Price cassette tape deck.

    Beyond that, the last time I checked (several months ago) there were two different sound driver models still in use (OSS and kernel mods, IIRC). Alan Cox had been leading the kernel-level efforts to support sound/MIDI but he apparently either got bored or frustrated and simply stopped. I even went as far as getting some of his old kernel patch code and tweaking it to run on a newer kernel. The new OSS system didn't support any of my (not uncommon) hardware at all. I could buy an OSS-supported card, but it would mean taking a hit in audio quality. I didn't spend good money on quality AD converters and shielded electronics just to downgrade to a sound card meant for bitchin' Quake explosions.

    And this, more than anything else, demonstrated to me that the open source model has some significant weaknesses. Namely, developers who simply stop work because they lose interest and redundant incompatible systems that do the same thing (*cough* *KDE/Gnome* *cough*).

    I know, I know -- "You're a programmer. Scratch that itch." Well, my main "itch" is making music, not writing driver code that allows me to make music. I choose to spend my money on a Microsoft back scratcher.



    Donk (none / 0) (#168)
    by TheReverand on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:51:15 AM PST
    You check your USian pie account? I emailed you there a bit ago.


     
    Video editing (none / 0) (#218)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 04:18:19 AM PST
    Hmm- interesting. I'm also involved in video editing, and there's an interesting point here, which relates quite closely to the earlier comments on audio editing (which I also hear a fair bit about- the other director of my company is an audio engineer).

    As far as I'm concerned, there are two schools of video software. School 1 is the "HUUUGE app of editing doom" school, complete with 5000 different functions, insane flexibility and the general ability to do all the things that would, pre-computer, either have been impossible or required literally millions of dollars' worth of equipment. I'm thinking Premiere (or SpeedRazor, or the Avid apps), AfterEffects (or Combustion, or Flame, or Aura) and that ilk. The audio equivalent would be SoundForge, Cubase or whatever.

    There are no usable School 1 video editing packages available free, to the best of my knowledge, that even come close to the non-free equivalents. I would love to be proved wrong on this, BTW- do post if you know!

    School 2, on the other hand, are little utils, generally created to perform one or two major functions that the big packages are, well, crap at. File conversion. File compression. Specific editing tricks. Here's where all the OS programs come in: VirtualDub, DivX (the codec o'God) and so on. There's a lot of very useful Open-Source or Free packages here, many of them better than anything commercially producesd (DivX, for example- VirtualDub is still in a war with NewTek's Vidget for me, but they both do things the other doesn't).

    Interesting, huh? Also pretty obvious. The place where free software slips up is on the massive commercial apps, particularly those that require very complex GUIs and a lot of WYSIWYG functionality, and particularly in more niche markets (which is why there's no free SoundForge equivalent, and not a lot of free 3D modelling packages).

    Why? Because, in short, such packages are beyond the reach of all but the absolutely most exceptional volunteer team. We're talking about things that require literally man-decades of work. And so, it's likely that very few will be produced, as it really is an area where the only way that the software will be produced is if the resources are available to pay the programmers, and currently business models for OpenSource development of wide-scale commercial apps are a little thin on the ground.

    IMO.

    As a postscript, with the rise of Linux as a video editing and 3D platform in the major production houses, it's likely we'll see those houses developing more software for Linux, and probably releasing it as OpenSource. However, because these houses are already working with existing commercial software, it's unlikely that any of that software will be a wide-scale replacement for the popular commercial apps- instead, we'll likely see even more really useful, free niche applications for the one or two jobs the big companies didn't feel were done properly by any of the major commercial applications.

    Which is still kinda cool.



     
    Hrm. (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:24:55 PM PST
    Perhaps, if he's running Mandrake, as that seems to be the popular straw man here, he could simply fork over $50 for the basic boxed set, which comes with a ~350pg. manual.

    Just a thought.


     
    No, sorry (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:34:43 AM PST
    > Take for instance your typical linux apologist: He's been working for MONTHS on just getting his operating system installed and his computer somewhat working again. He's spend HUNDREDS of dollars and WEEKS of reading books trying to figure out how to perform the various tasks required to run linux. (As you mentioned) <

    So that's what you think do you? Well, guess you have to keep that ego inflated somehow. Can't abide the idea there might be people out there that know more than you do.

    Of course, what you call "apologists" are nothing but techie wannabes. They are the only ones that would bother arguing with you after all. The bulk of us don't have time to waste with the computer illiterate and couldn't care less what OS you use. If you want the inferior, expensive one and like lining Gates' wallet (as he laughs behind his hand at you), go for it.

    What an odd site. Well, guess the computer ignorant need somewhere to go...


    Amen (none / 0) (#224)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:04:13 PM PST
    You took the words right out of my mouth.


    You idiots (none / 0) (#242)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 18th, 2001 at 06:30:33 AM PST
    You both came here to say that you couldn't be bothered to say anything?

    Now, pardon me for saying so - but you both come across as a pair of screaming wankers. Anyone who so clearly thinks themselves superior to other human beings because of some crap they happen to know, needs to review their life priorities imo.


     
    Nice indeed (2.33 / 3) (#22)
    by Dexter Descarte on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:22:54 PM PST
    * Cost of entire new fucking computer after I found out that I wasn't going to be able to, because fucking Linux doesn't support it: $500
    * Time spent reading books: all my free time for a fucking week.


    And you didn't read up to check if your Vaio would run Linux in all that reading?

    Seriously, this is possibly the finest critique of the Linux experience I have ever read. Unlike you I am fairly well versed in computing and still I ran into many of the same problems you did. I chucked Linux for plain vanilla FreeBSD servers and use my Macs for desktop stuff. I find the BSDs to be better than Linux for server stuff and I find a stick and a clear patch of dirt better than Linux for desktop stuff. I agree wholeheartedly that 'being cool' is the only valid reason for installing Linux.

    My only other comment is this question; Are you guys trying to stress test the servers? You know the propellerheads will be swarming like dung beetles again right?


    Some issues (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:42:00 PM PST
    <<Cost of entire new fucking computer after I found out that I wasn't going to be able to, because fucking Linux doesn't support it: $500>>

    The "problem" is not Linux. The "problem" is with the distro.


    Interresting... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by twodot72 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:59:48 PM PST
    If so, please provide us with a list of "distros" that support USB printers and winmodems.


    Linux (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:30:35 PM PST
    Mandrake out of the box works fine for me with USB, and my USB HP Deskjet 875 prinzter .



     
    Win modems in Linux (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Not a moron on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:42:25 PM PST
    I have gotten LT based win modems working in Red Hat and Mandrake, the only 2 distro's I tried (DSL now).


    Suppored VS. Theoretically Possible (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Peter Johnson on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:45:23 PM PST
    When you say "supported in Red Hat," normal people will assume that this means "supported by the vendor." In the Lunix communtity however, "supported" means "it's theoretically possible to construct an arbitrarily long string of ones and zeros that would allow you to do this."

    From the Red Hat FAQ:

    Question:

    How can I get my WinModem(TM) to work with Linux?

    Answer:

    Unfortunately, WinModems(TM) are completely incompatible with Red Hat Linux version 6.0 and earlier. There is no work-around for this issue at this time. The problem is that WinModems(TM) and similar type modems use the CPU to emulate various hardware that is removed to save on costs. These hardware parts that are removed would have to be "emulated" by the Linux kernel and would require the hardware maker of the modem to write such drivers.

    There are a few (very few) winmodem chipsets that are compatible with the 6.x versions of Red Hat Linux. The best place to go for more information on these versions is the www.linmodems.org and http://www.idir.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html. Both have links to information and drivers for various WinModems(TM).

    For Red Hat 7, there is, unfortunately, even less support. This is because many of the drivers available (such as the popular ltmodem driver) are compiled for versions of the Linux kernel that are old by today's standard. Red Hat 7 ships with the 2.2.16-22 kernel which has shown some trouble with some of the drivers. The ltmodem driver, which was compiled for kernel 2.2.12-20 seems to become unstable at 2.2.14-12 (the errata release kernel for Red Hat 6.2) though it seems to be usable.

    We have no direct knowledge of other modem drivers, however, and welcome more information (see the contact information at the top of this document).


    --Peter
    Are you adequate?

    Lots of folks like to blame Linux for this (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:15:05 AM PST
    Ie., when you hear "supported", it means different things for Linux than it does for Windows.

    In reality, its because of the Microsoft monopoly, you have folks who literally would be out of luck if it weren't for Linux. There are things that Linux can do that are simply unavailable or price prohibitive in a Microsoft solution. Mac's are out, because you'd have to buy their hardware to run their systems, which seems pretty silly to me.

    Because of the monopoly, the hardware folks _have_ to focus on Microsoft, rather than any hardware standard. Now some folks will say that Microsoft _is_ the hardware standard, and there is some validity here (look at all the "build for Windows" type things), but that can also lend some insight to just how lopsided the desktop/server market is at this point.

    Ultimately, unless Microsoft can manage to make free software illegal (don't kid yourselves folks, they have a real good shot at doing this), Linux, BSD, and other open source solutions will affect the market place sufficiently enough to bring some sanity back. Sadly, for the everyday joe-user like the author, Linux isn't there yet, but for folks with some computer experience, Linux is an amazing tool.

    --
    Anonymous user #42


    Linux runs without hardware? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:45:03 AM PST
    And it's so damn silly that I have to buy an IBM Power-4 based mainframe to do any decent nuclear explosion modelling.


    Well of course it does. But only in one distro. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:18:14 AM PST
    This is the Best Linux Distro, and it has been written just for you. Its called "In Your Dreams" Linux. This fine version of the popular operating system doesn't come on a cd, no ftp is available, its simply a pill. You eat it, and in very short order, you are asleep, dreaming that you could actually reinstall Windows, much less attempt an install of a Unix type operating system. You wake up some hours refreshed and free of any nonsensical idea that you could safely modify your own computer's software without close supervision.

    Really! Its hot! Its cool! Its made especially just for you! Try the new distro "In Your Dreams" Linux today!

    --
    Anonymous user #42


     
    ltmodem patch (none / 0) (#203)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 07:32:21 AM PST
    Here is my patch for 2.2.1[4-9] support for the ltmodem proprietary driver. An alternative is to use the new (proprietary) driver from Lucent which has been split in a binary and an open-source hardware independant part. This works on 2.4.x

    I use it in my Acer TravelMate 722tx since 1999.

    [ the patch probably will be destroyed by this WWW interface, but any advanced Linux user should be able to reconstruct it, or he won't use Linux for long anyway ]

    *** tty.h.REAL Wed Sep 27 12:38:49 2000
    --- tty.h Wed Sep 27 12:55:56 2000
    ***************
    *** 277,283 ****
    int alt_speed; /* For magic substitution of 38400 bps */
    struct wait_queue *write_wait;
    struct wait_queue *read_wait;
    - struct wait_queue *poll_wait;
    struct tq_struct tq_hangup;
    void *disc_data;
    void *driver_data;
    --- 277,282 ----
    ***************
    *** 305,310 ****
    --- 304,322 ----
    unsigned int canon_column;
    struct semaphore atomic_read;
    struct semaphore atomic_write;
    + /* schaefer@alphanet.ch
    + * -- Those two are managed and allocated/initialized by
    + * tty, not by driver. However, putting poll_wait in the
    + * middle of the structure makes e.g. referencing of
    + * user (serial driver) data wrong. I can understand
    + * to group the structure members, however a change like
    + * this is ONLY for x going to x +1 in 2.x. Of course,
    + * you can recompile drivers, but what about binary-only
    + * drivers ? e.g. ltmodem.o (Lucent) was broken between
    + * 2.2.13 and 2.2.16. In an ideal world, Lucent would supply
    + * ...
    + */
    + struct wait_queue *poll_wait;
    spinlock_t read_lock;
    };


    If you apply that patch, you must recompile your kernel, all your modules,
    and not use another binary-only module. Especially you will need to
    recompile the PPP modules.


     
    LT modem (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jiminim on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 08:22:14 AM PST
    I also got my LT modem to work in Red Hat 6.0, threw it on a 486 mobo with a 66MHz, added a network card, and screwed the whole shebang on the wall with a hard drive and power supply. This box shared a dial up connection between me and my roommates for most of a semester until we got DSL.

    There is a reason you cannot achieve this function with internet sharing in Win9x. Read the EULA, it only allows 5 computers to use the "internet connection sharing" feature.

    -Jim
    -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

     
    Winmodems and Linux (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:55:01 PM PST
    Some distros claim to work with winmodems other tell the truth.

    Do you know why they are called WINmodems? Because they a primarily software based modems designed solely around Windows.


    Winmodems (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by twodot72 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:44:49 PM PST
    Oh, so basically, you're saying it's not Linux' fault they don't work, it's the evil design...

    LFT REACHED!


    hehehe (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:34:23 AM PST
    I have a feeling that LFT has a chance as a real acronym.

    That said, Linux is a marvelous piece of work, given the lock Microsoft has on the market. Truly revealing that some users are so dissatisfied with Microsofts products that they can write its replacement for free. Imagine how great Linux would be had Linus had some funding behind him? I really just continue to be amazed at how Linux can really whip Microsofts ass in some areas where being a monopoly doesn't help.

    --
    Anonymous user #42


     
    How moronic (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:46:18 PM PST
    >Oh, so basically, you're saying it's not Linux' fault they don't work, it's the evil design...

    >LFT REACHED!

    The point, oh dense one, was that WINmodems were designed to work with WINdows.

    You're setting up an ignorance based strawman (imagine my surprise) by complaining that a proprietary product meant to work with a certain proprietary OS isn't supported in a competing OS.

    How DO you propose any Linux distribution company make their distribution work with modems designed to work only with MS blessed software? Voodoo? Crystal balls? Witchcraft?

    You don't really know how all these funny boxes work huh?


    spurious logic (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:43:30 PM PST
    They work with PC hardware, don't they? The only reason that they don't work on linux is the incompetence or laziness of linux developers. You are a community of people who attempt to cover your failures in a cloud of assumed omnipotence. Unfortunately, your idiocy is an impediment, and we can all see through your evasions.

    The reason only geeks use linux is not because linux is the best OS. It is because it is the worst.


    You don't realize the specifics of the situation. (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:55:46 PM PST
    ...the incompetence or laziness of linux developers.
    This is utter bullshit. You don't realize what it is you're talking about. The situation is clearly explained on the front page of linmodems.org.

    Yes, it is possible to write drivers for winmodems. The manufacturers of winmodems do Microsoft a favor and distribute them with Windows drivers. Plese note that this has nothing to do with Window's being more "advanced" or with the competency of Windows developers. This is due to Microsofts dominancy in the desktop OS market. If a manufacter were to release a modem which implements most of it's functionality via software without support for Windows, they're automatically cutting off the majority of the market for their product.

    Linux developers must develop the drivers for winmodems (and lots of other various hardware) themselves. Most of the time this is without any assistance from the manufacturers of the hardware. This is in no way a level playing field.

    Microsoft has all the work done for them by the manufacturers. Linux developers must reverse engineer the hardware and drivers in order to create the equivalent in Linux. Because of the situation, Linux hardware support cannot help but lag behind that of Windows. Once again, this has nothing to do with incompetency or laziness of Linux developers. It's just the reality of the marketplace.

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



    Oh, so now it's "just not fair"? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:41:10 PM PST
    When the going get's tough, the geeks start whining.


    OK... (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:45:57 PM PST
    Oh, so now it's "just not fair"?
    I was not trying to whine. I was just trying to inform the person accusing Linux developers of being "lazy" or "incompetent" of the situation they face. You cannot deny the fact that Microsoft has an advantage in the hardware support situation. It's a bit crazy when the most hyped "competition" for the Intel compatible desktop market is only used by about 2% of userbase.
    ...the geeks start whining.
    Once again, before your proceed with the "you're a dirty geek" "argument", I am not a Linux fanatic. Yes, I use it. I use it alongside Windows 2000. They both have their merits. Etc. etc. I've gone over this in earlier posts

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -


     
    Linmodems (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by twodot72 on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:19:34 PM PST
    You don't really know how all these funny boxes work huh?
    The difference between a controller-less modem (or "winmodem") is that some tasks done in hardware on a traditional modem (such as command interpretation, error detection and data compression) is done by the driver and not by a microcontroller in the modem. A controllerless modem basically just does de/modulation and A/D, D/A conversion. This hardware is not Windows-specific, but it does require much more feature-rich drivers than a traditional modem.

    It's perfectly feasible to write such drivers for Linux too (some try), but after several years of their existence, Linux support still sucks...


     
    Then why do they work on macs? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:08:56 AM PST
    Answer me that, smart guy!


    Why do they work on Macs: (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:41:29 AM PST
    They don't. Find me one single non-geoport internal aftermarket Mac modem, much less a winmodem. Mac modems are standard external modems with Mac mini-din serial connectors. Anything Apple made that has USB will have a 56k modem on the mainboard that may use funky open transport calls but is not a winmodem by any stretch of the imagination.


     
    I'll give some examples (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:58:59 PM PST
    I can give you three examples of distros with USB support.

    Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2
    Suse Linux 7.2
    OpenLinux


    There's USB support and there's USB support (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peter Johnson on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:20:07 PM PST
    There's a difference between recognizing usb printers, mice and keyboards and basic I/O devices like that and supporting USB storage devices like floppies. To be blunt, unlike Windows 2000, Lunix does not support all categories of USB devices equally well.
    --Peter
    Are you adequate?

     
    Don't forget the BSDs (none / 0) (#68)
    by Starship Trooper on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:27:02 PM PST
    NetBSD had USB support before any Linux distro, and the USB stack (that has since been ported to Free- and OpenBSD) even supports my crappy bargain-bin USB chipset that Windows barely even recognizes. And since the *BSD developers aren't fucktards, the USB stack actually works reliably with most standard USB hardware, and includes a library that facilitates the writing of drivers for new hardware.
    ---
    A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

     
    Working support (none / 0) (#69)
    by twodot72 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:37:51 PM PST
    But does it work? A while ago I tried to get my Visor PDA to sync in Linux, it connects via USB. I had to manually load various USB modules (no autodetect in sight) and when I finally got contact with the Visor, the computer crashed during sync...


     
    I wholeheartedly agree (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by iat on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:25:51 PM PST
    I find the BSDs to be better than Linux for server stuff and I find a stick and a clear patch of dirt better than Linux for desktop stuff.

    Following my failed attempt to install Linux, I have now installed OpenBSD on my trusty old 486. The OpenBSD installation went very smoothly, although the disk partitioning wasn't as simple as it could have been. Although OpenBSD still doesn't run my Windows software, it is very similar to Solaris which I am already familiar with (probably because the BSDs are based on a Solaris "code fork") and I am already able to do many tasks with my new software. OpenBSD is also very secure by default - in fact, it is renowned for its security.

    But the thing I liked most about OpenBSD is that it sends you a nice little email when you first log in, giving you a step-by-step guide to setting up the system. Truly, both Linux and Microsoft could learn a lot from OpenBSD. In my opinion, OpenBSD is well worth the cost of an official CD and it is one open source project that is worthy of support.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

     
    Direct Hit (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Hunter on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:48:21 PM PST
    I once attempted to install one of the so-called 'newbie' version of Linux once, I believe it was called Red Hat. Had I been able to access a computer on which to compose a rant it would have read much as yours, but of course the Linux destroyed my copy of Windows to prevent me from doing so. I am quite positive that it performs that step for the very purpose of preventing people from commenting about its shortcomings until after their rage has subsided.

    Linux, in its many forms, should not be used by normal people. The very fact that there are so many versions of Linux should serve as proof that this (in)operating system is simply an unfinished compilation of questionable utility, the thing does not even have a standard desktop for crying out loud. If its creator, Linus Torwalds, won't let his mother and father use it, why should any of us?


    I am not a linux apologist but (2.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:40:33 AM PST
    I installed the latest Red Hat on my machine. It took me 20 minutes and all I had to do was click next a few times. It detected my video card, sound card, network card and modem, configured them all with no intervention from me other than clicking next. It detected my windows installation and fixed it so I could boot into both, again with no intervention from me. The installation was easier than windows. There's not much I can do with it now it's installed but the installation was a piece of piss.


     
    Let me get this straight... (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:21:43 AM PST
    You're saying it's Linux's fault that it didn't work when you tried to put it on unsupported hardware? Whose fault is it when Win2k doesn't install on my UltraSPARC? Why don't you go put the wrong fuel in your car and see if the gas station attendant doesn't cross the DFT (diesel fault tolerance) when you demand they pay for the repairs?


    Whose fault? (none / 0) (#217)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:34:36 PM PST
    It's yours, you fucking dipshit. Win2K very clearly states processor requirements on the box. So does Linux - BUT the Linux box says it supports <i>most</i> hardware without getting specific. Windows doesn't need to be as specific - MS has drivers for just about everything out there and people are paid to produce drivers before release.


    This wouldn't fit on the box (none / 0) (#227)
    by dorward on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 12:22:07 AM PST
    How big would the box be to print this on it?


     
    ummmmm (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:54:53 PM PST
    i installed 2k once... it didn't recognize my well known ethernet card and my sound card doesn't work properly, though stating it was clearly 2k compatible....
    though both work in linux though... hmmm..
    i would have to say all OS's have ups and downs and hardware that doesn't work with them....


     
    Linux Install Dis-information (none / 0) (#187)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 07:39:41 PM PST
    I cannot believe how much lack of total understand is reflected by the author:

    Factual errors abound, so very many, I can only conclude that you are paid directly by microsoft.
    You are twisting everything, and confusing the issues. You obiviously are using MICROSOFT HALLOWEEN MEMO type retroic.

    I am Amiga user.

    To start: Linux is easy to install, and its getting easier. Linux can run on a 16Mhz 386sx,
    and give you damn site better performance.

    How many people have been sued by GNU? Microsoft?

    You are a microsoft Idiot! Your just preparing for a microsoft intellectual property legal assault. and the linux community is going to give you all the ammunition.



    Better performance with linux! (none / 0) (#235)
    by kwench on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 02:46:01 PM PST
    Yes... I'm also quite sure this site would get a better performance when they'd be running Linux. Or at least OpenBSD.

    I should have told them that it isn't worth the work to port a patchy server to win32...

    But of course, the best performance is gained by running a site on AmigaOS with Miami. The win32 environment uses a very slow message passing system between different tasks. The AmigaOS just passes a pointer to a message in memory to the task who requested it. Thus it is far more superior!!! Even to Linux! And even more superior to this microkernel crap like QNX and The Hurd!

    Of course... you can't use the MMU then, but who needs a MMU anyway? MMUs are just for lusers who can't write a clean program! Microsoft's NT series uses the MMU...


     
    In all fairness. (3.00 / 3) (#26)
    by tkatchev on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:55:01 PM PST
    Don't be so rash -- Linux is the ideal programmer's OS. As an environment for hard-core coding, it can't be beat. (Usuing it for word-processing/spreadsheets is indeed quite stupid, however.) I think that is exactly the reason why Linux is so popular in the "wannabe" crowd - they probably think using Linux makes them a more "elite" programmer. (Even if they can't code "Hello World" in bash.)


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sdem on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:54:29 PM PST
    I'd have to agree with you on this point, as I am in sort of the opposite predicimate of the article's author. You see, I am running Windows right now, but I want to start developing some apps for a Linux machine connected to the network at school. Since I have a hell of a lot more free time at home than I do at school, I figured that it would be all around better to just install Linux on this machine and get cracking.

    Well, lo and behold, it seems that not one of the decent distros that I have tried in the (recent) past has any idea about how to make a stable install program. Since there's no way that I'm going to pay for Linux, I decided to get the floppy images and download the distro via FTP. Bad idea. I try SuSE first. OK, it boots up and gets me to the main menu. However, when I try to insert the module for my network card, the fucker dumps core. DUMPS CORE!. So, although it had the option of installing via FTP, there was no way it was going to happen.

    Next, I downloaded the Mandrake images from their site and wrote them to floppies. I boot it up, and it turns out that you are required to have their fucking CDs to install the fucking distro. Why is it that FreeBSD can do this but the so-called "newbie" Linux distro can't? Blech.

    So, despite the fact that I would love to be using Linux right now to play around with socket programming and other stuff in C, there is no way that is going to happen unless I find time to steal the SuSE 7.2 CDs from the system administrator's office sometime soon.


    Fuck Linux! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 05:38:26 PM PST
    You don't need it to do socket programming. Go to Cygwin and click on "Install Now" Who the fuck cares what OS you've got. What you want is a decent unix programming environment and cygwin will give you that FOR FREE under windows.
    -- Support the home page homeless.

    Fuck Cygwin! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sdem on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:28:33 PM PST
    I know that. I have that installed right now. It is a pile of shit, like most other GPLed software. It can't even compile nmap for me; how do you expect it to understand libpcap (which, btw, also won't install)?


    well i installed libpcap (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:54:53 AM PST
    It was difficult. Painful. If I remember correctly, I clicked something.

    But yes, this open source stuff is difficult. Rarely have I seen anybody with an IQ under 80 handle it well. I think this is a poor verdict for this operating system, I am an advocate for competition in the marketplace, and if the open source community could manage to open a useability lab for the folks obviously left out by poor engineering (c'mon folks, every decent city has a zoo!), I think it could make some progress.

    My apologies to the author, I hate seeing my favorite operating system fail yet again.

    --
    Anonymous user #42


     
    nmap (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by fluffy grue on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:05:03 PM PST
    The thing you have to realize about nmap is that it is a "hacker tool," and as such, Windows, which is must more secure than Linux, does not allow you to run such an insecure program which can only be used to "hack" other peoples' systems. I should probably report you to the FBI for even considering the use of nmap, you dirty, evil "hacker!"
    --
    meep

    .....what?! (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 06:32:49 PM PST
    God I hope that post was a joke. If it is then I apologize for even replying to it. Now, since when is giving the end-user the power to modify packets insecure? It gives the user more power, I don't see how the two relate. Furthermore nmap is a pretty legitimate tool for network administrators, as it can help diagnose problems way better than a whole lot of other things. Just because it can be used for something negative doesn't make it negative in its own right. It's a pretty incredible tool actually.

    --FlatLine


    "Legitimiate tool" indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by nx01 on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:55:49 PM PST
    God I hope that post was a joke.

    You're new here, aren't you.

    Now, since when is giving the end-user the power to modify packets insecure? It gives the user more power, I don't see how the two relate.

    Indeed. It gives the end user more power FOR HACKING! The two relate like this: whenever you give the user more power, you give them the responsibility to use the power in a proper way. Would you give seven year old a Glock to bring to school and help himself in playground fights? It's the same idea. Tools like Nmap shouldn't just be handed out like candy. Tools like this should require a licence at least, and possibly should be banned altogether.

    Furthermore nmap is a pretty legitimate tool for network administrators, as it can help diagnose problems way better than a whole lot of other things.

    Just pretty legitimate, hua? Is that a little grey area I detect there? Just like "Back Orifice" is a "System administration tool" that just happens to allow you to FUCK WITH SOMEONE'S COMPUTER ILLEGALLY? Sounds like Nmap is a destructive weapon of "hackers".

    Just because it can be used for something negative doesn't make it negative in its own right.

    Ha! So you ADMIT it!

    It's a pretty incredible tool actually.

    I'm sure it is. FOR HACKING! Please, take you and your "scr1pt kiddi3" friends and leave adequacy.


    "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
    -- James Gosling

    Indeed (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:11:56 PM PST
    Perhaps you should read the comment which I was replying to.

    "Windows, which is must more secure than Linux, does not allow you to run such an insecure program which can only be used to "hack" other peoples' systems. "

    I was arguing that it's not insecure to Linux, in fact it makes Linux far more powerful that it's TCP/IP stack isn't crippled like window's is. Secondly, your glock analogy doesn't hold up since nmap isn't destructive on it's own. It is simply a centralized way to bring together a lot of information that is obtainable by perfectly legitimate and allowed methods. If you make nmap illegal (or ban it, roughly the same thing), then only the outlaws will have it. This won't stop anyone with skill in terms of security, as nmap doesn't do anything unique. Furthermore you'ld be taking it out of the hands of people that use it legitimately to analyze problems in their own networks (and if you are familiar with the field, you'ld know that there are many, many administrators that use it this way). The only gray area you detected was in the way that I worded it, and for that I apologize. It has as much gray area as any other tool, as most tools can be applied in either negative or positive ways, depending on the person using them. The difference between back orifice and nmap is that back orifice was designed with the intention of being stealthy and open to anyone that wishes to connect, and this is a malicious design. Nmap was not designed for malicious use, though as I've already stated it can be applied that way much like any other tool. Therefore the two don't compare. And finally the only thing that I admitted was that it can be used maliciously, but this doesn't make it special and I never denied that. It is a good tool, it is neither 'right' or 'wrong'. To think so is foolish.

    So in conclusion, shouldn't you be out petitioning to ban sharp objects simply because they can be used dangerously instead of wasting precious time posting on here?
    --FlatLine


    Last reply to hacker-boy (3.00 / 2) (#178)
    by nx01 on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:40:38 PM PST
    Look, it's like this:

  • Tools used for destructive purposes should be banned
  • Nmap is a tool used for destructive purposes (more programs that conform to this example: flooders, de-css, ping, pgp, and lynx)
  • Therefore Nmap (or any of the other programs mentioned) should be banned

    It's just simple logic. I understand that this is something the linux "community" lacks, but please try and bear with me.

    So in conclusion, shouldn't you be out petitioning to ban sharp objects simply because they can be used dangerously instead of wasting precious time posting on here?

    Wny? The knife registration rally isn't until next weekend.

    I'm done with this thread. You're making less and less sense as we go on.


    "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
    -- James Gosling

  • *sigh* (none / 0) (#186)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:34:56 PM PST
    Lynx is a web-browser. Indeed, a dastardly hacker tool if ever I saw one.


     
    Fluffy scared little sheep (1.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:47:17 AM PST
    Your eagerness to surrender other peoples rights to satisfy your parinoid fear of things you don't understand is disgusting.

    You say that a software tool which could be used for destructive purposes should be banned, yet all Windows viruses originated on the Windows platform. I suppose then that Windows should be banned. Or at least all Microsoft applications, since those are usually what are used to propigate the viruses.

    How about hardware tools that can be used for destructive purposes? Why should software be singled out? Since we can take a fully loaded and fuled piece of hardware from Boeing and destroy a 110 story building and thousands of lives, I guess we better be adding airplanes to the list of banned things. Oh well, it's for the best I guess. And how about automobiles? Silverware? Oh, don't forget anything pointy or useful as a weapon. I guess baseball as to go too, those bats could be used to hurt somebody!

    Maybe you could fill us in with your daily routine so we could demonize some aspects of it and start campaining to make them fellonies.

    By the way, nice .sig:

    Don't fight the things that you've been taught.

    Read: I am not smart enough to think for myself.


    You have a very valid point (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 01:25:37 PM PST
    I guess we better be adding airplanes to the list of banned things.

    Think about it for a moment. The vast majority of air travel is business related. Businessmen travel around often on the flimsiest pretexts in order to rack up their 'frequent flyer' miles. On the other hand we have the tourists flying to foreign lands on vacation.

    The first group of people simply do not need to fly any more. With netmeeting, it is possible to have a face to face meeting with anyone anywhere in the world, without shelling out $$$$s for an overpriced 'business class' airline seat.

    The tourists simply spend their US dollars elsewhere, contributing to the GDP of other countries.

    So there you have it. Pointless travel everywhere we look. It seems reasonable to me to ban airline traffic except for where it is needed on grounds of national security (say moving troops for example), as a temporary measure, until we have clearly and cleanly defeated the Muslims and put an end to terrorism.


     
    do you even know what they do? (1.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 04:23:24 PM PST
    <<* Tools used for destructive purposes should be banned
    * Nmap is a tool used for destructive purposes (more programs that conform to this example: flooders, de-css, ping, pgp, and lynx)
    * Therefore Nmap (or any of the other programs mentioned) should be banned>>

    First off, almost ANY command can be used for HACKING or destructive purposes. Help the DOS command ATTRIB can be used to show hidden and system files.

    But let's examine one of the protcols you metioned. This particular protocol IS in WINDOWS. Ping.

    Ping:
    Short for Packet Internet Groper, a utility to determine whether a specific IP address is accessible. It works by sending a packet to the specified address and waiting for a reply. PING is used primarily to troubleshoot Internet connections. There are many freeware and shareware PING utilities available for personal computers.

    Ping is therefore NECESSARY.


    say hello (1.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 04:36:26 PM PST
    ping adequacy.org and just to say hello

    63.89.124.239

    Oh by the way, editors. I used the command prompt in Windows 2000 to get that. I can also do it in Windows 3.11 For Workgroups, Windows 9x, Windows ME, Windows NT (4 and previous), and Windows XP.

    I just typed tracert adequacy.org and there it was.


     
    Welp, there goes Notepad (1.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:14:06 AM PST
    So, I suppose Notepad ought to be banned, 'cause I can use it to whip up a .BAT file that executes a bunch of H4X0R apps automatically without me having to sit and run them individually myself!

    Oh, and heck, that means .BAT files need to go too! No more autoexec.bat!

    Seriously now, ANY tool on ANY computer, be linux, windows, macos, whatever, can, in some way or another, be useful for "hacking."


    except solitare (none / 0) (#215)
    by jiminim on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 01:34:46 PM PST
    Is there anway to hack with the standard MS games? :)

    Unless of course you could make a trojaned Solitare that asks for passwords and emails them somewhere.


    Jim
    -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

     
    Solution (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by aoc on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:02:51 PM PST
    Learn Object Pascal. It's a great language -- as powerful as C++ and easier than VB. Use Borland Delphi for development on Windows, and Borland Kylix for development on Linux. If you don't use system-specific calls then the codebase will be 100% compatible. If you do use direct API calls, you can easily wrap two versions in $IFDEFs using compiler-defined directives.

    And, best of all, Delphi and Kylix are commercial, proprietary products. No open sores here.


    Allow me to paraphrase your comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by sdem on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:42:36 PM PST
    Learn Object Pascal.

    Or... learn yet another language that you will probably never see anywhere else. It is your fault for choosing the wrong language, not Linux's fault for sucking.

    OK, maybe that's stretching it a little, but let's continue, shall we?

    It's a great language -- as powerful as C++ and easier than VB.

    Not to mention that it will be slow as all hell. And honestly, I'm playing around with C because I don't need a pointy-clicky GUI; I don't even really need a user interface. I need a daemon. The libraries for C are there, documented and standardized (more or less). I already know C and I don't need to bother with silly features like object oriented programming, because I'm not writing a database.

    Let me put it simply for you:

    L F T

    Now stop trying to drag me into the endless hole of "learn this to get a job done that could just as easily have been done with something you already know." It is akin to telling someone who uses Office to format their drive and install Linux and Staroffice just because Linux is "free".


     
    yeah, right (4.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:03:56 PM PST
    As an environment for hard-core coding, it can't be beat.

    Unless you require strictly POSIX semantics for UNIX or a win32 api for market penetration, that is. Let us also ignore the miserable state of man pages on Linux, its byzantine development model and its tower of babel gnuserland. I run it because my W2K disk developed a hardware defect, but sucks to the point of wasting perfectly good hardware.


     
    How inconsiderate (4.75 / 4) (#30)
    by twodot72 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:51:03 PM PST
    I had decided a few months earlier to install Linux because it was cool (I maintain to this day, that this is the only valid reason for a desktop user to install Linux).
    Please, you must realize that some of us are addicts, we just can't help it.

    For me, it all started in college, in the B.W. era (Before Windows95). An impressionable teen, I didn't object when the professor jammed emacs down my throat on the second day of classes. From that day on, my life has been a living hell. I'm supposed to "work with computers", yet I can't help my friends with even the simplest computer related problem. For instance, it took me years to grok standard operations like cutting and pasting from a clipboard (being an emacs fool, I tried to teach people how to "yank back the line from the kill-ring", usually resulting in blank stares).

    I struggled for years to learn how to use the "mouse" and "gui", but to no avail. I've realized now, that I am forever stuck with substandard tools like emacs, pine, and lynx; while my non-educated friends are much more productive with industry-strength solutions such as Outlook, Word, and IE.

    Yes, I'm a Linux apologist. A very, very bitter Linux apologist.


    emacs (none / 0) (#221)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:55:54 AM PST
    Could you name a windows program that has all the features of emacs? Oh! I know! emacs for windows!


     
    Oops! (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ruri on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:42:27 PM PST
    Guess you should have checked to see if your computer worked correctly under Linux in the first place.

    Or maybe I can try to put a Ferrari engine into my Civic and then whine because it doesn't work right.


    Re: Oops! (4.66 / 3) (#41)
    by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:19:06 PM PST
    Guess you should have checked to see if your computer worked correctly under Linux in the first place.


    Perhaps he would have if you Linux apologists were honest enough to admit that Linux is not as advanced as Windows and therefore won't work with as much hardware.
    Or maybe I can try to put a Ferrari engine into my Civic and then whine because it doesn't work right.


    Or why not just buy an MS Camaro that might be a bit expensive, but will save plenty because it's easy and safe to drive and it never needs maintenance.

    Linux: Not Ready for the Desktop
    Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

    Linux on laptops (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:02:27 PM PST
    WARNING TO ALL PROSPECTIVE LINUX USERS - Linux does not support all hardware

    That warning especially applies to laptops. Laptops provide a trickier hurdle to the prospective Linux user. Since a lot of the components of a laptop are customized and/or proprietary, you should double check to see if the hardware is supported.

    This generally isn't a problem for Windows users, since a requirement for releasing any PC hardware in today's market is insuring Windows compatibility. That's just one of the luxuries of having a majority of the consumer OS market.

    While Linux doesn't support every piece of hardware on the market, I find it amazing it supports as much as it does. It is truly the most flexible OS on the market now. No OS can boast the ability to run on everything from x86 to Power PC to SPARCs to Alphas to S/390s and more (For those less technically savvy, those are all different hardware platforms, most home computer users use either x86 (Intel, AMD) or Power PC (Apple)).

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



     
    LFT! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:16:42 PM PST
    Now it's HIS fault that linux doesn't support his computer? OK, suuuuuure.

    Linux's marketing has been telling us for years that linux works on more computers than windows, but the factual evidence we see again and again that is that linux does not even properly support the computers that windows runs on. I can only assume that in order to claim that you got linux running on a particular computer, you need only get the machine to boot once, without doing any decent work. This may be enough for your g**k penis measuring contests, but it does not provide the functionality that is needed in the real world.


    Its his fault for not checking (none / 0) (#58)
    by Not a moron on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:47:24 PM PST
    How dumb can he be?


    Not his fault. (none / 0) (#246)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:52:48 AM PST
    It's not his fault for not checking. When the average user buys a piece of software or sits down at a computer everyone expects it to work. The guy doesn't understand that sometimes computers don't work. Not just linux, not just Windows, not just Mac, computers don't always work.

    Now, should this guy have done a little research before he got rid of Windows (the last time I checked, Mandrake gave you a prompt telling you that their partitioning thingy was destuctive)? Sure. Should every user know that things aren't always going to work? Absofuckinglutely. You would thing that any person who has used Windows for more than a few days would know that things don't always work. Obviously they don't.

    but...

    Here's what I think that he shouldn't have done:
         He shouldn't have written that article and made us take time out of our busy schedule to anonymously participate in this nearly one-sided flamewar. That bastarde.


     
    Another quick comment (none / 0) (#59)
    by Not a moron on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:49:28 PM PST
    I love how you see that it obviously isn't his fault that his hardware isn't supported, but it has to be Linux's (really open source community but I figure you don't know the difference anyway) fault that they don't have enough info to make the drivers.


     
    Linux (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:42:48 AM PST
    "Linux's marketing has been telling us for years that linux works on more computers than windows"

    What company are you talking about when you say that? Linux is not a company, there are hundreds of companies that release Linux distros.
    I think what you are talking about though is the fact that Linux runs on more than just one "type" of computer. try getting windows 2000 to run on a mac!! by the way for all you morons whining about how hard Linux is. RTFM!!!


    What fucking manual? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:06:59 AM PST
    Since linux is free, the g**ks don't have managers making them write manuals describing how to get things working. Therefore, there is no manual. All there is is a bunch of howtos and faqs written about subjects that the g**ks are actually interested in. For some reason this does not include the basics of getting things working.

    I know your l33t skillz enable you to find the right manual by pure open source magic, but that's not sufficient for the rest of us, since we aren't open source wizards. I acknowledge your superior l33tness. You're super-fucken-cool, OK? Now can you guys stop lording it over us and start writing documentation the rest of us can actually use?

    Here's a hint: you need to make it real simple. So simple it hurts you to write it. The primary reason that windows will always dominate is that they write documentation that even a grandmother can understand. G**ks consider that beneath them, which is why Grandme will never use linux.


    You so smart *cough*bullshit*cough* (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:12:35 AM PST
    <<Since linux is free, the g**ks don't have managers making them write manuals describing how to get things working. Therefore, there is no manual. All there is is a bunch of howtos and faqs written about subjects that the g**ks are actually interested in. For some reason this does not include the basics of getting things working.>>

    Do me a favor. Open the terminal in a Linux distro and type MAN [command]. Here's an example:

    man ls

    This will give the necessary information for various commands. MAN short for MANUAL. It works kinda like /? in Windows. As far as paper manuals, do you think you're gonna get them if you download a distro? NOOOOOOOO. Did you get a paper manual when you downloaded Windows XP RC2? NOOOOOOO! Do you get paper manuals when you download software like freeware or shareware for WINDOWS!?! HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


    Yeah, nice try (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:50:22 PM PST
    I already knew about man, but it isn't a manual. I could write "manual" on my lamp, but that wouldn't make it a manual either. Users need a manual they can understand, that tells them how to do things in clear, simple language, preferably step by step, with diagrams as needed. How the hell am I supposed to find out that ls lists directories if I don't already know it? Guess? Flail wildly at the keyboard? Open Source magic?

    Unfortunately, linux will never treat users as the most important part of the equation, and that is why linux will always fail on the desktop.


    get your linux manuals (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:33:33 PM PST
    You want manuals? Get yourself a retail box set.

    "Oh I thought Linux was free....."

    The cost covers:

    The cost of the medium (CD/DVD)
    1. MANUALS
    2. Online/phone Tech support
    3. Possible free upgrade materials (ie Professional Server, Red Hat)
    4. Any other useful stuff they wanna throw into the box

    Buy a Red Hat box set (like Standard Workstation) and and get a free...well RED HAT when you send in the registration card.


     
    Simple really (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:09:00 PM PST
    try man -k <keyword>, in this case "man -k list" has
    ls (1) - list directory contents
    as one of the results. So if you can remember man -k, you can find any command.


    and how do you propose I find out about that? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:33:32 AM PST
    Ignoring for the moment, the fact that man pages are useless to the average user because they are written in incomprehensible geekanese.


    fuck, dude (none / 0) (#245)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:36:45 AM PST
    If you can't understand the documentation, then you have no business using an operating system as powerful and versatile as linux. It's a hobbyist's OS. If you want an operating system that doesn't crash and doesn't require a reading level over the 6th grade, get BeOS or, at the very least, MacOS. These are easy to use for those of you who have to have to have "everything pretty or it doesn't work right." I've been using linux for two years and BeOS for a year and a half; both are stable (I have been using WinXP for two weeks, and it has crashed on me more times than linux and Be together have in the past 2 years.) and motherfucking powerful.

    So, if you don't like how the documentation treats you in linux, DON'T USE IT, or write something better. At any rate don't complain about shit you don't understand. (That's gonna get some response.) Documentation is not the reason that Windows will be a dominate OS in the coming years. There are many reasons for that; none of which have anything to do with support or documentation.

    Users don't use it because developers don't develop for it. Developers don't develop for it because users don't use it. Sad sad sad.


     
    Manuals (none / 0) (#234)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 08:50:53 AM PST
    Well, I think the author didn't even bother to read the manual, which you can easily find on the page of Mandrake, the distribution he wanted to install.

    http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/fdoc.php3


    it's all explained there...




     
    Jesus Wept. (0.33 / 3) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:45:59 PM PST
    You are Bill Gates. I claim my $5.


     
    You don't have to actually run Linux (4.33 / 3) (#52)
    by jcolter on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 05:10:45 PM PST
    Just buy a t-shirt. I've found that if I by some computer related clothes, I have a much easier time meeting women. Personally anything with Tux or the Daemon on it is good for picking up chicks.

    The IBM ads here in NYC have really had a positive effect for ugly people like us.


    wow. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jsm on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:15:20 AM PST
    I cannot believe it. I usually consider myself a smart guy, but I had never fucking thought of that. I mean that non-ironically. How could I have missed it? Thanks. That solves a lot of problems for me. I can even still use the books to carry around ostentatiously.

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

    I think we've found the error (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:52:40 AM PST
    I usually consider myself a smart guy

    I convered this pretty well in my "requirements" howto post, search for that word, It'll help the next time you consider doing something silly like working on your own computer.

    --
    Anonymous user #42


     
    Vaio has a recovery CD (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:01:02 PM PST
    You DO have a CD drive for your vaio, don't you?
    And don't you also have a system recovery CD? Can't you just put it in and make it restore your system?

    I could tell you sad tales of trying to _reinstall_ windows 2000 on a (previously) working computer because it was acting a bit strange that left me with no computer for weeks. And About the winModem that refused to work with windows 2000 (even though it said it would on the box) which, when I called tech support, they asked me which version or 2000 I had (I'm skipping the part where I had to open the machine and remove the modem card and then put it back in, twice) and said finally "Oh--it needs the full version, not the upgrade." I pointed out that the WinModem box didn't say anything about that. They felt my pain. They assured me I would be able to get my money back.

    But the point (and I DO have one) is that once you start messing with your OS & hardware, you're looking for trouble--be it with Linux or with Microsoft. You just happened to have YOUR trouble with Linux, but that's partly a coincidence.

    Now use your system recovery disk!
    -- Support the home page homeless.

    Yeah sure (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:47:07 AM PST
    The vaio recovery CD - Is that the one which has all your up to date personal files and data on it ?

    Linux destroys your disk drive without telling you. It illegally modifies your boot block in such a way that it becomes incompatible with Microsoft OSs.


    now thats funny! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:35:43 AM PST
    Could you type it again?


     
    Wha? (3.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:44:38 PM PST
    "illegally"? What the hell are you talking about? I'll tell you what's illegal: the abject ignorance and arrogance people like you rape the planet and the human species with on a daily basis.


     
    the first step of installing any OS (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jiminim on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:16:50 AM PST
    So I guess you missed the first step, backing up any data that is important. Even Microsoft tells you to back up critical data BEFORE upgrading.

    From support.microsoft.com:
    "Back up all critical data on your hard disk. Although it is unlikely that you will encounter a serious problem when you install Windows 98, it is always a good idea to perform a complete system backup before you install a new operating system. When you upgrade your computer's operating system, an error might occur (such as a problem that is the result of incompatible hardware or a power failure) that could temporarily or permanently prevent you from gaining access to the data on your hard disk."

    from www.linux-mandrake.com:
    "In case you decide on a classic install and have never installed GNU/Linux before, DrakX will have to resize your Windows partition (if any). This operation can be harmful to your data, therefore you must perform the following steps before proceeding:
    you must run scandisk on your Windows partition; the resizing program can detect some obvious errors, but scandisk is better suited for this task;
    for maximum data security, you should also run defrag on your partition. This further reduces the risk of data loss; this is not mandatory, but is highly recommended and doing it will make resizing much faster and easier;
    the ultimate insurance against problems is to always back up your data!
    "

    Even the Beast tells you that there might be problems with their holy software so it is your own fault for not making backups.

    The Mandrake installation does not "illegally" modify your MBR, it ASKS you where you would like to install the bootloader. Have you EVER seen a Windows install ask you where to put the bootloader?

    -Jim
    -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

     
    Learn to fix (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:06:27 AM PST
    << Linux destroys your disk drive without telling you. It illegally modifies your boot block in such a way that it becomes incompatible with Microsoft OSs.>>

    Really, well then why don't you just fdisk the parition (by the way fdisk.com is DOS).

    How do you fix the boot block?" I think you are referring to the Master Boot Record (MBR). Try this:

    FDISK/MBR

    Then you can completely reinstall Windows. These commands are good if you have a dual boot (Linux/Windows or Windows 9x/Windows 2K). I repeat this is NOT some Linux hacker thing. FDISK is a DOS command (you can also find it in the /dosutils directory of most linux distros, packaging this is NOT illegal, so shut up). It can however, only recognize Windows partitions but can easy FDISK the MBR. You will need delpart or the OS parition utility (included with NT OSes like W2K) to remove Linux partitions.

    The fact that you did not know this makes me question your computing knowledge.


     
    change the thumbnail (2.25 / 4) (#66)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:14:35 PM PST
    The guys at adequacy.org should really change the GNU/Linux pic. Most geeks do NOT look like the guys from Revenge of the Nerds. Most of us are long haired, tatooed, bikers, hippies and the like.


    You may be right. (4.75 / 4) (#72)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:11:28 AM PST
    I think what you meant, though, is that most geeks are guys who are long haired, tatooed, bikers, hippies, and the like, who look like the guys from the Revenge of the Nerds, and are trying desperately to fit into a cool subculture, and failing horribly, often becuase said subculture does not actually exist anymore.

    So maybe the proper graphic would be a paper doll in terrifyingly un-sexy underwear, together with some leather clothes and some tie-dye and some crap industrial band T-shirts and some "sports sandals" and a fucking purple cloak, and then we could have some role-playing game manuals and comic books and hair dye and computer parts strewn about for good measure.

    These days, the guys who look like the gent in that graphic that you dislike are all playing in shit bands trying to be Weezer, but since they are doing this in an attempt to get laid, it would be inaccurate to call them geeks.



    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Baaaahhahahaha (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:33:58 PM PST
    Hahahahahaha, too much. :'-p Excuse me while I roll around on the floor in laughter like a maniac for a sec.


    WRONG (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:31:25 PM PST
    Most of the guys responsible for ArpaNET which later evolved into the internet WERE and still are hippies, bikers, and the like.

    Hell one good example is Steve Jobs. Have you ever seen a picture of hime before he shaved his mustache and beard and cut his hair? He was a hippy at the University of California at Berkeley.


    Hey, I didn't know that... (none / 0) (#113)
    by elenchos on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:26:12 PM PST
    So Jobs used to work at BBN? Learn something new every day. So is that Steve Jobs there on the right, wearing black, in this picture, the one straddling a Harley and brandishing a Colt .45 and a fifth of Beam? No, not the one with Hunter S. Thompson by the hair, the guy next to him. I never noticed the resemblance before.

    I guess it makes sense, what with Alan Ginsburg doing so much early work on the Halting Problem and Keny Kesey and the Merry Pranksters being the main LSD suppliers for the MIT AI Lab.

    Woo hoo! Animals these geeks were! They'd kick your ass, or let you kick their ass, and didn't care either way, so long as they had a pure line of blow and a hot momma in their sleeping bag!


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    BBN! (none / 0) (#118)
    by madmorf on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 06:57:08 AM PST
    Thanks for the link to the picture!

    I worked for BBN in the 80's as a Field Engineer...

    I always like reading stuff about "the good old days"...

    Madmorf



    hippies and computers (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:30:19 AM PST
    Actually most of the hippies were working at the Universities. There quite a few who worked on ArpaNET, MilNET, BitNET (Because It's Time), and the Internet.

    Do you really think they are gonna take pictures of a lot of these guys? Most of the picrures were not seen by the general public. You think they're gonna show investors pictures of a buncha guys with long hair? Some of the guys eventually had their pictures taken, but only after the cut their hair.

    <<So is that Steve Jobs there on the right, wearing black, in this picture, the one straddling a Harley and brandishing a Colt .45 and a fifth of Beam?>>

    Steve Jobs was one of the original founder of Apple. He is currently the CEO. Obviously if you don't know who Steve Jobs is then you should really not attempt in any way to come into any discussion about computer history in an attempt to sound intelligent.

    You probably hang out with those guys that think that UNIX is a backwards engineered DOS. Kinda hard to backwards engineer something that hadn't been written yet. If you don't know history don't attempt to make people think you do. The adequacy.org loyalist that believe the "atuthors" are SOOO smart would find better information written on the inside of a bathroom stall.


    not true (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jsm on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:49:26 AM PST
    The adequacy.org loyalist that believe the "atuthors" are SOOO smart would find better information written on the inside of a bathroom stall.

    That's not true; most of our readers already have your mother's phone number.

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

    you can have her (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:22:55 AM PST
    Hey man if you're into necrophelia go right ahead. You can have her. My mother has been dead for over 25 years.

    And since the dumbass adequacy.org family has fucked up ideas as to what constitues hacking and believes they can bring legal action against someone I can use your idiocy to my advantage. "I consider that slander, blah blah blah. You'll be speaking to my lawyer, blah blah blah."


    good point (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jsm on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:51:43 AM PST
    My mother has been dead for over 25 years.

    Yes, but they don't clean the restrooms particularly often round your neck of the woods.

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

    This is fucking pathetic. (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 02:45:06 PM PST
    Is this an example of the open-minded, adult discussion that adequacy.org is supposed to cater to? You're throwing insults about somebody's dead mother, which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Sigh...

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jsm on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:05:50 PM PST
    Is this an example of the open-minded, adult discussion that adequacy.org is supposed to cater to?

    Frankly, no.

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

     
    I didn't hear him say anything about you (none / 0) (#140)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:46:22 PM PST
    I think you mean libel. And you can't sue him because your mother was libelled, not you. Get a lawyer before you start making baselesss allagations on the internet.


    just an example (none / 0) (#151)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:42:11 PM PST
    <<I think you mean libel. And you can't sue him because your mother was libelled, not you. Get a lawyer before you start making baselesss allagations on the internet.>>

    It was used as an example of people who have their heads up their ass and don't have a CLUE what the hell they're talking about.

    It amazes me that the INadequacy-family likes to argue "we are not technical people, quit talking about geek stuff" yet wants to argue technical points.

    The best example are the idiots running around screaming how TELNET is nothing but a Linux hacker thing and how it's not in Windows. I love the quote some editor made that they will be talking to their lawyers, because some people used telnet or the GET command to find out what OS was running on Adequacy.org's Web Servers.

    Not in Windows:

    Sart > RUN > telent
    or
    net start tlntsvr from the command prompt

    Betcha a million dollars it works.


     
    WEEZER SUX (0.50 / 2) (#152)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:46:42 PM PST
    << These days, the guys who look like the gent in that graphic that you dislike are all playing in shit bands trying to be Weezer, but since they are doing this in an attempt to get laid, it would be inaccurate to call them geeks.>>

    Who the hell listens to WEEZER!?!

    I prefer Slipknot, MuDvAyNe, Linkin Park, Tool, Twiztid. I don't listen to that pussy shit.


    Lamer. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 01:15:36 PM PST
    You say you like Slipknot and Linkin Park, then add that you don't listen to "that pussy shit". Quite frankly, you contradict yourself.


    Very observant (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by dmg on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 01:29:19 PM PST
    As an editor here at adequacy.org I intended to delete that post. Now I think I will let it stand as an example to others of the kind of contradictory, illogical posting we don't like to see at adequacy.

    Thanks for taking time out to point out the ludicrous false logic in the parent post.

    Adequacy maintains high standards of quality control, so you the reader do not have to wade through pages and pages of crap, like you do at some other websites.

    Thanks again

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    As Paul Did Unto Jesus (4.50 / 2) (#112)
    by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:09:30 PM PST
    The guys at adequacy.org should really change the GNU/Linux pic. Most geeks do NOT look like the guys from Revenge of the Nerds. Most of us are long haired, tatooed, bikers, hippies and the like.


    Why should he change the picture to someone not related to Linux? For everybody's information, the GNU/Linux pic is a picture of Linux Torvalds, the creator of GNU/Linux. This is the people the Linux Community idolize. I guess they don't want people to know that the founder of their shitty OS looks like your typical nerd.
    Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

    Incorrect (0.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:39:11 AM PST
    Try again. That's a character from the Red Green Show.


     
    Of Course Not (4.50 / 2) (#191)
    by Verminator on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:25:48 PM PST
    For your information Louis Skolnick was a nerd, as opposed to a geek. These are two different things.

    In fact I'd be a little tentative about calling myself a geek if I were you. A true geek is not someone with whom I'd want to associate, much less indentify myself as.

    You see, geeks were the lowest rung of carnival sideshow society. Generally an alcoholic or drug addict, their act was to sit in a cage or pit and eat disgusting things for the amusement of others. Sadly, the legacy of the true geek has faded with the demise of the sideshow as mainstream entertainment and become something of a badge of honor for computer nerds.

    But fear not! The geeks of today no longer inhabit just the carnival. All you need is a camera and something suitably disgusting to eat and you too can be a real geek.


     
    Umm... (1.50 / 2) (#75)
    by codespace on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:54:42 AM PST
    User error, replace and strike any key.
    "Sir, are you classified as human?" "Negative, I am a meat popsicle."

     
    quite amusing (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:25:22 AM PST
    You went to IRC to get help. Ha!
    I made that mistake one time too often too. Just think about it, which linux guru has time to hang out on irc? Real linux guru's hang out on newsgroups, or on mailing lists, irc is completely braindead as a linux aid. But, actually, the whole of the internet is braindead as a linux aid.
    Your best bet to get help installing linux is to take your computer to the closest linux users group. I did that with my laptop. All unsupported hardware (or so I thought). Turned out it was perfectly possible to install linux on it and get every single piece of hardware attached to it working. All I needed was someone with a lot of linux experience.

    In general, linux distro's suck though. I can install ANY distro and immediately point out at least 5 major flaws that I could personally fix. And I'm no guru.

    In my experience, the best distro to run is debian, since it's made by volunteers, who actually try to build something they would be proud of, not something that's ready by the next deadline. The dumb things about debian is that the default install dates from the dinosaur era, and that the installation software is absolute horror. Where the other distro's installs do a lot of stuff automatically (and screw it up), debian's install doesn't do anything automatically, forcing you to design your own partition layout, and to choose your own kernel modules to load. It sucks. Majorly. But luckily you only have to do it once, and after that it'll run forever.

    But if you have a reasonably fast desktop machine, stay away from linux. Linux isn't ready to replace windows as a desktop OS yet. Give it a year or two. Server usage, sure, programmer's workstation, well, maybe, but desktop, no way. Ofcourse, I use it as my desktop OS, but then it took me a long while to get there. It's just that my drive to get away from MS was so strong that it overcame the barriers thrown up by linux to reach enlightenment :)



     
    incompetence (1.00 / 2) (#86)
    by buridan on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:41:59 AM PST
    never blame the machine or software for the user's incompetence, even if that incompetence is ingrained into him or her through the use of certain types of software... an analogy is riding a bike, some people are physically unable, some people are mentally unable, and some people are attitudinally unable, the rest can ride bikes.


    good post (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 07:36:18 AM PST
    The "writer" was one of the reasons that linux isn't further than it is, programming for his like is too time consuming and lacks rewards. Microsoft is better suited to program for these poor folks, as they are able to motivate their coders with money.


     
    I see (none / 0) (#184)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:54:06 PM PST
    So if software is too hard, it is ethically wrong or wasteful to make it easier for people? Or is it just that GUIs are hard to code well, geeks don't like doing research such as usability studies, and any area in which linux fails abysmally will always be dismissed as irrelevant?

    LFT exceeded.


    i agree (none / 0) (#232)
    by buridan on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 06:52:49 AM PST
    people should never be allowed to think out of the box, never asked to do anything that is not readily apparent and a provided option, never ever asked to live outside of the design....


     
    Who needs books... (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by angry android on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:14:59 PM PST
    when I had deja.com and linuxdocs.org. My journey into linux started like many others probably has; I wanted to make my old pc into a broadband firewall. I was 17 and immensely curious. Whenever I got stuck I combed deja.com and linuxdocs.org. I've found that storming into an irc channel demanding answers to your questions will get close to nothing accomlished. After lots of careful research and thorough testing, a polite post in a linux newsgroup will usually bring the best results.


    What Would Really Help (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:40:44 PM PST
    My journey into linux started like many others probably has; I wanted to make my old pc into a broadband firewall.


    Ever notice how Linux users stress how good it runs on old hardware? I am beginning to believe them that Linux does work on more hardware than Microsoft. The problem is that most of this hardware is obsolete and hardly ever used.
    After lots of careful research and thorough testing, a polite post in a linux newsgroup will usually bring the best results.


    Or perhaps Linux users being honest and saying "Linux is easy only if time means nothing to you because you're sure going to need plenty of it to ever get this fucking OS to work. It's only useful if you want to impress that "girl" on IRC that says she looks like Angelina Jolie on Hackers. I'll stick with the inferior (i.e. usable) Windows. Sure, I won't be using it as a firewall but at least I'll be able to use it for things that actually matter in the real world.
    Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

    Linux - Not for Everyone (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:47:42 PM PST
    The problem is that most of this hardware is obsolete and hardly ever used.
    Yes, the hardware is obsolete. Yes, it's hardly used. But Linux provides you a way to use it, instead of resorting to throwing it in the trash because it won't run Windows XP and the latest version of Office.

    Or perhaps Linux users being honest and saying "Linux is easy only if time means nothing to you because you're sure going to need plenty of it to ever get this fucking OS to work..."
    Linux isn't easy. Especially if all you've ever used is Windows. It was built using an entirely different OS framework and does almost everything differently than Windows. Don't let yourself be blinded by hype; when you install Linux, you're trying out something totally different than what you're used to. Expecting a completely smooth transition is foolish. You have to educate yourself about the OS you're trying to use.

    I'll stick with the inferior (i.e. usable) Windows. Sure, I won't be using it as a firewall but at least I'll be able to use it for things that actually matter in the real world.
    Linux is usable. You just have to learn how to use it. I apologize if you were given the impression that that task wouldn't take any effort. You can do "things that matter in the real world" on Linux too. Email, chat, web browsing, word processing, graphics manipulation, programming, web developing are all tasks that are easily done in Linux.

    Contrary to what it seemed you were implying, firewalling is a task that matters in the real world too. Unprotected computers on any sort of internet connection (especially always-on broadband connections) need to be secure from crackers, virii and such. This seems to be something that most adequacy.org are aware of, seeing as how they are (too) quick to point fingers at "hackers". People's who's computers have been compromised risk data and productivity loss. Especially for the average consumer, having to reinstall your OS becuase of a virus infection is a pain.

    Another bit to think about. Give the average consumer a computer with an unpartitioned hard drive, a Windows CD and a boot disk and tell them to install Windows. The average computer user wouldn't know what to do without consulting documentation (and would still run into problems they don't know how to solve, just ask anybody who does tech support for a living). That's the task that every prospective Linux user faces. If you plan on repartitioning your hard drive and installing a foreign OS, you need to back up your data and take the time to educate yourself on what it is you're about to do.

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



     
    wierd (none / 0) (#170)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 07:34:28 AM PST
    I've been called clueless but solutions to linux problems just don't seem to take that long. Most problems with windows of any kind usually either involve a checkbook or impossibility. Not saying that windows isn't a nice piece of work mind you.


     
    computer's suck (cause they listen to us) (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:07:21 PM PST
    WARNING to all readers (especially linux, FSF, Open Source devotees): Read the mission statement, faq, etc. of this site b4 spending another second here. The editors and regs at this site are very firm in their anti-GNU/GPL, anti-linux beliefs. There is not a great deal of open-minded attitude in the comments I have been reading. I just read a comment that claimed that the Open Source objective was to destroy large software companies! Sorry, but I work for a large software company and think Open Source is the only way to go. Why wait for someone else to fix your problems when you can dig in and do it yourself. Arguing is fun when done between open-minded individuals, there is no gaurentee's that anybody here is even listening. There are some hidden adgenda's here that we are unaware of.

    I am not a FSF-OSource-linux apologist, nor a Bill Gates crusader (as it appears 90% of the other's involved in the discussion fall into one or the other). I am a software engineer who has has no tech religion (can you believe we actually use that in my company's culture statement). What is the best tool for the problem at hand, that is the question that should be asked before deciding on a solution. I surfed into this ridiculous thread of wasted time by accident. A linux help site had a link to it, informing everyone how bad Mr. iat's review was.

    Linux is a great tool for engineers and hobbyists who need (or desire) to get behind the scenes of the OS and get their hands dirty. Most of my co-workers use it daily in order to solve the problems our job presents us. It is a tool that can be altered to do (theoretically) WHATEVER you want, it just takes a variable amount of time and knowledge.

    However, linux is NOT easy to use, any one who claims it is must have some substantial computer experience. Remembering the config/source files that occampany the app you are trying to fix/use is a hassle. Trying to surf the web with the common version of Netscape shipped with many distro's is painful. I know, I know, go get Opera, or some other browser but do I want to put the time in just for a browser? Maybe some, but not all.

    Windows is a tool more suited to the casual user, a great tool for presentations and pretty pictures. Compatibility is of little concern, most people have a Windows PC available to open your MS Word docs. After getting some new hardware, it is much easier to use the packaged driver disk for Win than try to track down the correct Linux drivers on the net.

    Don't get me wrong though, windows still sucks! It is made by a huge company that must have a $5 QA budget. It is no secret that their first concern is "time to market" and not "reliability & robustness". They popularized the terms "service pack & patch". They go by the sell now, fix later philosophy and they can get away with it because corporations can't make bundles of dough without their software. It crashes randomly (NT less than 9* & ME, I haven't tried XP yet) and is the most fault intolerant OS I have ever used. If you try to address it without the proper salutation you get the blue screen of death. Windows gave the term "3 finger salute" a meaning. A week ago I had a faulty floppy ribbon and Windows would boot into a BSoDeath after a few seconds, while Linux booted normally under the same conditions, politely explaning that fd0 has failed. Now would the average user understand what the hell fd0 is? Probably not. They are better off with the good ole BSoD so they can take the machine to the local techie.

    I guess the point I am trying to make is stop arguing about which OS is better, by nature Operating Systems suck. They are made by imperfect people and each has many faults. Be open minded when someone claims that there may be an alternative solution. It is useless to argue about the better tool in general because there are too many cases where your argument will FAIL (just like your respective piece of shit OS's!)

    Instead let's discuss how slick it was for adequacy to drum up so much attention and interest in the last few days. They managed to get a whole legion of linux lovers to come to their site. It is a buzz in the many discussion forums. Marketing genius! If iat had written about how easy Mandrake was to install half of us would still think adequacy was something we strive for in bed, now we know it is actually a website! IAT must have invented the term devil's advocate. Anyone want to bet he installed Mandrake in about 30 minutes about 2 years ago? I have tried to be rational in reading the comments here, but it seems their are far too many Microsoft stock holders nervous about the possibility of some competition. Here's a tip: buy some long term puts!


    A drop of reason in a pool of insanity. (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:26:27 PM PST
    This is by far the most level headed post I've seen in the discussions for the Linux related articles.

    His first comment rings true. It really does seem that the abhorrence for Linux by the MS devotees that frequent this site are just as extreme as the fanaticism displayed by Linux zealots brought here by the Mandrake "reviews".

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



     
    Blantant lies (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sdem on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:54:07 PM PST
    There is not a great deal of open-minded attitude in the comments I have been reading.

    Quite to the contrary. If you had even bothered to read the rest of this site, or even a small portion of it, you would realize that this is one of the most open-minded, and therefore controversial, sites on the internet. Nowhere else will you find such radical opinions being posed in an open forum, followed by clear, well thought out comments. Perhaps you were thinking about that other site where they make claims of openmindedness, but in reality have a huge slant in favor of whatever happens to fatten the wallets and stock options of the editors.

    This site, my anonymous troll friend, is a labor of love by the editors and administrators. Please withhold your rude and ill informed judgement until after you are actually aware of the facts. Anymore trolling on your part will be met with severe sanctions at this site, as we have a strict no-trolling policy.


    fools (1.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 02:56:18 PM PST
    Ah yes you illustrate your point beautifully..... by contradicting it. open-mindedness? is "Anymore trolling on your part will be met with severe sanctions at this site, as we have a strict no-trolling policy." the kind of open-minded policy you like to encourage here? The man was obviously not trolling, and there is a fine chance you may be. He didn't accuse the whole of the site to be trolls, but judging from previous self-labeled 'controversial' articles on this site, and the reactions that they have produced, he is pretty much on target. It seems more and more like anytime someone posts something even slightly-insightful, it just gets deleted anyway. Hell, my previous reply to you was deleted! What kind of a forum is this? Open-mindedness... hah.

    --FlatLine wondering how long until this gets deleted too? If it's not here tomorrow, then I guess that just supports my point even further. This place doesn't fail to live up to it's name.


     
    Ill-considered criticism (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:20:02 AM PST
    Has it occured to you that there might actually be people who genuinely hold opinions contrary to your own? Furthermore, these people might maintain these opinions regardless of monetary interest! What's more, these people have a right to express their opinions without being accused of self-aggrandizement of the sort you are ascribing to them. Have you considered what it says about your level of open-mindedness that you have dismissed all these possibilities out of hand?


    Open? I beg to differ... (3.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 05:27:33 PM PST
    It seems that everytime a "geek" tries to make a point, they're immediately chastised for "harassing a regular", "being close-minded" or for "being an open-source sheep".

    Even with a level headed, openly non-biased post, the poster of "computer's suck (cause they listen to us)" was immediately countered with "you're close-minded" and "we're the bastion of open discussion" rebuttals. He clearly stated he had read articles and postings on this site, and was voicing his opinions on what he had read (which has been repeatedly stated as being the point of adequacy.org discussions). It seems that becuase of the conclusions he came to, he's threatened with being deleted from the discussion and called names ("troll!").

    Please explain how you can honestly claim this is a truly open discussion...

    - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
    - chuckx@cold-sun.com -
    - http://www.cold-sun.com -



    Ooh! Oooh! I know this one! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by elenchos on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:18:02 PM PST
    Don't make any points as a g**k! Instead, just make your point as a human being, who knows some things, doesn't know other things, and has the ability to reason, within bounds.

    The most obnoxious g**k characteristic is a mildly autistic trait: lacking something called "theory of mind." "Theory of mind" is the awareness that what is in the minds of others and what is in one's own mind can be, and usually are, two different things. What you know and what others know are not the same. What you like, and what they like, are not the same. The fact that your experiences do not correlate exactly with others' is normal, and not a reason to think they must be "idiots" and "morons" (perhaps the two most frequently used words in the g**k vocabulary). It all boils down to this: yes, you like Linux, and don't find it useless. Very nice. Most of rest of the human race has as much use for it as a football bat. That doesn't make them stupid. So, if you insist on making your point from a g**k perspective, thinking the way g**ks think, then make your post on slashdot or some place like that, where that sort of thing is considered an asset. Here, it is nothing but a big "kick me" sign waving from your butt.

    Look out now, because the clues are coming straight at you, hard and fast, and I ain't gonna say this twice.

    This lack of "theory of mind" also cripples g**ks with their most hilarious weakness: they can't tell when someone is lying to them. So while our semi-autistic friends will fumble around with blinders on, clinging to some absurd faith in a particular computer platform or language or protocol simply because they get their friends that way, and these sad sacks cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances, they can be made the object of endless fun by certain less than scrupulous individuals.

    Now I'm not saying it's right to play these kinds of games, and I would never do it myself. In fact, the best web logs actively prevent this kind of cruel teasing. However, when one realizes that since our g**k friends habitually take everything they don't understand and label it "moronic" or "retarded" and then easily step from there to deciding that since they don't understand the majority of human society, it must be full of "idiots", and therefore everything ought to be forcibly redesigned to g**k specifications (the Right Thing), and that all of that is basically Nazism by any other name, well, then who can blame those who want to have a bit of fun at the expense of our visiting autistic fascist nerd Lunix apologists?

    And while Adequacy is not at present a "gated community" it is not entirely open to just anyone. If it were, then posts would not be deleted, nor accounts shut down, nor IP addresses blocked. Clearly, this web log is intended to be open only within certain well-reasoned and appropriate limits set by the owners. I don't know them very well, but I can tell you they aren't 100% normal people, okay? The sometimes creep me out a little bit, to tell the truth. So don't have too unrealistic a set of expectations as to how free and open the discussion is on this board.

    Now. Since you're going to stick around, apparently, I've been meaning to ask you something. Is your real name in fact actually Charles K. Lee Junior? You're not a king or a pope, so why would you need Raman numerals after your name to keep track of which one you are? Just wondering, that's all.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    Aah! (0.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:15:56 PM PST
    Sorry I can't hear you, your website is too damn loud! Have you heard of reasonable color schemes? You could blind someone like that.


    I stared at that for a full minute... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by elenchos on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:30:55 PM PST
    ...trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about. My web site (the only site that could possibly be called mine) is all in white. It barely has any color scheme at all, and there is certainly nothing unreasonable about simple white.

    But then I realized perhaps you have a complaint with one of the web sites I gave out links to at some point. None are mine, they're just sites I think you should visit for you edification and enrichment. If you object to the color scheme at one of them, I encourage you to send politely worded and useful design suggestions to one of the fine and talented folks who run the particular site in question.

    As far as you being in any danger of going blind, I would bet money that you have a daily, uh, occurance that presents a far greater threat to your eyesight than the occasional viewing of a web site.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    I think the poor bastard was referring to (none / 0) (#155)
    by RobotSlave on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:39:05 PM PST
    the Sleater-Kinney site. Pearls before swine, you might be thinking, but it's come to the point where it's actually kind of cool to pretend you've never heard of a given band from Olympia, kind of tedious to point out their shortcomings, and appallingly un-hip to admit that you like them, no matter how good their drummer is.

    But never mind that. Our earnest young friend Charles Junior has taken some photos that he wants to share with us.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Hey, my site has photos just like that. (none / 0) (#157)
    by elenchos on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:15:59 AM PST
    Except all of mine have dogs in them, or the odd cat. But what else is the web for? Besides giving out illeagal hacking instructions and writng mad screeds on all that the world is doing wrong? And porn.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


    Don't forget stealing (none / 0) (#158)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:43:11 AM PST
    Isn't stealing music an important part of the internet?


     
    Oh, darn. (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by RobotSlave on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 02:59:21 AM PST
    I had a clever thing or two to add to this later in the thread, but it's all just fallen right out of my head. Almost as if there were an entirely seperate personality in there censoring things for me.

    Just as well, I suppose-- there are some things, like popular music and personal photos on public web pages, that are best forgotten.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    Fascism/Communism (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 05:08:42 AM PST
    More observant readers might wonder how it is possible to reconcile the inherently marxist philosophies of free software with fascism. It isd important to remember that communism is essentially an economic system, while fascism is a political system. The two are fairly reconcilable, especially since true facism never shows its face until it has assumed absolute dominance. Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman are two of the most insidious crypto-fascist marxists I have ever seen.


     
    Why does Adequacy.org use Unix? (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 07:12:57 PM PST
    telnet adequacy.org 80
    Trying 63.89.124.239...
    Connected to adequacy.org.
    Escape character is '^]'.
    HEAD / HTTP/1.0

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:11:14 GMT
    Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26
    ---------

    Thank you for coming. Long life to Mandrake Linux.


    LFT approached. RTF-Article (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by plastik55 on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:17:07 AM PST
    naturally, it's for the same reason that 75% of Slashbots post using Internet Explorer on Windows. Linux is fine for a machine that does nothing but serve HTTP requests all day with no user interaction. It's even decent for working on programming projects. But as a user experience it's only slightly more fun than eating glass. All of this is covered quite well in the article you should have read before posting, and therefore neither you nor I have contributed anything useful. Come back when you have something constructive to say.

    ---
    You fucking terror midget. Die a firey fucking death. -- Matthew 30:06

     
    bug in apache (none / 0) (#237)
    by kwench on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:06:57 PM PST
    Ahh... yes...

    The win32 port of Apache does actually have a few glitches... somebody forgot to put "win32" instead of "unix" in the source code...


     
    Win2k NOT supporting my hardware (2.33 / 3) (#117)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 06:33:09 AM PST
    Real life story, think about it

    6 month ago I bought a brand newish HP Brio computer. I installed Win2k - it did NOT recognized correctly (or at all) the following

    my printer (HP930C USB)
    my ISDN card (PCI)
    my monitor (Sony)
    my CD writer (HP USB again)
    my ZIP drive

    Yeah, download it from the web. Without connection...

    Then I installed Mandrake Linux8 - went without a hitch, recognised ALL hardware, so I could download my win2k drivers, 30 megs total.

    BTW installin win2k AFTER Linux destroys the Linux bootability - who is trashing the computer??


    Check with Bill (1.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:17:25 AM PST
    <<BTW installin win2k AFTER Linux destroys the Linux bootability - who is trashing the computer??
    >>

    TRUE. And if you don't think so...

    CHECK www.microsoft.com and run a SEARCH. Oh wait I forgot Windoze user can't type worth a shit. I'll they can do is point and click everything. If it ain't got an ICON it ain't you can't do it in Windows.

    There's a wealth of programs, utilities, etc is you open the command prompt and TRY. MS loves to tailor their OS for the moronic masses. I'm suprised the keyboard hasn't been dubbed obsolete my Bill.


     
    I installed Linux and... (none / 0) (#229)
    by dorward on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 12:31:53 AM PST
    My Rio just worked
    My printer just worked
    My graphics card just worked
    My zip drive just worked
    My TV card that crashes Windows just worked
    My CD burner just worked
    My 7 button mouse just worked
    ... everything just worked ...

    ... of course I had checked that my hardware was supported before buying it.


     
    You arent READY for the power of Linux. (2.33 / 3) (#160)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:28:28 AM PST
    PLEASE tell me this is a Joke.

    I've been reading article after article from this site, And I believed it was just a bunch of jokes and games, but this article actually seems serious.


    And you idiots who make comments about how linux is too hard, What the hell? do you think computers are TOYS????? Computers are supposed to be complicated.

    Ok, if you want easy to use, just to check your email and surf the web, use windows, or the mac, Linux is for the POWER user.

    IF you have state of the art hardware and want to run state of the art cutting age software you need linux.

    You wont find cutting edge on Windows and if you do be prepared to pay $600-800 for it.

    Linux is tough to install because its FREE. Did you buy it? Hell no, So if you didnt buy it, Then you are on your own.

    IF you buy it, THEN you have the right to get made at Redhat or Mandrake and yell and complain and write negative articles.


    First, Before you install anything, learn to read the documentation, You would know how to resize your partition and so on, its explained in documentation and tutorials all over the web, YOU DO THIS BEFORE YOU INSTALL. Didnt you guys go to school? cant you do your homework?


    Second, Linux doesnt have good hardware support, WHY? Because YOU didnt donate money to the programmers who write the drivers in their free time, want better hardware support? Donate money!!!!

    Windows is $200, If you paid $200 for Linux, Linux would have perfect hardware support too.


    Lastly, Linux is for the power user, not the newbie, Linux is a desktop OS for the POWER USER,
    Newbies should be using Windows98 or WindowsXP until they graduate to Linux.

    You dont get in over your head, if you dont know how something works you dont touch it.

    IF you cannot figure out how your computer works, how an API works, how a kernel works, how your drivers work, and so on, Then you should stick with Windows, When you learn how stuff works, Linxu is easy.

    I've had problems installing Linux, i never complained, I LIKE LEARNING. Any power user WANTS to learn how things work and doesnt mind failing a few times before they succeed.



    I prefer capitalism, thanks (3.66 / 3) (#167)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:34:24 AM PST
    See, here's what you're offering: I donate money to some stranger with no guarantee on the quality or timeliness of his work.

    Here's how capitalism works: People are paid to do a job, within certain time and budgetary constraints, and by contributing to that process, I obtain guaranteed results.

    See how much better capitalism works?


    Capitolism Rocks (2.33 / 3) (#174)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:48:41 AM PST
    Pay your $300 to M$oft, watch your computer reboot (again)! Wow, capitolism rocks!


    Observe (4.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 02:18:22 PM PST
    Why pay Microsoft when you can pay the programmers of the software by donating money, AFTER you've tried the software.

    Its guarenteed to be bug free because the programmers wont get a dime if its not.



    Oh, come on (none / 0) (#181)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:00:46 PM PST
    They won't get a dime if it IS bug-free, either. Consumers of open source software are notorious for being cheapskates with complete disregard for intellectual property -- a nice way of saying "thieves".

    The fundamental question of open source:

    Why devote time and hard-earned professional expertise to something you'll never see a dime from?

    Answers (in order):

    Personal need for the product
    Interesting problem to solve
    Glory/reputation/respect
    Charity

    If none of those factors are present, the product will NEVER be written.

    As far as corporate open source packages (e.g. StarOffice), those only exist as enticements to build marketshare. Funny how Microsoft giving away a browser is bad but Sun giving away an office suite isn't.



    You pay for your ISP right? And Windows right? (3.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:55:02 AM PST
    They donate money, Thousands of dollars plus sponserships from Companies profiting on open source technology has allowed open source to survive this long.

    Xfree86, www.slashdot.com sourceforce the linux kernel development team, http://freenetproject.org, apache team all get money from donatations.

    People either donate money, or they donate time.

    Open source people dont donate alot of money because most of them are college students who have no money.

    In fact i have no money but i still manage to donate about $5 every few month.


    When open source software gets to the casual users people will donate more money because then they'll have more money.

    Think about it, if you want games, you MUST donate money, It makes the economy run, the stock market works in a similar way, you donate money in hopes that you'll get a return.

    A company like IBM will donate a billion dollars knowing they'll get a return, it turns the software industry into more of an stock market.

    Afterall you arent selling packaged products you are selling time and serives.
    This is how it SHOULD be, you should rent or pay for services.



    You've just proven my point. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 01:43:17 AM PST
    By including slashdot. Have you seen slash? Do you realise how much it sucks? No amount of donations is going to make those guys admit that they haven't got a clue how to code. Slashdot runs purely open source code, and crashes three times a week, and has a non-functional comment search page.

    Yeah, those donations to slashdot are certainly well spent.

    This is how it SHOULD be, you should rent or pay for services.

    So producing owning or selling capital is wrong? Don't ever let me see you say Open Source isn't communism, you filthy hippy.


     
    MS Selling Services and Linux' Hypocriscy (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MessiahWWKD on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 02:08:43 AM PST
    Open source people dont donate alot of money because most of them are college students who have no money.


    I'm sure these college students will stop bein so open source when they have to get a real job and stop sponging off their parents.
    Afterall you arent selling packaged products you are selling time and serives. This is how it SHOULD be, you should rent or pay for services.


    Funny, how when Microsoft says they're going to start selling software as a service, the Linux community starts bitching about this sort of thing, but here, this guys is stating that all you're buying when you buy open source are services. How hypocritical of them. What they also must realize is that if someone's going to choose between donating money to a bunch of college students who party most of their time and rarely ever study like they should be doing, or donating money to an company which has a sole purpose in making quality products (i.e. Microsoft), they'll usually choose the latter.
    Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

    You don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 03:26:11 AM PST
    Allow me to explain a small part of the geek mindset:

    If it's closed source, software is a good, as in a saleable product, which people are immorally requiring others to treat as such, even though software cannot possibly be property. (Property is a capitalist myth, of course.)

    If it's open source, software is magical rain from heaven, that is free to all, and costs nothing to produce, not even effort, because the fairies and imps who make it love to work, just like the elves in the story about the cobbler. It's all about the dignity of labour.

    But the cruel gods of capitalism demand sacrifices of money from the poor software imps in return for the mana that the imps use to eat, and build the computers that they use to make the magical open source code, which is not only perfect engineering, it is also Art, and transcends both Art and science (especially economics).

    Even though the software imps are perfect programmers, and there are so many that all bugs are "made shallow" as they say in their quaint speech, sometimes evil hardware demons and diabolical closed source afrits summon bugs to infest the software imps' code. The imps must fight long and hard, through strange incantations on newgroups and discussion forums, by which they cast out the demons and afrits.

    Of course, to you and me, it just looks like whining and self-deception.


     
    LOGICAL CONTRADICTION ALERT (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by dmg on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 08:40:23 AM PST
    In fact i have no money but i still manage to donate about $5 every few month.

    Here at adequacy, we are always on the lookout for inconsistant postings, in order to maintain high standards of discussion, and the quality debate for which adequacy has a well-deserved reputation.

    Your comment appears to be logically inconsistant. If you have NO money, then you cannot dontate $5 of it, since there is nothing to donate.

    Consider this a warning. In future all logically inconsistent postings such as this one WILL be deleted.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    IE isnt free (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:56:34 AM PST
    Microsoft isnt giving away IE, Windows98 and above's price has gone up, Windows is $200+ for a REASON, you PAY for IE!

    and when you sign up to MSN ISP you pay for IE.



     
    Linux IS capitalism (2.33 / 3) (#179)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 02:07:07 PM PST

    Donating money is CAPITALISM.


    Geez, sure people earn money in a diffrent way, sure a rich greedy CEO doesnt get rich in the process, and the money goes straight to the people who deserve it, but its still capitalism, people are working and getting paid for their services.




    No, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:49:18 PM PST
    Capitalism is the ideology which is based in private ownership, particularly of the basic means of production. Free software wants to give the means of production away for free, and their ideology is that software cannot be owned by anyone. This is most specifically not capitalism.


     
    Capitalism or... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 10:03:56 AM PST
    sure a rich greedy CEO doesnt get rich in the process


    Yes, I'm sure the bosses of the likes of Red Hat, Mandrake et al only earn a little bit more than their staff.

    And I'm the King of China.


     
    Software warranties (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:26:22 PM PST
    No software company acts as you describe. All commercial software comes with an AS-IS warranty, with no guarantee of merchantability or fitness for any purpose. In fact, your only option with commercial software that does not work, is a refund. One wonders what one is paying for.

    Free software is also distributed without any warranty, but at least you get what you pay for.



     
    Unix haters handbook (3.66 / 3) (#172)
    by Dexter Descarte on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:12:47 AM PST
    These guys hate all forms of Unix.... and hate it well.

    If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.
    - Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation



    Oh yea (3.66 / 3) (#173)
    by Dexter Descarte on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:32:58 AM PST
    Plus this song is relevant. And this is funny too.


     
    Where's the TEEN arguement (2.33 / 3) (#175)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:14:15 AM PST
    I surprised there hasn't been a "Linus is for TEEN programmers with no money" argument yet.

    First off I doubt Pixar, and Industrial Light and Magic are just a buncha teens with no money.

    I myself am not a teen but I must tip my hat at some of the thing they are doing. The people who are doing revolutionary thing with computers nowadays are getting younger and younger.

    Microsft, as well as many other companies, try to recruit many of these young people right after they finish college. Sometimes before they finish or even before they finish high school.

    If you don't believe that TEENS are doing some amazing things read this little article:

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,1282,17330,00.html

    Not bad for a kid.



    Definition of a strawman argument (3.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:13:48 PM PST
    "I'm surprised no one has made argument <i>X</i>, which I will now refute anyway."



     
    To those who lost windows. (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:09:57 PM PST
    I have a problem believing that if you read even the most basic instructions on installing linux you would not have "lost" your windows. RedHat does have an install option that will destroy your windows. It does clearly state this. There are tens of thousands of users who have installed linux next to a windows partition and had no problem. Do a little research before you jump into something.

    And for the writer of the article, it is very difficult to take seriously a writer who cannot express his feelings without using four letter words. It shows a lack of thought and creativity, which is probably what kept you from successfully installing Linux in the first place.

    Michael Timmerman


     
    What about the other OSes (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:55:11 PM PST
    Why is it that INadequacy.org always attacks Linux and not other OSes like:

    1. MacOSX (based on FreeBSD and Mach64)
    2. FreeBSD: probably because MS uses alot of the FreeBSD code in Windows (ie TCP/IP stack)4. BeOS
    5. AtheOS (another OS under the GPL)
    6. NetBSD
    7. OpenBSD
    8. NetWare
    9. Any other OS in use today

    Why? Because the can't even develop an intelligent argument about Linux or get any FACTS straight (like LinuS Torvalds' name). How the hell do you expect them to get any information right about these OSes?


    Why should they attack another OS? (none / 0) (#236)
    by kwench on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 03:58:59 PM PST
    After all, all the OSes you are mentioning are nothing but a piece of crap:

    1) MacOS 8.5 crashes everytime I click on a link in Netscape. And then it even keeps my floppy disk in the drive. You cannot even reboot the computer because the switch doesn't work!!! Windows is different: It hardly crashes and if it does, you can easely reboot.

    2) *BSD is difficult to install: you don't even get a real distribution. Or have you seen RedHat/NetBSD? Windows comes with a easy-to-install CD.

    3) What's AtheOS? Another MS-DOS clone?



     
    Adequacy.org Webserver (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:18:34 PM PST
    Hello,
    I have no idea why people are criticising unix and unix-like operating systems as adequacy.org is running one. Why not use microsoft software if it is so great, and why does yahoo not use windows? Why does a microsoft site ninemsn.com.au not use their own operating system?

    Karun


    oh please! (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 05:26:26 AM PST
    Even adequacy doesn't want their place broken into!

    --
    Anonymous user #42


     
    I used to hate linux. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 06:54:02 PM PST
    So much so that I wrote my own rant.

    But now I don't. I like Mandrake. It's pretty. And useful. And tuxracer is a cool game.

    I now hate Macs. Why? They're easy enough to install, but then what? I can't actually do anything with a Mac. I'm a java programmer. Have you any idea how hard it is to get anything to work on a Mac? It's stuck back in the 1.1 api, and Apple refuse to update it. Theres no command line (read the rant; boy have I changed my tune. This was due entirely to Apple. Thank you Apple(!)), so instead of writing a five line script and pressing enter each time to compile and run, I have to click five separate buttons, one at a time, waiting for each one to finish (Can you say multitasking?).

    The reason I now like Linux is because I was forced to use a Mac. Don't have a Linux driver for a USB floppy drive? Write one. Don't have a Mac driver for a USB floppy drive? Tough. Don't have a Windows driver? What am I saying of course you do...

    Windows works because it's supported by every hardware vendore. Linux works because it's supported by everyone who uses it. Macs don't work because they are supported by a single megalomaniacal company who want to make every computer into a toaster.

    No computer should be made into a toaster. Computrons are much too precious. No computer should be able to sit in an infinite loop without being able to do anything else. No computer should ever crash, for any reason other than pulling the plug (I must say that Windows 2000 does this better than any other OS I've met).

    Linux doesn't suck. Macs do. Linux may have apologists, but they won't be apologising forever. Apple has fanatics, who will never learn what a computer is really capable of (and are led by people who tell them they really don't want to know).

    If you want to hear a story about not having any OS, and being able to do nothing, read about the time Linus accidentally nuked his copy of Minix while he was working on his new Kernel (before it was released to the world as Linux). Until you could write your own kernel, don't insult those who can.



    Try OSX (none / 0) (#216)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 04:08:10 PM PST
    It sucks less

    (actually it doesn't suck ;))

    http://www.apple.com/macosx

    (and it tends not to crash too...)

    (and it has that java you wanted)

    (it also has that scripting thing you wanted)

    (and that command-line)

    the good things about the mac... and the good things about unix...

    And even the good things about microsoft :)

    (IE, Office... (think that covers it ;)))

    (too many parenthesis?)



     
    linux is a decent workstation os (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 02:43:56 PM PST
    www.linuks.mine.nu/workstation


     
    Well, you certainly got what you deserved (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 12:17:45 PM PST
    Dude, Linux is not for everybody. Especially not for people who install it because "it's cool". Linux is like a very sharp tool ,if you don't handle it with extreme care, it will chop off your "Windows". Tee-hee. Go back to your uncool and boring Windows, dude, and leave Linux to the Real Men(tm). Linux is not a toy.


    Oh God yes! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by elenchos on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 01:00:41 PM PST
    That's why I love it when we have a Lunix article on Adequacy: all the Real Men who post replies. It becomes a regular sweat-lodge of masculinity around here when the Lunix Dudes show up. Please don't beat anyone up though!


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


     
    Fucking A (none / 0) (#220)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:49:24 AM PST
    Laughed my ass off! You are just so spot on with this it hurts! (again again)


     
    "play on my sense of intellectual inferiority (none / 0) (#223)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:57:56 AM PST
    Why doesn't IE run on linux, How come OS X runs only on MAC's?. You pretend to be making an honest effort to try something and worry about how people will react, but than you write obviously stupid biased comments. Here is an observation for you, You are a complete fucking moron.


     
    what a bunch of weirdos (none / 0) (#225)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 02:12:10 AM PST
    Gawd when you read all this rubbish no wonder normal everyday comp users shy away from alternate os.And to the guy who wrote this article well the article speaks for it self


     
    Wow that sucks,,,,,,,,, (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 02:24:36 PM PST
    I see your reasons for hating mandrake, and i sympathize with you.

    Number 1:

    I have a CTX Laptop... WHICH IS THE WORST KIND!

    However, I have installed Mandrake-linux and windows on it at the same time. No problems there

    Money spent: 58 Cents for a CD to copy Mandrake

    Number 2:

    I got a Linux book to help before I installed. You however were stupid enough not to read first, and that is your fault for destroying windows. If you read you would have seen the thing about defrag.

    Price of book: $2.89 for Paper to print on My HP Deskjet FROM my Linux Laptop. $18.99 for a Black ink injector thing from walmart.
    Price of book/User guide online : FREE.... price of it in store --->$29.99

    " Money spent on books: $200 (vast numbers of them seemed to need to be bought to understand what the hell was going on and no one book explained anything properly)"------> Not a good choice.... i spent 50 cents on a book called "Programming for Linux" from a store (Bldg. 19 1/18)

    Number 3:

    I joined a LUG (Linux User Group) Who to this day are helping me with my problems.

    Number 4:

    ALL LINUX SOFTWARE, except for a certain few, ARE FREE.

    TOTAL SPENT on LINUX STUFF: @$24.00

    My WINDOWS EXPERIENCE:

    1:

    Screwed up my laptop. ---- NEW HARDDRIVE $280.00

    2:

    Destroyed my Red-Hat Linux 3 Times

    Cost of damages: $50 worth of clients and numerous hours trying to redo all of my writings

    3:

    Crashed every week running windows!

    4:

    Harddrive Erasures: 15 in 2 months
    (Under linux: 0 in 6 months)

    5:

    Problems getting online...... Tons of money paid for MSFT stuff

    Rough Estimate : $200 (Office) (I got this for free with Linux as Star office) $120 (Games) $300 (other stuff required to run my job)

    Total spent on Windows: @ $670
    Total on linux: @ $24

    In review I think you got bigtime screwed by your choice to go to linux, but that is mostly your fault for not utilizing your resources as Journalists should. However, you did get screwed big time, but Linux does have less faults than MSFT. Personnaly If I wasn't a shareholder of MSFT I'd completely give windows a bad rap.




    reply to 'wow that sucks' (none / 0) (#240)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 04:59:03 PM PST
    Ok, you are just fucking pathetic. Get over Linux, it's a friggin hassle for 98% of the 'worlds' population. Windows isn't much better either.
    It's pretty funny. I wonder how many years it will be till we see a whole range of NEW OS's that are cool and fun and easy to use. Which doesn't piss the average 'home' computer user off with dll's and apis and bioss and all this other shite.
    I want to use apps, not learn about the friggin OS, i don't have all year to read how the fuck they made windows so ghey and owned, i would think it would be the problem of the OS maker to look after their product and develop it so users are happy with it and find itfun and pleasureable to use. Linux and Windows are both not fun nor easy, they are however a joke.


     
    Who says the art of conversation is dead? (none / 0) (#238)
    by SnoopDougEDoug on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 01:29:05 PM PST
    Ease off the caffeine dude. Methinks if we ripped out the f*ck/ed/ing adjectives/adverbs out, your post would lose 1/2 its length. I know you hate to hear this, but here is where you really messed up:

    #1. No backup. EVERY installation instruction I have ever written/read states, numero uno, to completely backup your data before you run setup.
    You screwed up.

    #2. System requirements. You failed the second step, make sure your system is supported. As in #1, every installation script I've written or read will list the supported systems.

    I know, I know. I hate to read the *ing docs too, even the ones I wrote myself. But guess what? You have no one to blame if the outcome is less than you expected.

    #3. Linux is hard. But guess what, so is Windoze. You didn't know to click Start, Programs, ... the first time you ran Windoze, but you are used to it now. You think you magically learned how to use the TaskBar? H*ll, I went to a friend of a friend's house once and when he found out I was a techie begged me to help him get his TaskBar back to the bottom of the d*mned screen. Try looking that up in the online Help. First you had better know it's called a TaskBar (or whatever the exact spelling is).

    I would compare your experience to buying a new motorcycle, because you thought you would look b*tchin in leather, then b*tching that you have to shift the d*mned thing, unlike your chevie, and besides, you get wet when it rains! And the b*stards on rec.motorcycle.racing can't explain trailing braking without a bunch of physics mumbo-jumbo. F*ck, them f*cking, f*ckheads!

    Have a nice day,

    doug



     
    jeesus (none / 0) (#239)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 04:23:05 PM PST
    jeesus editor your a fucking idiot
    you bought a new computer cause your modem didnt work?
    your one hell of a dumbass
    and one sided as well
    i myself hope you get the fuck kicked out of you for being on the "microsoft payroll"
    you ignorant bastard



     
    This is funny if a joke, sad if serious. (none / 0) (#243)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 18th, 2001 at 08:33:20 AM PST
    Let me cross the Linux Fault Threshold right now:

    It's not the OS's fault if a bunch of losers flock to it and set themselves up as apologists.

    It's true that it's important to have a sense of who's going to be able to help you and who's just a waste of your time. It's true not only in Linux but in life. You have to use the same skills dealing with tech support people for a commecial product as "the linux community" -- "is this person actually able and willing to help me or just full of shit?" I speak as someone who's spent a certain amount of time on both sides of the helpline phone.

    It's also true that people who claim Linux is *in general* as easy to use as Windows are full of shit. Unix in general is (a) something that pays off hugely if you make a certain initial investment of learning in it -- but the initial investment can be steep, and (b) really a command-line-oriented OS; the real power and smoothness and good experience in Unix comes from using it via commandline; it's not yet and never has been as pleasant a GUI experience as MacOS or even Windows.

    But what do you have to think of a guy who claims that he was "forced" to buy an entire new computer to replace his winmodem? Do they not sell modems separately anymore? Does he buy a new car when he gets a flat tire?



     
    ~Thank you....~ <said in an 'I-told-you-so' ton (none / 0) (#244)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 18th, 2001 at 09:03:44 AM PST
    Linux is freakin' hell and anyone that tells you they installed it and all their apps without any trouble is, quite simply, a liar! I have one phrase to sum it all up:
    "RPM is not able to install the package 'rpm-4.0.3-1.03.i386.rpm' because it is too new..."
    Like, what!?!
    Buy a mac with OS X - done.


     
    You are an obvious newbie with all computers (none / 0) (#247)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 7th, 2002 at 11:37:27 PM PST
    First of all. Almost all Linux, Windows, and MacOS CDs come with at least some form of documentation. Did you read it? NO! Second, the partition resizer, has an option to make a disk to restore you partition data if you use it and you lose data. Did you do that? NO! Did you know people start to get annoyed when you use the word fucking in a conversation 50 times? Apperantely NO! Did you know that the total price of your computer includes the cost of a Microsoft windows OEM license and that its not free? NO! Did you know all you had to do is download an ISO image and burn it to a CD to have linux? NO! Dis you do even the simplest things that morons that cant even turn on their computer do? NO you sure as hell didnt call sony tech support and ask them how to recover data even though their techs suck anyway!

    So basically, do some "Fucking" resaearch before you "Fucking" diss "Fucking" linux and "Fucking" linux gurus you "Fucking" moron!


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.