Linux Zealot (almost) Makes a Friend

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

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 It is no longer maintained.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.

Poll

Votes: 31

Linux Zealot (almost) Makes a Friend

Author:

First Incision

Topic:

Linux Zealot

Posted:

May 08, 2002

Comments:

In today's story, Linux Zealot has an encounter with a pedophile. He also learns an important vocabulary lesson.

Author's Note: Text in this comic was anti-aliased using patented Microsoft ClearType technology.

More stories by

First Incision

	Kill Yr Idols: The American Electorate
	The Tyranny of Makeup

	MCSEs are pedophiles? (none / 0) (#13)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 01:09:06 PM PST

	I knew there is something wrong with them!

	Wow, the quality of Cleartype is quite excellent (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 01:15:56 PM PST

	It almost made my laptop's LCD display sing with joy. I think I should drop my legally purchased Windows 98 and order Windows XP today.

	Hm... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
	by theantix on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 02:38:06 PM PST

	Either I'm missing something, or I'm not getting the entire panel. Where did Creep0ut SideShow come from, and why did A+MSCE get his head damaged? The cleartype is excellent and renders beautifully (I should buy Windows XP soon) but this doesn't solve my problem. Is this some new form of abstract art that Adequacy is branching into? Regardless, my head is spinning.

	It's avant-garde, dummy (none / 0) (#16)
	by iat on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:12:40 PM PST

	There is a sensible and obvious explanation to the cartoon, but we're not going to explain it to you. Like all fine art, Linux Zealot is meant to challenge the viewer. We're therefore leaving deciphering the meaning of this work as an exercise for the reader. Each Adequacy reader is welcome to suggest his or her own explanation of this episode, and we will award a prize for the best explanation. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Avant-garde means leading edge. this is trailing (none / 0) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 11:21:04 AM PST

	Meaning: same thing as the rest of Adequacy.org, to allow geeks to make fun of themselves.

	Well, (none / 0) (#17)
	by First Incision on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:17:51 PM PST

	There's a slide missing. But I am not one to question the judgement of the editors. And really, the slide wouldn't help you understand it any better. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Missing slide (none / 0) (#18)
	by iat on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:26:20 PM PST

	Don't blame us, you were the one who wrote the HTML! :) Email editors@adequacy.org with the missing slide (or a URL for it) and someone will sort it out. Thanks. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Really? (none / 0) (#19)
	by elenchos on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:30:28 PM PST

	I don't recall seeing any other slide in the submission box. I wonder if there was some oversight? Unlikely. Probably the result of hacking. We were pretty confused ourselves, but I defended your work, comparing it to "Waiting for Godot". So what bit is missing? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	I disagree (none / 0) (#20)
	by elby on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:32:12 PM PST

	Cleary the slide was left out on purpose because it was inadequate. There was no confusion on the editorial side of things. -lb

	Perhaps some power greater than me is at work. (nt (none / 0) (#22)
	by elenchos on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:43:08 PM PST

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

	Y'know... (none / 0) (#21)
	by iat on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:39:51 PM PST

	We were pretty confused ourselves, but I defended your work, comparing it to "Waiting for Godot". I'm almost tempted to un-editorialise our editorial discussions on this episode of LZ. It might be amusing to share our confusion and possible explanations for the cartoon with the rest of the world. On the other hand, it would reveal some of the editorial staff (me in particular) for the dumbasses we really are, and the whole of Adequacy.org would crumble when the humble readers realise that even the omnipotent editors are occasionally fallible. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Us? (none / 0) (#23)
	by elenchos on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:55:12 PM PST

	No one thinks were fallible. No one ever will, either, not really. Go ahead and let them see. It will make them feel, you know, close to greatness, like that TV show, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Thank you (none / 0) (#24)
	by First Incision on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 03:55:42 PM PST

	n/t _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	a piece of the puzzle (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 08:11:19 PM PST

	why did A+MSCE get his head damaged? Look up the word 'geek' in a dictionary. HTH. --anonymous reader #24601

	The missing slide would be superfluous (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 06:14:38 PM PST

	I completely get this. It's pretty straightforward, but perhaps too subtle for the less incisive among us. Rather than trumpeting its message in the tradition of previous, brutally pointed LZ comics, this comic leaves several clues hinting at its underlying meaning. If you think about what LZ is saying in the final frame, and the meaning of "CreepOut Sideshow", you'll probably get it. Or maybe you'll get confused and start babbling about symbolism like an intellectually limited poseur who won't admit that he doesn't understand David Lynch. As to the missing slide, I don't believe it exists. It is merely an example of the apocrypha that inevitably spring up around complex and subtle works of art, like the missing two hours of "Fire Walk With Me" or the missing ten hours of "Dune". Also, if it does exist, and it has what I'm fairly certain it has on it, it would only have added to the confusion of the weak-minded. I can see them now, languishing in poor comprehension, battling with simple, yet impenetrable questions such as "wtf is CreepOut Sideshow doing that? THAT MAKES NO SENCE AN I UNDRESTNAD EVERYTHING! OMG!"

	Ummm, the slide is no longer missing. (none / 0) (#26)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 06:44:56 PM PST

	nt

	Really? (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 06:47:34 PM PST

	Which slide was it?

	Never mind, I see (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 8th, 2002 at 06:51:45 PM PST

	I think it actually detracts from the message. It adds clarity to the conversation between LZ and his neighbour, but I think the weird backwards conversation they were having before the insertion of the slide was more in keeping with the tone of the piece. It should be removed, in my opinion. In fact, I am almost certain that the newly added slide was not drawn by the original artist, anyway.

	Awesome (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 06:29:36 AM PST

	This is the funniest stuff. Whomever created the strip originally: thank you.

	Hm. Maybe it's just me (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 02:01:40 PM PST

	or ClearType isn't being used here. 'Coz I really can't tell that anything is different.

	It's there. (none / 0) (#33)
	by because it isnt on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 04:20:45 PM PST

	It's kind of the way the text is all blurry and psychadelic-coloured, as opposed to being crisp black and white. Apparently this is good news for both of Adequacy's visitors using undocked laptops. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Your problem (5.00 / 3) (#36)
	by Icebox on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 07:50:14 AM PST

	Most likely you can't tell that anything is different because you are using a second rate pseudo-copy of a Microsoft GUI, namely something that runs on top of X Windows, which should be renamed because it clearly infringes on Microsoft IP. I can't specifically diagnose your problem because of the ridiculous number of components one needs to cobble together to create a functional GUI using X Windows: You would have to pick from one of about 16 dozen half finished 'window managers', because apparently X Windows is incapable of managing windows on its own, whatever the hell that means. Once that is installed you'd need to pick from one of 10 or so hacker designed 'themes'. It appears that neither X Windows nor any of the available 'window managers' has anything to do with colorization of your monitor's display. After you download all of that from a warez FTP site, you'll need to find a GUI because, and you'd better sit down for this one, none of the virus laden things you have already installed actually comprise a GUI. I think there are two, both of which copy Microsoft designs down to the last detail. None of that stuff will actually work at this point so you will probably need to visit yet more FTP sites based in central asia's IP theft district to find some 'libraries'. These are similar to the Windows Registry but much more cumbersome and annoying. As is always the case, Microsoft's innovations are often imitated, never duplicated. I can't even tell you what 'libraries' you'll need because depending on which combination of crash prone components you have selected you may need any one of about 27,000 different ones, or maybe you will need them all. So you have your libraries installed. You'll now need to edit some 'config' files. These are typically 10,000 line text files that you need to go through line by line to find something like 'ptVAR=xef027'. You'll need to change that line to something else depending on what type of monitor you are using and the particular moon phase during which your operating system was compiled. Once you have edited all your pirate config files it is time to 'compile' (a concatenation of the words 'compost' and 'pile') this mishmash of stolen IP, copyright infringement, coding experiments from 12 year old kids, and caffiene fueled geek rage. You'd better put on a long playing manga DVD that you donwloaded from an IRC chat room and burned with your Windows 2000 computer because this is going to take some time, days maybe. After compilation is complete you can expect your ramshackle heap of a GUI not to work. But since that s the way it was designed, you'll have toi live with it. So those are the reasons why I can't help you figure out why you can't read the comic strip as easily as the Windows XP using population. Maybe you run down to your local electronics store and a copy of Windows XP. Microsoft can only help you if you let them.

	Alternatively, (none / 0) (#37)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 08:04:52 AM PST

	type "apt-get install gdm" and let Debbie do the rest. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Nope, didn't work (none / 0) (#38)
	by Icebox on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 08:39:03 AM PST

	I got: Bad command or file name This must be some kind of non-standard, non-POSIX compliant command.Microsoft Windows is available on a single CD that you can just pop in your drive. It will do most of the work for you without the need for memorizing or typing cryptic commands.

	Commandline (none / 0) (#39)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 08:50:07 AM PST

	Ever tried to debug a GUI system over the phone? It is much simpler when the user can act as a dumb terminal, type what you dictate and read back the output, instead of spending half-hour describing what icon she should click on, only to find she customized her icons to look different. It is also much simpler to describe one command with parameters in a help or HOWTO file than to navigate the user through the maze of "intuitive" and "simple" menus. GUI is all nice, but only as long as everything works. Which, due to the sorry state of the money-driven technology, is never for too long.

	Thankfully, no. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
	by Icebox on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 09:09:48 AM PST

	I have never tried to debug anything over the phone. Perhaps this is because my career has been spent working with Microsoft products that go through rigorous testing and debugging before they ship. Last time I looked at performance reviews I believe the people working for one of the guys who works for me do phone support. Due to my foresight we migrated our entire company over to Windows XP desktops and servers which offer the ability to establish a remote GUI connection with a particular machine. This allowed us to save quite a bit of time in the area of user assistance, which in turn allowed me to cut staff and save the company money. Microsoft innovation to the rescue again.

	Be glad. (none / 0) (#43)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 09:34:39 AM PST

	I was being asked for help from the old days of DOS. I had both the GUI and CLI experience, and so I know well what I prefer. Due to my foresight, all the servers run on unixoids (Linux, maybe will migrate to BSD) and are completely remotely manageable via ssh. All Windows desktops run WinVNC, allowing remote access to all machines from W95 to W2k, platform-independent (I can access them from both my Windows and Linux machines - the virtue of open standards and a VPN). All Linux desktops will run Linux version of VNC. This gets me rid of problems in this front while we will migrate, without posing additional costs. Still, if broadband is expensive and you are limited to 64kbps per office, GUI access is aw-ful-ly slow. Also, if you are caught on the road and have only your cellphone, or if you have to solve problems in an office that doesn't have a VPN connection (our smaller foreign offices), you're out of luck. When you need to do serial reconfigurations on many machines at once, it;s more comfortable to run a script on each of them via a single command, than to click your way through myriads of menus. Blyeah. GUI is a nice toy[1]. If you want a real set of power tools and don't require them to be drool-proof, ask for commandline. [1] Legitimate use of a GUI is ie. in graphics or CAD. In most of the common applications it is a resource waste.

	no way man! (none / 0) (#65)
	by detikon on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 01:11:01 AM PST

	Due to my foresight we migrated our entire company over to Windows XP desktops and servers which offer the ability to establish a remote GUI connection with a particular machine. I actually had an open mind regarding the truth and intelligence of your post until I saw that line. You see there is no version of Windows XP Server. The next server OS from MS will be released sometime extremely late this year or next year, or whenever they can finally deliver everything they've been promising us for 10 years now plus dump all the still undefined .NET bullshit on top of it. So far it's still up in the air as to whether it will be called Server.NET or Windows.NET Server This allowed us to save quite a bit of time in the area of user assistance, which in turn allowed me to cut staff and save the company money. This one of course took the cake. Bill Gates' latest anti-OSS keynote was all about how using MS products created more IT jobs. Yeah because it takes at least 10 MCSEs to administer just one Windows server. Of the head of that department usually winds up shipping it back to the company. Hey even more jobs (shipping). Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Your bad (none / 0) (#68)
	by Icebox on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 07:02:21 AM PST

	There is indeed a version of Windows XP Server. Whether it will be called Windows XP Server or Windows .NET Server when it hits the shelves of your local Babbages I don't know, but those of us who participate in Microsoft beta testing have our copies. I bet you are thinking that anyone who would use a beta OS on a production server is an idiot. That might be true in the Lenix world but where I live even the betas of Windows are more featureful and rubust than the 'stable' releases of Red Hat or whatever. My goal as a department head is to keep our company on the cutting edge, provide 100% service availability, and keep costs as low as possible. I consider operating systems and computers and applications mere tools. I don't base my life or ego on them. I don't see them as some statement of my philosophy as a human being. I mention Microsoft only because I have found that it allows me to carry out the responbilities given to me by the company in the best manner possible and I hope that every person in a similar position reads what I have written and finds it helpful. If Linux weren't trash I could be here writing similar things about it, but it is.

	hate to tell you this but... (none / 0) (#78)
	by detikon on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 07:23:50 PM PST

	...the only names MS is kicking around are Server.NET and Windows.NET Server. Also I seriously dount you'll see somthing as expensive as Server.NEt at Babbages. Do you even know how much Server operating systems cost? Next you be telling me you picked up Windows 2000 Datacenter their last week 1/2 price. You don't find over priced enterprise server software at your local computer store retard. You know it's kind of hard to have beta version when it's not even in beta. It will include enhancements to .NET far greater than those found in XP. Apperently you need to do a little more research. The next version of Windows for the desktop won't be released until a year after Server.NET If you know so much what are the codenames for the next two versions of Windows (desktopOS)? How many desktop OS releases will we see until .NET is fully realized in ever MS OS? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	mistaken but correct too (none / 0) (#79)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 11:53:11 PM PST

	Windows XP is meant for the client side not the server side. There is no server version of XP. While Windows .NET Server beta 3 is available you cannot hope to experience the full advantage of what .NET has to offer. So that much is still far from beta. So you're half right. Microsoft has been promising this for somewhere around 10 years with...oh wait don't wanna give it away. Hell MS still hasn't been able to completely define .NET, but they're working on that. As I said there is not Windows XP Server. Microsoft specifically list XP as "the optimal client for Windows 2000 and Windows .NET Server." Only 3 versions of Windows XP exist. Home Edition, Professional and Embedded. The current server software available from MS is the Windows 2000 server family (Server, Adv. Server, Datacenter). The versions of Windows .NET server are as follows: Windows .NET Web Server For Web serving and hosting, providing a platform for rapidly developing and deploying Web services and applications. Windows .NET Standard Server For the everyday needs of businesses of all sizes, providing a solution for file and printer sharing, secure Internet connectivity, centralized desktop application deployment and rich collaboration between employees, partners and customers. Windows .NET Enterprise Server For general purpose needs of businesses of all sizes, Enterprise Server is the platform of choice for applications, Web services, and infrastructure, delivering high reliability, performance, and superior business value. Windows .NET Datacenter Server For the business-critical and mission-critical applications demanding the highest levels of scalability and availability.

	Re: hate to tell you this but... (none / 0) (#94)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 06:34:14 AM PST

	I once heard of a thing called 'satire', but was a quite sceptical. People making fun of things while appearing to be serious? Never. What would be the point of it? If something contrary is written in a serious manner, how are you meant to know when to laugh? I spent a while thinking about this, before it dawned on me... laugh at everything, and don't believe a word they say. Now as I type this from my padded cell (they give me a touch screen and flat keyboard, embedded in the wall :-) I realise that maybe this line of reasoning was a slight mistake. I haven't abandoned it completely... when they tell me that I am insane I still laugh wildly, because I know that isn't true, nor ever has been. (Please note that adequacy.org is a satire site, and many comments are also satire. People like you provide a good laugh, but now I suspect I've gone and spoiled the ignorence of at least one person. Why oh why did I open my mouth?)

	Adequacy.org is not a satire site. (none / 0) (#95)
	by because it isnt on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 01:50:05 PM PST

	Or, at least, not a regular one. Normal satirists hang their heads in shame at members of their audience who "don't get it". Adequacy.org's entire forum system is set up to encourage those people to post. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	You are correct for the wrong reasons (none / 0) (#96)
	by gNinja on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 01:32:53 AM PST

	You are correct when you say that adequacy.org is not a satire site. It is a site for discussing controversial ideas in a grown up setting. Normal satirists hang their heads in shame at members of their audience who "don't get it". I suspect that what you are calling satire is really parody. Real satire is designed to expose stupidity and vice and thus can never be sympathetic to the audience... Authors of satire are, therefor, completely unsurprised when they hated by the idiots in their audience.

	That's one of the interesting things. (none / 0) (#97)
	by because it isnt on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 04:48:16 AM PST

	As I'm sure you know, "grown ups" are what children call adults, and what adults call themselves when talking to children. At a site composed (supposedly) only of adults, it takes on an ambiguous role. I suspect that what you are calling satire is really parody. It might be, and it might not be. Parody is itself satirical, one of the many forms in which satire can be written. Also, parody itself isn't always the focal point of satire. Have a look at this article. The focus of the article is not to parody the BBC News website, or Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, although it does indeed parody them. The article's purpose is to attack the government by comparing the train network to terrorist networks. Real satire is designed to expose stupidity and vice and thus can never be sympathetic to the audience. Well, it depends on the satire, really. There is a lot of satire where the only target is some person or institute in the public eye, and the audience is the public. There is no intent to lambast the audience. You can satirise your enemies in front of your friends, if you want. There is also the gentler, kinder Horatian satire which is sympathetic, not just to the audience but to everyone. I've been putting off writing an article about this topic for quite a while. Perhaps I should bite the bullet and write it? adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Didn't work either. (none / 0) (#40)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 08:54:23 AM PST

	I popped a Microsoft Windows CD into my drive and it do anything. Perhaps it's not POSIX compliant either. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Congratulations (none / 0) (#41)
	by Icebox on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 09:02:53 AM PST

	I don't know if I would go so far as to say that it will 'do anything' as you not-quite-so-eloquently put it, but they are damn nice.

	Hmm. (none / 0) (#44)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 11:08:40 AM PST

	The "didn't" key on my keyboard is sticky. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	*What are* you talking about?** (none / 0) (#45)
	by gordonjcp on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 12:33:10 PM PST

	Microsoft doesn't have any product with a recognisable GUI. Although, Windows does have a kind of funny psychedelic computer game thing loosely based around the MacOS gui - roughly equivalent to System 6. I can't wait for Windows to support multi-tasking and a proper GUI that's remotely accessable. It would be nice if Windows could be left running for more that a week or so without crashing, too.

	Your troll is so old it's starting to foul the air (none / 0) (#46)
	by tkatchev on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 01:00:46 PM PST

	Windows NT was written in 1985, I think? -- Peace and much love...

	MacOS was written in.... (none / 0) (#50)
	by gordonjcp on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 05:40:14 PM PST

	...1984. NT wasn't around until much later - DOS didn't even have DOSSHELL then IIRC.

	More bullshit from a Linux apologist (5.00 / 1) (#49)
	by iat on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 04:32:59 PM PST

	I can't wait for Windows to support multi-tasking Yeah, and I can't wait for Linux to support POSIX threads and a proper GUI that's remotely accessable If you want remote accessibility, what's wrong with BackOrifice? It would be nice if Windows could be left running for more that a week or so without crashing, too. My Windows 2000 machine goes for months without rebooting. The only time it needs to be rebooted is when I want to move it or upgrade hardware. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	I don't like Linux that much... (none / 0) (#51)
	by gordonjcp on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 05:48:15 PM PST

	Yeah, and I can't wait for Linux to support POSIX threads BSD has POSIX threads. Since most of my "serious" machines use NetBSD, and don't really need threads, this is no biggie. If I need them, I've got 'em! If you want remote accessibility, what's wrong with BackOrifice? Good point. Maybe some user authentication would be good though. And anyway, it's slow as a week in the jail trying to change a simple config file through a gui interface remotely. My Windows 2000 machine goes for months without rebooting. The only time it needs to be rebooted is when I want to move it or upgrade hardware. Bully for you. My Windows 2000 machine runs for a couple of hours between reboots, running Adobe Premiere, AfterFX, and Illustrator. Since most of my work at the moment is video compositing, I can't really get away from these programs. Windows 2000 is not stable, and is not ready for the prime-time yet. Sorry chaps, if it needs rebooted ever outside, as you say, physically unplugging the machine to move it, then it isn't a stable OS. My NetBSD servers haven't needed rebooted in many months, but frankly I don't want to get into a pissing contest about it. My main contention is that I don't want to use a GUI for a server. It adds nothing, and only makes maintaining servers over flaky connections even more difficult. So can anyone tell me, why is a GUI a good idea for controlling a server?

	Good, I don't like NetBSD (I don't have an Amiga) (none / 0) (#55)
	by iat on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 01:49:02 AM PST

	Good point. Maybe some user authentication would be good though. You're just moving the goalposts to be awkward. Speed was never a criterion in your original point. Even if I suggest a way to improve the speed of BackOrifice, you'll only complain that it doesn't run on NetBSD My Windows 2000 machine runs for a couple of hours between reboots, running Adobe Premiere, AfterFX, and Illustrator. Since most of my work at the moment is video compositing, I can't really get away from these programs. Windows 2000 is not stable, and is not ready for the prime-time yet. Let me get this straight: you have to use Windows 2000, because you can't get your mission-critical programs for any other operating system, yet you claim that Windows 2000 is the OS that isn't ready for prime-time?! Surely the OS that has no productivity software whatsoever (i.e. Linux, BSD) is the OS that isn't ready for primetime. I also think that you're exaggerating the supposed instability of Win2k. My NetBSD servers haven't needed rebooted in many months, but frankly I don't want to get into a pissing contest about it.* Your open BSD servers are crap and unreliable. My Sun servers allow hot-swapping of CPUs, memory modules and hard-drives and so are infinitely more reliable than your poxy Atari-ST/Acorn Archimedes/Amiga/x86s running NetBSD. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	I don't have an Amiga either. (none / 0) (#56)
	by gordonjcp on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 02:48:10 AM PST

	Why would I want to run BO on NetBSD? I can just SSH into it. I wish I could do that with Win2K. The only reason I'm using Windows is the company I work for won't spring for a Mac G4 and OS X, which is what I'd prefer to do video work on. PC's just don't cut it. Oh, and for the most part, I've found Win2K to be pretty stable, but it chokes when handling extremely large files. That Sun server sounds great. Did you know that the IBM X-series servers can do that too?

	re: I don't have an Amiga either. (none / 0) (#58)
	by iat on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 05:05:29 AM PST

	I can just SSH into it. I wish I could do that with Win2K. You can. But what's the point of ssh anyway? Why do you want to encrypt your passwords and communications? Does information want to be free? You'll be pleased to know that that the default install of Win2k Pro comes with a telnet server, so you don't even need to install a third party ssh server. a Mac G4 and OS X, which is what I'd prefer to do video work on. PC's just don't cut it. and I've found Win2K to be pretty stable, but it chokes when handling extremely large files. Macs do some things better than PCs. Like all OSes, Win2k chokes on extremely large files. I'm sure many people will be shocked to hear these startling revelations. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Some information wants to be free... (none / 0) (#60)
	by gordonjcp on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 05:12:37 PM PST

	But not all. Those CD's I bought yesterday, there's some information that doesn't really want to be free. It doesn't want to cost �15 per disc, which is why I waited a month or two and bought it in Fopp for a fiver instead of HMV.<br> The information contained in the guide I'm writing for repairing automotive ECU's really does want to be free. I suppose you could argue that Valeo don't want you to fix the modules, just chuck them and buy a new one. However, just like with the CD's, I don't want to spend �90 to get my heater working when I can repair it myself for about �2...<br> My passwords, email, and other stuff I do over ssh certainly don't want to be free. Some things I'll give to anybody, some things I won't.

	Let's get this straight (none / 0) (#61)
	by iat on Sun May 12th, 2002 at 02:27:42 AM PST

	You (as in open source advocates) believe that Microsoft should give away their source code, their revenue stream and most valuable asset, under a free-for-all BSD-style licence. Yet you also refuse to release your medical records, which have no commercial value, to anyone who asks? I smell hypocrisy. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Microsoft can do what they like with their source (none / 0) (#67)
	by gordonjcp on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 02:07:09 AM PST

	They can print it out on �100 notes then roll it up and smoke it if they want to, for all I care. I couldn't really tell you what anyone else thinks about it though. I don't want their source code. What I would like is this - I would start using Microsoft operating systems if they stopped "innovating" stupid bits of chrome, and tried to get the underlying OS itself more stable and secure. OK, Windows 2000 addresses this, and I haven't played with Windows XP enough yet. However, it would be really simple for them to include a set of default firewall rules that would block all these bloody trojans that skript kiddies run. If you don't know it's there, then you need it (if you see what I mean). More clueful users could modify the settings themselves, and in a large setup, you could use one of the customisable install scripts that have been there since Win95. It would be great if, when Internet Explorer runs up against an error, it just tells you. I really hate that "We can't find the site you requested" page, because if you mistype a URL, it mangles whatever you've typed into a big stream of quoted printable garbage. Then you can't just fix the typo... Although I use Windows for some things, I prefer to use one-or-other Unix-derived OS's (QNX is pretty nice, shame about BeOS - both closed source btw, I'm no Open Source Zealot) for actual work. This is for much the same reason that I prefer my Citroen XM to my bosses' BMW 318. It's down to personal taste - the Citroen is bigger and more comfortable to drive than the Beemer, which suits me. The Beemer has more "badge appeal" and you can get the tail to slide on roundabouts, which appeals to vain nutter bastard.

	Deletion Notice (1.00 / 1) (#52)
	by RobotSlave on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 06:19:29 PM PST

	gordonjcp, you are not allowed to quote the entire body of original material from another person's comment. You may quote, but your permission to quote stops well short of permission to quote everything, unless that permission is explicitly granted by the author. Also, learn to use the preview button and adjust the formatting of your screed. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	You're quite right... (none / 0) (#53)
	by gordonjcp on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 12:43:42 AM PST

	gordonjcp, you are not allowed to quote the entire body of original material from another person's comment. You may quote, but your permission to quote stops well short of permission to quote everything, unless that permission is explicitly granted by the author. Fair point... Also, learn to use the preview button and adjust the formatting of your screed. The formatting looks alright to me. � 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner. Oh dear, well I'd better not do that then... � 2002, Gordonjcp. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	UNDELETION notice (5.00 / 1) (#54)
	by iat on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 01:38:39 AM PST

	you are not allowed to quote the entire body of original material from another person's comment How the hell can he do a proper point-by-point rebuttal without quoting the enitre body of another post? As I'm sure you're aware, peer review and point-by-point rebuttal are the twin pillars of scientific argument and are thus the foundations on which Mankind's scientific progress depends. How would Einstein's Theory of Relativity have been proven, if not for point-by-point rebuttals from his contemporaries? I have therefore decided to undelete gordonjcp's comment, for the benefit of humanity. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	WOW (3.33 / 3) (#64)
	by detikon on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 12:52:48 AM PST

	For the first time ever I am actually impressed by something I read on this site written by an editor. So maybe that would actually explain as to why your (iat) post never receive a deletion notice. Could they remain as a big FUCK YOU RS? I doubt it but you could always attempt to surprise me. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Think it through (none / 0) (#70)
	by iat on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 10:16:56 AM PST

	So maybe that would actually explain as to why your (iat) post never receive a deletion notice. The main reason my posts don't receive deletion notices is because I never overstep the line between "fair use" and "copyright violation". If other Adequacy users shared my views on the sanctity of copyright law and stopped stealing other posters' intellectual property, there would be no need for anyone to receive deletion notices. We are all lucky to have a conscientious editor like RobotSlave who ensures that Adequacy isn't shut down due to our users breaking the DMCA. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Yes! YES! (none / 0) (#73)
	by tkatchev on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 11:30:07 AM PST

	Fight! Kill him dead, dude! Only one will leave! Long live editor infighting, it makes the life of us plebs more exciting. -- Peace and much love...

	I want you all to know... (none / 0) (#47)
	by budlite on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 02:34:22 PM PST

	...that I write this point-by-point rebuttal simply to annoy the idiots on this site. X Windows, which should be renamed because it clearly infringes on Microsoft IP No it doesn't. X Windows has been around for a lot longer than MS Windows. apparently X Windows is incapable of managing windows Actually, it can. It's simply that the management is very vrey simple. Window managers simply provide a means of customising the handling and appearance of windows. Once that is installed you'd need to pick from one of 10 or so hacker designed 'themes'. It appears that neither X Windows nor any of the available 'window managers' has anything to do with colorization of your monitor's display Yet again, themes are merely a method of customising window decorations and behaviours. Your other points don't even dignify a response.

	More Lunacy (none / 0) (#69)
	by Icebox on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 08:39:16 AM PST

	The abominable train wreck that is known as X Windows was released well before Microsoft Windows only because the me-too OSS crowd follow the 'release early, release buggy' philisophy of software development. It was named in anticipation of the forthcoming release of Microsoft Windows in an attempt to capitalize on the expected popularity of Microsoft's innovative new operating system and confuse a few early adopters long enough to wrangle away a dollar or two. Both Themes and 'windows managers' are necessary if we are to even approach comparing apples to apples. Without themes X Windows has a black and white text-in-a-box appearance. Without a 'window manager' the windows can't be moved, resized, minimized, or maximized. I am just trying to compare the two operating systems as best I can and in order to so so I must present Linux in full regalia and compare its functionality, or lack thereof, to some of the most basic features that Windows has offered since its 3.1 release.

	Linux is only a kernel... (none / 0) (#71)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 11:20:40 AM PST

	Therefore, if you want a fair comparison between Linux and Windows, you must compare the Linux kernel to the Windows OS, which has an instant messenger, an advanced media player, a deluxe movie maker, a graphics application, and much more. It is obvious that Windows is much more advanced. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	None of which... (none / 0) (#74)
	by budlite on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 12:26:50 PM PST

	...have ever been part of the Windows kernel.

	Of course, but Windows... (none / 0) (#76)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 01:19:02 PM PST

	is much more than a kernel as anybody with a brain knows. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	As is a Linux distribution (n/t) (none / 0) (#80)
	by budlite on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 03:25:42 AM PST

	We are referring to Linux... (none / 0) (#82)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 07:37:29 AM PST

	Not a Linux distribution. Surely you know the difference. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	According to this logic, (none / 0) (#84)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 11:37:55 AM PST

	...the Windows installation CD is de facto just the installation CD of a Windows distribution. (The fact there is only one Windows distro is only because its maintainer. It should be technically possible to modify the setup.exe and associated files, add or remove files from the .cabs, and make a distro with different standard files - ie, replaced Notepad or different shell than the dreaded explorer.exe. Of course, Billy Boy would likely cry bloody murder.) That you don't hear about "Windows distributions" is just a terminology issue. There is no reason why there couldn't be an install CD with all the office packages and all the other most necessary files. I even seen couple of them, my colleagues commonly compile several installation CDs to one - you just have to throw away the "\"value\" packs" and the movies that show how to click a mouse. Then the CD is a "Windows distro" of a sort as well. If I wouldn't have everything copied on the servers (so when a machine asks for a file from a CD, I tell her \\server\cd\w2k as a directory to look to, instead of having to know where is what CD), I would have one as well.

	Yeah, it's a bad thing that there's only... (none / 0) (#86)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 12:29:02 PM PST

	one Windows distribution. I love how Linux distributions have plenty of incompatibility issues for no reason except to piss people off (although I'm sure they'll blame it on patents like most Linux advocates do). Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	As far... (none / 0) (#87)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 01:22:44 PM PST

	...I hadn't met any serious incompatibilities that would be caused by something other than different file location. Solution is simple here: Symlink! I however met real issues of incompatiBILLities between Windows-based systems - even against each other. A friend even less lucky than me found that some system call has different names, depending on the language version of Windows. Issues between versions of Word/Excel are well-known. There are even complains about different function names in Excel, depending on language version. Notice that this is ONE system from ONE vendor. I don't know how you, I prefer system made from discrete parts that aren't too interdependent on each other. I also like to have better chance to talk directly with the part's maintainer than when it bears the logo of The Beast. You also have better chance to get a timely reaction to a bugreport. Note that I remember the times when "text editor" wasn't meant to implicitly mean "MS Word" for the general public. I remember Ami Pro, I remember WordPerfect, I remember ChiWriter, even old VizaWrite and PrintFox from C64 (hey - 0.985 MHz CPU, and I was able to write a letter faster from first keyboard touch to holding a printout than on a half-gigahertz Pentium 2!); I want back the days when you had a choice of what you will write in and when no one had enough of market share to become profitable for them to intentionally hinder compatibility.

	wow, but you forget... (none / 0) (#88)
	by detikon on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 01:52:51 PM PST

	...How things don't move so easily between different distributions of Windows. In reality there is more than one. Let's see here. You have the DOSkernel (for distributions like Win 3.x which were nothing more than graphical shells for DOS). Then let's not forget the distributions like those which use kernel32 (Windows 9x and Me). Those are really just 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company. Let's see then we have the NT distibutions. Supposedly according to MS they all (NT, 2000, XP) use the NT kernel. You see Windows is an OS similar to a distribution. I've seen many distributions using various kernels with various other crap heaped on top sitting under a shiny GUI. So much for compatibility accross the board. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Your analogy... (none / 0) (#75)
	by The Mad Scientist on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 01:16:58 PM PST

	...reminds me of a street musician I seen some time ago. He carried a drum on his back, a trumpet, a couple of other instruments, and managed to play to all of them at once. It was more of a cacophony than a music, but it was amusing to watch. Similarly an OS that tries to "integrate" everything inevitably ends as such music clown. With the difference here that this one has a contract with a racketeering mob.

	Foolish analogy. (none / 0) (#77)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 01:21:32 PM PST

	Yeah, I'm sure computers also have emotions and also get tired and have the power of reason and can't be upgraded. My God, that was such a stupid analogy. At least Windows isn't part of a National Socialist mob. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Some principles... (none / 0) (#81)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 03:44:23 AM PST

	...work the same way for both alive and non-alive entities.

	If Linux were human... (none / 0) (#83)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 07:47:08 AM PST

	He'd consist of organs from several different people of vastly different ages, sizes, and physicality, be burdened with multiple personalities, and believe one should compete with oneself rather than other humans for a job, and would dress each body part with clashing clothing. His body parts would also not be connected to his central nervous system, but would act on their own accord. He'd also make wacky claims that nobody can conduct one man bands well and if one were to use Trent Reznor as evidence that Linux is wrong, he'd cry out FUD. He'd also believe that he was better than Windows simply because he could stay up days without sleep, but his lack of sleep would be clearly evident in his stunted growth. He'd believe that he was an outcast from society simply because everybody was jealous of him and pretend that anybody that didn't get wet for him was a stupid tramp even though it'd be because he's a chauvinist pig that manipulates images by copying and pasting his face onto the crotches of women. He'd also be a virgin. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Similarly... (none / 0) (#85)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 12:12:37 PM PST

	...if Windows were human, he would wear perfect suit and necktie. He would also be overweight, despite of loudly proclaiming he is as slim as possible, and getting insulted after suggesting his work will be office work and not sumo. He would suffer from epilepsy, going to cramps whenever a trigger condition appears. All his mates would be everyone all the same, as one size fits all (note to self: check if there is "If Microsoft would make clothes" article). He would suffer from messiah complex and conviction of his own superiority. He would be a subject of criminal investigation in several countries. He would talk in thick accent, so only the ones of his kind would be able to understand him well - while he would insist it is the only proper language. Sometimes he'd lose consciousness; then you would have to drag him out of the office and make him come back again. Sometimes he'd die or get incurably sick and you would have to trash all his things and get another one of his kind (also known as reformat-reinstall). He would need five times as much space and time than necessary to do anything. He would have troubles to talk even with his own kind if the age difference would be any meaningful. He would insist of having a large office all for himself and with windows (sic), and refusing to work or work sluggishly if not having "enough space". If forced to share the office with someone other, he would sometimes trash his colleagues' possessions or deny them entry (refering to multiboot problems). He'd get sick frequently, with general symptoms like fever and coughing and no real indication how to cure him. His curriculum would be starry and his real performance mediocre at best (our HR says it is common, though). His reputation would be foul, but because of only he is able to read the faxes and talk over the phone with his kind in all the other offices, you would have to employ him anyway. He would visit his dad during the work hours and get things and litter the office (refering to installing stuff together with updates). And he would gossip about you with strangers (see various privacy problems). He'd not be a virgin, because he would screw you at every chance. I could continue for far far longer but I am not bored enough.

	If Linux were human, (none / 0) (#89)
	by because it isnt on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 03:42:11 AM PST

	it'd be 100 minds in the same body. If Windows were human, they'd be 100 bodies sharing the same mind. I think that makes sense. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Dear Sir Mr because it isnt Sir, (none / 0) (#90)
	by nathan on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 12:17:23 PM PST

	I think your use of the word "mind" might be a little generous. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Oh come on. (none / 0) (#91)
	by because it isnt on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 04:42:58 PM PST

	If actually having written part of the Linux kernel was an entry requirement to Slashdot, it'd be a ghost-town, albeit a ghost-town with illuminating technical debates. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	could be (none / 0) (#92)
	by nathan on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 07:34:08 PM PST

	Honestly, I read it for the penis birds, when I read it at all. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Blind. (none / 0) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 12th, 2002 at 12:04:40 PM PST

	You are fucking blind.

	THIS IS A FAKE!!! (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 12:32:54 AM PST

	Where's the classic hair, the body styles have changed!!! I demand that the good folks of adequacy uncover the imposter and expose the hoax!!! I am ashamed, for all this time I have been using adequacy as a reliable opensource. -A concerned reader

	It's the beuaty of open source. (none / 0) (#35)
	by dmg on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 07:33:05 AM PST

	Since Linux Zealot is an "Open Source" cartoon, you cannot expect him to look the same every time you see him. In much the same way that you cannot expect any sort of GUI consistency between Linux applications. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	question ??? (none / 0) (#63)
	by detikon on Mon May 13th, 2002 at 12:41:34 AM PST

	What the hell does BEUATY mean? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	What the fuck... (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 02:56:12 PM PST

	are you guys on? I'm sure that there's a maximum dosage in which eating hyper mints is safe. Any attempt to find humor, a good point or anything else that would make this article worthwhile, has failed miserably.

	Very impressive, Microsoft. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
	by Valrus on Sat May 11th, 2002 at 09:41:38 AM PST

	But Mac OS X's text anti-aliasing is about twenty times better. Oh wait, so is the <em>rest</em> of the operating system! -the valrus

	dumbass (none / 0) (#93)
	by wtfisthisshit on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 12:52:16 PM PST

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.