|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
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 It is no longer maintained.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. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
bunch of luddites (5.00 / 1) (#1) |
|
by alprazolam on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 08:56:08 AM PST |
|
|
|
if you are all using these, you're probably using them illegally on expired licenses. i suggest you upgrade as soon as possible. and anyway don't all you artsy type people using some sort of apple computer or something? |
|
luddite? (2.50 / 2) (#5) |
|
by westgeof on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 01:24:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
I myself happen to use a fully licensed copy of Win98. It came with my computer, (along with Linux, but that's not an option on this biased poll.) I even like it. It's not perfect, but neither is any other operating system, and since I have almost no problems with it (which is better than my unix box at work,) I plan to stick with it for awhile. Besides, all the best games are written for Windows. Why else should I use a computer at home? If I wanted to be productive at home I might use a different OS, but I'm not crazy. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance. |
|
Best games are NOT xbox games (2.00 / 1) (#26) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 05:49:13 AM PST |
|
|
|
Besides, all the best games are written for Windows.
Not all. For instance, Super Smash Bros. has never appeared on a Microsoft platform. Why else should I use a computer at home? If all you wanted to do was play Microsoft's games, why did you blow $1000 on a PC when you can soon get an Xbox, a decent 25" TV, and ten games for that price? |
|
Um... (none / 0) (#35) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 05:27:00 AM PST |
|
|
|
Super Smash Brothers? I'm not even going there. I _have_ played it, and that game blows hard. Also, you have underestimated the cost of the XBox my friend. $1000 will certainly _not_ buy you an XBox, AND TV, AND ten games. It may get you an XBox and a couple of games however. And PCs are still the better buy over the new do-it-all console systems, as doing-it-all has been the goal of PCs much longer than it has been the goal of console systems. |
|
Luddite? (5.00 / 2) (#23) |
|
by nx01 on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 03:12:31 PM PST |
|
|
|
The only luddites around here are the people who use Linux or Mac OS.
No, my friend, Windows users are not luddites. People who use obsolete operating systems which don't support todays standards, such as XML, paged memory, Windows Media and kernel support of DirectX. Even worse is the users of operating systems based on the ancient, delapidated "Unix" system. Talk about refusing to update to a real operating system! "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 |
|
Standards (3.00 / 2) (#31) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:29:51 PM PST |
|
|
|
Windows is the one that doens't support standards. Samba on linux can crash windows servers because Microsoft didn't implement SMB right, and its their own standard! Windows doesn't support Kerberos, or even DNS now.
What about multi-tasking, windows didn't have it until Win95, and it wasn't good until Win2k. Unix had it since the 70's. Who cares about Windows media, it's a big fat hog. Apple finally saw the light, and with Mac OS X (a unix) it will certainly be more advanced than windows for the first time since the 80's. Windows is tolerable for playing games, or doing light stuff; but it sucks for serving. Its stability sucks, and so does it performance. For a real OS get Unix, Linux, BeOS, or Mac OS X. |
|
windows media (none / 0) (#32) |
|
by sodok on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:27:53 PM PST |
|
|
|
Each OS does different things well. The list of choices in this polls saddens me... DOS? I will use an abacus before I have to go back using that nightmare. I'm surprised they didn't put the commodore in there... or the finest operating system there is.
Windows Media... It's a hog but it works good enough to be immensely popular and usable for joe luser, and will continue to improve in the future. |
|
Hacker tools. (none / 0) (#34) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:48:34 PM PST |
|
|
|
> Samba on linux can crash windows servers
You're really, really doing a good job of dispelling the image that Linux users have as violent computer hackers and script kiddies "My OS can crash your OS! I'm so very, very 31337!" Yes, the fact that you use a criminal's OS that was written specifically to attack and destroy legitimate computer systems makes you a real man. Linux may be able to crash Windows, but I'd say that makes Linux the OS with a problem. What you're doing is blaming the victim instead of the criminal. When a list of an OS's "features" includes hundreds of "features" designed to hack into computer systems (nmap, nessus, queso, satan. satan), destroy data (dd, rm, cpio), launch denial of service attacks (ping), illegally hide data from law enforcement (pgp, gpg, crypt, ssh, ssl), and steal access to proprietary networking systems (samba), I think it's pretty clear that that OS is aimed mainly at children and criminals rather than professionals and businessmen. > Microsoft didn't implement SMB right, and its their own standard! The Server Message Block protocol is a proprietary standard that is the intellectual property of Microsoft Corporation. SAMBA is a possibly illegal program that exists on VERY shaky legal ground, designed to circumvent Microsoft's attempts to maintain and control their own intellectual property. > Windows doesn't support Kerberos, or even DNS now. No, what you MEAN to say is that Windows DOES support Kerberos, just not your own particular insecure "open standard" hippie version of it. Windows doesn't support DNS? Huh? That's the most wrongheaded thing I've heard all week. Internet access would be rather hard without DNS. > What about multi-tasking, windows didn't have it until Win95, and it wasn't good until Win2k. Unix had it since the 70's. UNIX was never a multitasking operating system; it was originally designed as a "time-sharing" system. Even today, UNIX still uses the 30-year-old time-sharing rather than the new and efficient multitasking systems that Microsoft has developed. > Who cares about Windows media, it's a big fat hog. Your anecdotal comments are well appreciated, but they fail when confronted with scientific facts. Even your precious Slashdot reported on a real-world double-blind study in which real music people were asked to compare the same song in MP3, MP3-plus, Windows Media, Ogg Vorbis, and uncompressed CD audio formats. Not surprisingly, the Windows Media files, which were about half the size of the MP3s and Vorbises, proved to be the best of all the compressed formats, often proving to be indistinguishable from the original CDs. The open-source Ogg Vorbis came in dead last. > Windows is tolerable for playing games, or doing light stuff; but it sucks for serving. Its stability sucks, and so does it performance. Again, purely anecdotal. See Microsoft's Linux Myths page for an UNBIASED comparrision. I would also point you to the numerous side-by-side studies that have proven that Windows NT Server is faster than Linux for nearly any sort of server task imaginable, but I doubt you're the type who puts much stock in real-world evidence. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
Hacker Tools? (1.00 / 1) (#39) |
|
by codespace on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:46:08 AM PST |
|
|
|
> Yes, the fact that you use a criminal's OS that was written specifically to attack and destroy legitimate computer systems makes you a real man.
When did Linus Torvalds become a criminal? When did the kernel development team for Linux become criminals, for that matter? Linux was written as an alternative to Microsoft's server-end operating system, Windows NT/2000/XP Server; not, as you claim, to "specifically attack and destroy legitimate computer systems". > When a list of an OS's "features" includes hundreds of "features" designed to... launch denial of service attacks (ping), ... destroy data (rm), ... and steal access to proprietary networking systems (samba) ... Ping is a standard-issue network connectivity and latency measurement tool included on most operating systems. Try typing "ping 127.0.0.1" in the "Run" prompt in Windows. Explain to me how "rm" is a hacker tool? Because it does the same thing as "del" does in a DOS window. And the only way samba has been used, to my knowledge, is to make diverse-OS networks communicate. Say you're running a UNIX-based mainframe system on your network, as well as WindowsMe, and a Linux server or two. Are you not supposed to be able to share files between the Windows-based machines and the UNIX/Linux machines? Especially considering that UNIX and Linux would most likely be the servers, with Windows running the desktops, as UNIX/Linux have the best uptimes when compared to WindowsNT/2000; something system administrators tend to consider important. > UNIX was never a multitasking operating system; it was originally designed as a "time-sharing" system. Even today, UNIX still uses the 30-year-old time-sharing rather than the new and efficient multitasking systems that Microsoft has developed. Time-sharing worked, and still works, more efficiently than most applications of Microsoft's multitasking systems, but I will concede that it could use some refinement. However, you never addressed the point that Unix had it since the 70's, whereas Microsoft only managed to get their multitasking within the past year or so. > Your anecdotal comments are well appreciated, but they fail when confronted with scientific facts. Even your precious Slashdot reported on a real-world double-blind study in which real music people were asked to compare the same song in MP3, MP3-plus, Windows Media, Ogg Vorbis, and uncompressed CD audio formats. Sound quality aside, Windows Media, while as a standard is fine for quality of sound, isn't precisely easy on system resources. On a side-by-side comparison with MP3 and uncompressed CD formats, on multiple platforms/machines, Windows Media came dead last as far as system resource usage. > Again, purely anecdotal. See Microsoft's Linux Myths page for an UNBIASED comparrision. Normally, I hate pointing out the obvious, but the fact that the "unbiased" comparison statistics are on a Microsoft-owned page screams "Untrue" to me. Sorry for ranting, but something needed to be said, and I may as well as be the one to say it. "Sir, are you classified as human?" "Negative, I am a meat popsicle." |
|
Criminal OS for criminals by criminals. Criminal. (none / 0) (#42) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:29:08 PM PST |
|
|
|
"When did Linus Torvalds become a criminal? When did the kernel development team for Linux become criminals, for that matter? Linux was written as an alternative to Microsoft's server-end operating system, Windows NT/2000/XP Server; not, as you claim, to "specifically attack and destroy legitimate computer systems"
Since you didn't take the time to read my links the previous post, I'll just summarise a few cogent points: 1. Reverse-engineering and theft of Microsoft's proprietary SMB protocol. 2. Reverse-engineering and theft of Microsoft's NTFS filesytem -- the lawsuit over this issue against the developers of Linux's NTFS driver is still in progress. 3. Programs to steal DVD movies and other intellectual property, IE DeCSS, LiVid. 4. The operating system of choice among hacker groups such as Cult Of The Dead Cow and 2600. 5. The wide availability of "security auditing software." 6. Illegal encryption programs that violate US export laws designed to defend national security. 7. Web browsers that don't license the necessary intellectual property from Microsoft. 8. Tools for illegally accessing servers using a program that the server owner didn't intend -- ie every Linux ICQ client, every Linux AIM client, etc. 9. Linux ICQ client "LICQ" features message spoofing, bombing tools, and features designed to override or ignore the client-side security built into ICQ. Is that enough for you, or do you need more? -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
Who's the criminal? (1.00 / 1) (#45) |
|
by kenshi on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:01:18 AM PST |
|
|
|
> 1. Reverse-engineering and theft of Microsoft's proprietary SMB protocol.
You're suggesting that Windows and Linux computers should not be able to talk to each other? Microsoft intentionally makes all their stuff proprietary to eliminate competition. That's why they're in hot water right now. > 2. Reverse-engineering and theft of Microsoft's NTFS filesytem -- the lawsuit over this issue against the developers of Linux's NTFS driver is still in progress. It sounds like something Microsoft would do. Someone was bound to do it. That's one reason why Linux is less imposing than Windows. > 3. Programs to steal DVD movies and other intellectual property, IE DeCSS, LiVid. The creators of the free Linux DVD software was not aware of the copyrights they were breaking when they made the software. And if the DVD companies aren't willing to release a DVD player for Linux, they shouldn't worry about it in the first place. > 4. The operating system of choice among hacker groups such as Cult Of The Dead Cow and 2600. Hacker groups are good with computers and would likely know which operating system is best. Also 65% of web servers run Apache on some kind of Unix-based box, including Microsoft themself. That should tell you something. > 5. The wide availability of "security auditing software." These are just as common for Windows. Have you heard of Brute Force? Divine Intervention? Winnuke? All of them are made only for Windows. I used to be into the hacking scene. Funny enough it was while I was using Windows. > 6. Illegal encryption programs that violate US export laws designed to defend national security. I don't agree with those laws anyway, but that's another story. So Microsoft defends those laws when they have a pop-up that asks if you live in the United States? As if the yes button doesn't appear on a Canadian's screen? > 7. Web browsers that don't license the necessary intellectual property from Microsoft. Why would anyone license anything for a browser from Microsoft? Did they invent the internet? Http? Html? The first browser ever made was Mosaic. Maybe Microsoft should be licensing from them, although the idea of being forced to license something so general is absurd. > 8. Tools for illegally accessing servers using a program that the server owner didn't intend -- ie every Linux ICQ client, every Linux AIM client, etc. Maybe the companies should come out with a version for other operating systems than the fascist operating system known as Windows. They're helping defeat capitalism and freedom. Besides, there are many similar clients for Windows. People just aren't forced to use them because there is still the original version. > 9. Linux ICQ client "LICQ" features message spoofing, bombing tools, and features designed to override or ignore the client-side security built into ICQ. First of all, there is no bombing tools built into Licq. Maybe the rest of those apply but not bombing. Secondly, those same features are available through plugins for the Windows version. It's nice that if someone is harassing me over Icq, I can get their IP address and contact their ISP informing them of what they've been doing. Getting their IP address is really the only feature that could be considered a hacker's feature but the truth of the matter is that it's not very hard to use the netstat command in Windows to aquire this same information. I've done it many times myself. In Licq, I've only used people's IP addresses to open up my firewall so they can send me files. Now which one's the criminal OS? |
|
SMB (3.00 / 1) (#48) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:07:39 PM PST |
|
|
|
> Reverse-engineering and theft of Microsoft's proprietary SMB protocol.
Now, the SMB protocol was originally developed by a small Australian company and later stolen and added to by M$, not bought like the original DOS that was simply ported to an 8086. The original developer of Samba realized what the stolen base protocol was and ported it to *NIX. It sounds like developers of both OS's did the same thing....crime or not-your choice. M$ has also ported clients to Novell, is this not the same *crime* you are accusing *NIX developers of? Multi-user on M$ platforms were developed from *NIX source, as were many other M$ developments, seems like they only want it going their way to me! Multi-tasking is time-slicing on any OS, including M$....when will they hack multi-user and finally join a real server OS? You cannot compare the scalablity of M$ OS's to *NIX..... ever try to completely strip the GUI from WinAnything? You can with *NIX and it is much faster.....a true 64-bit OS like Sparc Solaris is far faster even yet without comparison. Too bad Linus can't dance like Steve Ballimar! ~Guitarlynn |
|
UNIX ping a criminal tool. (none / 0) (#54) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:27:51 PM PST |
|
|
|
>Ping is a standard-issue network connectivity and
>latency measurement tool included on most operating >systems. Try typing "ping 127.0.0.1" in the "Run" prompt >in Windows. Why does your version of ping need THIS, then? -f Flood ping. Outputs packets as fast as they come back or one hundred times per second, whichever is more.... This can be very hard on a network and should be used with caution. -s packetsize Specifies the number of data bytes to be sent. The default is 56, which translates into 64 ICMP data bytes when combined with the 8 bytes of ICMP header data. Can you still claim that your version of ping is NOT a hacker tool? Ping -f with 64KB packets means an instant denial-of-service attack. There's no other reason for those options to exist. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
Uh huh.. (1.00 / 1) (#46) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:52:00 PM PST |
|
|
|
You're actually arrogant and naive enough to think that a list of "myths" regarding Linux, Microsoft's only serious competition, is completely unbiased despite being written by the same company that is fighting -against- Linux? |
|
It doesn't matter who they come from. (none / 0) (#53) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:24:25 PM PST |
|
|
|
The truth is the truth, no matter who its author is. Do you have any specific complaints against the veracity of the Linux Myths site, or do you just want to assume it's wrong because of who the author is? -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
Are you aware? (1.00 / 1) (#50) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 03:53:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
When a list of an OS's "features" includes hundreds of "features" designed to hack into computer systems (nmap, nessus, queso, satan. satan), destroy data (dd, rm, cpio), launch denial of service attacks (ping), illegally hide data from law enforcement (pgp, gpg, crypt, ssh, ssl), and steal access to proprietary networking systems (samba I take this part as meaning your post was sarcastic? Because almost all of those tools are not specific to any *nix, are available on WindowsXX, and are tools for internet connectivity... some of which have been around longer than microsoft. ?? Either way, it made me laugh. Thanks! Ctimes2 |
|
Sarcasm is the tool of a weak mind. (none / 0) (#51) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:19:18 PM PST |
|
|
|
I take this part as meaning your post was sarcastic? I'm NEVER sarcastic. Maybe you just don't want to face the fact that not everybody uses your precious toy OS, so you automatically discredit anyone who says so by saying, "Well, he doesn't really MEAN that." Because almost all of those tools are not specific to any *nix, are available on WindowsXX, and are tools for internet connectivity... some of which have been around longer than microsoft. ?? None of them are INCLUDED with Windows, and none of them are manufactured by Microsoft. Let's look at them one by one: Is it a little bit clearer now? -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
YES! (1.00 / 1) (#36) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:55:02 AM PST |
|
|
|
Preach on Brother!!!! |
|
Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#2) |
|
by nx01 on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 09:48:22 AM PST |
|
|
|
I'd just like to thank the fine folks at Adequacy.org for the fair, well-balanced, non-communist poll. "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 |
|
I'm amazed (5.00 / 2) (#4) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 01:13:38 PM PST |
|
|
|
No one has yet posted any whiny, complaint-filled, whimpering comments about the poll. |
|
Well of course! (5.00 / 2) (#6) |
|
by nx01 on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 07:20:25 PM PST |
|
|
|
We are adults here. Not whiny, stupid children. "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 |
|
You're just old farts...... (1.00 / 1) (#43) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 04:57:45 PM PST |
|
|
|
Because your kids are using a superior operating system that you're scared of. |
|
Yes, our kids DO use a superior operating system. (none / 0) (#52) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:23:33 PM PST |
|
|
|
You're just old farts..... Because your kids are using a superior operating system that you're scared of.
Of course our kids use Windows 2000. We make sure of that. But I'm not afraid of Windows 2000, in fact, I'm in love with it. However, I do congratulate you on using "your" and "you're" correctly a total of three times, a feat that most Linux users would be incapable of. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
hah (4.00 / 3) (#7) |
|
by cowdeth on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 12:22:43 AM PST |
|
|
|
Where, might I ask, was WinNT, or Win2k? or WinCE? or PalmOS? All perfectly non-socialized OpSystems (re "communist")...but not listed. Why? Win2k is, security-wise, the most superior of them all (Just that the Dos support sucks...).
Is it just me, or is this more or less a hard-religious-right community? |
|
Just you (5.00 / 1) (#8) |
|
by finn on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:28:18 AM PST |
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is this more or less a hard-religious-right community? Definitely just you… ---------- |
|
Nope... (1.00 / 1) (#33) |
|
by sodok on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:37:35 PM PST |
|
|
|
It's not you... very poor choices there...
|
|
Bah (5.00 / 1) (#37) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:56:34 AM PST |
|
|
|
Win2k's DOS support is better than actual DOS support. |
|
Hey! There's a policy here! (2.00 / 3) (#9) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:29:39 AM PST |
|
|
|
When you want to post a comment, there's a warning that says: "Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted. This is your fair warning" Doesn't this apply to stories or polls? This poll is sure one of a troll... well maybe 'flamebait' would be more fair... Anyway, I have to say I am very satisfied to see that hardly anyone has been 'caught'... |
|
There were many candidate OS'es (3.66 / 3) (#10) |
|
by bc on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 06:21:47 AM PST |
|
|
|
The editors had to make a judgement call and select only the best of the bunch. Although some obscure OS's didn't make the cut, such as Amiga Workbench, CP/M, Sinclair Basic, Linux, etc, we have endeavoured to include only the best operating systems in the poll so that it makes more sense. We could have included these operating systems, but most people have not heard of them and that would skew results. ♥, bc. |
|
Obscure?!?! (1.00 / 2) (#11) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 07:30:26 AM PST |
|
|
|
Since when has Linux been obscure?
--- booch |
|
Always (3.66 / 3) (#12) |
|
by bc on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 08:01:10 AM PST |
|
|
|
Although well known within the computer industry, our poll has a larger perspective, and so this doesn't matter. Only 1% of computers have linux installed. The people who use it don't get out much, on the whole. Therefore, it isn't very well known. HTH ♥, bc. |
|
you should still broaden the spectrum (1.00 / 2) (#14) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 03:40:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
I mean, would it be THAT hard to add linux to the choices? Or even Mac-OS? I'd say that every mac running it kinda makes it popular. It's not as if the company is just some struggling upstart. |
|
Sorry.. (3.66 / 3) (#15) |
|
by elby on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 04:34:59 PM PST |
|
|
|
I'm afraid because of a technical limitation in scoop, we are limited to the number of choices that were used. I guess when you use free software, you get what you pay for, huh?
So we decided which operating systems were the most important and put them in. I support our decision fully. -lb |
|
too bad aboot the limitations (2.33 / 3) (#20) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 11:49:06 AM PST |
|
|
|
Fully support your choices? I just happen to see one of the worst OS's I've ever seen (windoze me) as a choice, and you still support your choices? And you justify this by saying that "it should be there because it's popular"? You know, giving up journalistic integrity to pander to the masses isn't something new and shocking, but it's still disgusting. And this is disgusting. |
|
Our schools have truly failed us (5.00 / 2) (#21) |
|
by zikzak on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 04:39:24 PM PST |
|
|
|
I guess it is a bit too much to expect our audience to have reading comprehension skills beyond those achieved at the age of 8. Let's run through this slowly, shall we?
If one were to logically extrapolate from the phrase "Favorite operating system" - which was followed by a list of operating systems - one may arrive at a sentence that reads as follows: Which of the operating systems FROM THE LIST BELOW is your favorite?" Note that the question is not, "What is your all-time favorite operating system?". This is multiple choice. An essay version of the test is not available. As an analogy, please consider this hypothetical situation. I escort you to a parking lot which contains:
Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are to blame for bringing your own prejudices and misconceptions into the discussion? Almost 200 people have offered their own vote on the matter without throwing a temper tantrum. 200 people have utilized their basic grasp of what a poll is and chosen to contribute. All these other people seem to be doing fine with the limited selection, but you feel the need to have a hissy fit because the entire nature of the activity was beyond your intellectual grasp. You disgust me. |
|
if you bothered to read the whole thread (1.00 / 2) (#22) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 04:58:50 PM PST |
|
|
|
I did say the limitations were a bad thing, as in saying "sorry I said that because it's not your fault that you have a limited number of choices you could put on their" without saying it in those exact words. Funny isn't it, that "hissy fits" are always long and drawn out, and your post seems to be the longest of them all. |
|
what i can't believe (none / 0) (#30) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:27:50 PM PST |
|
|
|
is that you posted upteen times, and never bothered to sign up. |
|
Linux (1.00 / 2) (#19) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 05:38:47 AM PST |
|
|
|
Well, obviously the managers of this site is incredibly narrow-minded. I have to say I'm impressed that I still see people saying that Linux is an obscure os that noone except technically literate people have heard of. I know that not everyone knows about Linux, but these people haven't heard of OS/2 either, and most of them don't even know the name of the operating system they are using.
(Sorry. I know I'm not supposed to answer to trolls, but I was too provoced by this idiot!) |
|
DOS = OS ? (3.50 / 2) (#16) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 06:22:08 PM PST |
|
|
|
DOS is not a operating system...
if you want to code any good 'dos app', you'll have to directly access sccreen , sound card, keybard... the only things dos manage is hard disk |
|
Hi there. (5.00 / 2) (#18) |
|
by zikzak on Sat Sep 1st, 2001 at 01:44:53 AM PST |
|
|
|
You might be interested in knowing that DOS is an acronym. I will leave the determination of what the letters O and S reference as an exercise for the reader. |
|
The D (1.00 / 2) (#25) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 10:31:53 PM PST |
|
|
|
Does the 'D' in DOS stand for Dumb? |
|
DOS history (none / 0) (#28) |
|
by twodot72 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:23:38 AM PST |
|
|
|
Quite interrestingly, DOS was originally written by Seattle Computer Company. In those days, it was called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty Operating System". It was a blatant rip-off of CP/M, thrown together in a few weeks.
Apparently, after Microsoft had worked on it for a while, it was no longer quick, so they had to remove the Q from its name. |
|
what no 2k (1.00 / 2) (#17) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 31st, 2001 at 08:49:29 PM PST |
|
|
|
what no win2k? no nt4? |
|
Missing item (1.00 / 2) (#24) |
|
by snowfox on Sun Sep 2nd, 2001 at 06:03:44 PM PST |
|
|
|
Windows 2000 is missing from the list - in my experience, it is the most stable of Microsoft's offerings. I wouldn't run a production system on anything else.
I'll assume that Mac and Linux are absent to make a point or as a bit of an invitation to squabble - fair's fair. Good clean 1st rate/grade humor there. |
|
Linux: Because it is what I want to use. (1.00 / 1) (#38) |
|
by Ruri on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:12:38 AM PST |
|
|
|
Linux is my favorite operating system because I like it. Not because it makes me feel "leet" or because I'm "not selling out." I like Linux, I like the features it has, it suits my style of computer use. I use other operating systems, such as Windows on my Laptop, but I love my Linux machine.
I think people here ought to ditch their one sided views that all Linux users are criminals, crackers, and software pirates. Most use Linux because they like it as opposed to other operating systems. Not because they want to be "leet." |
|
Linux. (1.00 / 1) (#40) |
|
by rawGuru on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:08:14 PM PST |
|
|
|
I use Linux because I can get my work done without interruption. No rebooting. No crashes. No waiting for the OS. BOFH... You will do it right or not at all. |
|
w0w, u r 1337 d00d! (none / 0) (#41) |
|
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:22:33 PM PST |
|
|
|
Criminal. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy. |
|
Criminals, aren't we all? (none / 0) (#56) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 11:07:59 PM PST |
|
|
|
Your ISP is criminal too.
users.ipa.net (a mindspring-box..): Remote OS guesses: Digital UNIX OSF1 V 4.0,4.0B,4.0D,4.0E, Digital UNIX OSF1 V 4.0-4.0F |
|
Is that crack youre smoking? (3.00 / 2) (#47) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:52:12 PM PST |
|
|
|
Windows 1.0? 2.0? Give me a break! Im still in disbelief that you would think more people the win 1-3 than win2k or even linux. Thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. What were you guys smoking when you made this poll?
This site is lame. Newbie Linux User Avid Win2k User |
|
To each his own (none / 0) (#55) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 03:55:36 AM PST |
|
|
|
I'd just like to say that while linux and mac are not choices.... oh well. I run linux and win2k, and I think os X looks/runs very nicely.
Maybe linux and mac users wouldn't need to stand up for themselves if people were willing to admit that EVERY os has its benefits, and drawbacks. If a an os existed that was perfect for everyone, this poll wouldn't even exist. I like em all (ok, except dos, that's pretty bad....) |
 |
Stories
46 votes - 14 %
