Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an 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 It is no longer maintained.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 if you have questions.

Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1

Author:

iat

Topic:

Gnu/Linux

Posted:

Sep 30, 2001

Comments:

500

This week saw the release of the latest and greatest version of the Linux operating system, Linux Mandrake 8.1. Although "alternative" operating systems are not usually of interest to Adequacy's readership, who prefer to trust user-friendly commercial software, this release is noteworthy. For the release of Linux Mandrake 8.1, aggressively timed to coincide with that of Microsoft's much vaunted Windows XP, marks the start of the final battle for domination of the computer industry. Make no mistake, the next few months will either see Microsoft tighten its stranglehold on the marketplace or will be a coming of age for the upstart Linux operating system.

Considering the enormous significance of this release, we at Adequacy are proud to bring you one of the first ever reviews of Linux Mandrake 8.1.

[editor's note, by bc] Due to enormous user feedback, we have done our best to correct some errors in this article. Hopefully it should be 100% correct now.

More stories by

iat

	Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
	Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
	Newbie's Guide to Online Gaming
	Kill Yr Idols: Kurt Cobain
	Celebrating 2000 Years of British Achievement
	Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
	Exploding the Myths of Teenage Drug Use

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the "bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

	a request (3.50 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:09:31 AM PST

	can some l33t adequacy editor extract the user-agent from the server logs and post what miserable percentage of geeks masturbate to Linux on web boards while browsing with a useful operating system such as Windows? My excellent theory is that geek sexuality manifests itself through the classic "playing hard to get" mating strategy normal people sometimes adopt with other humans but which geeks, thanks to their unattractive status among humans, have sublimated for use with machines. I'm not saying all people who obsess over fat Finns are necessarily sluts, but I think an introspective recognition of this possibility would heal a lot of open sores and make webboards altogether nicer places to visit. I hope this makes sense.

	Who's sublimating? (2.00 / 2) (#4)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:29:17 AM PST

	Excuse me, but you obviously have a very deeply troubled sexuality yourself. It may come as a surprise to you, but "playing hard to get" is not normal human mating strategy. In fact, "playing hard to get" is a euphemism for "I'd prefer to never see you again". It seems that you yourself have some very deep psychological scars vis-a-vis your sexuality. Obviously, you have sublimated frequent cases of rejection by the opposite sex, convincing yourself that abuse and humiliation leveled at you is somehow "normal". In real life, (as opposed to the sublimated virtual construction you have created for yourself) people who like each other have no problem communicating. I'd suggest attacking your problem at the root; first of all, you need to take a hard look at yourself. There is no point in keeping the cycle of self-delusion and humiliation going; try to improve your attitude and your outlook on life, try to connect in a more meaningful, non-consumerist way with members of the opposite sex. Start anew with small things -- like chatting about the weather and going out to luch together. Eventually you may break your malignant cycle and establish a meaningful relationship. Best wishes and good luck to you. -- Peace and much love...

	Re: a request (none / 0) (#292)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:27:47 AM PST

	Why is it that people who spread around FUD always resort to childish methods to get their point across? Your post was unnecessary and inflammatory. Why not learn how to argue with actual facts and knowledge?

	Fuck you. (1.40 / 5) (#3)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:20:09 AM PST

	I don't trust "Commercial Software" and will never trust it. You can take your "user-friendly" bullshit and shove it up your ass. Excuse me for the rudeness, but I'd prefer if people didn't put words in my mouth. I can use whatever goddamn software I want to use, regardless of your insinuations. Have a nice and non-intrusive day. -- Peace and much love...

	Why _not_ trust commertial software? (4.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 12:59:46 PM PST

	I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures! I cannot trust their 'skillz' to power my business. I will always trust Microsoft and Windows based software more than the crap that is churned out of the free source movement. Microsoft may be a larger price to pay at the beginning, but it pays for itself over and over within months. Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc. Most of them do not even hold jobs! Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.

	Whatever. (3.33 / 3) (#7)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 01:16:43 PM PST

	Look, I don't care. It's an ethical and philosophical choice for me; it's like a choice between one piece of poetry and another. Trying to argue with me that commercial software is more "professional" is akin to trying convince me to listen to Britney Spears because her music is more "professional". It's simply not a rational decision for me, sorry. -- Peace and much love...

	Choosing poetry through ethics (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:58:04 PM PST

	I much prefer the poetry of W.H. Auden over T.S Eliot. Eliot's poems may be more beautiful, and more meaningful, but he was able to get quite rich from his poetic work, and this offends my morality. I believe that people who charge money for things that I can copy easily are morally wrong. Also, I hear that T.S. Eliot did not willingly accept advice or contributions from other poets, or even strangers. For this reason, he is morally unacceptable to me, even though his poems are superior.

	Yawn .... (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:18:41 PM PST

	<em>Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc.</em> Read the source code. It's open to public review and criticism. <em>Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.</em> The crackers and script kiddies must love you!!! Windows 9x is the least secure Operating System on the planet. <em>I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures!</em> As the Young Einstein said, "If we can't trust the politicians, who can we trust?" That was just after he discovered a way to split the beer atom ... And as for "following simple licensing measures", give me an example. Come up with some proof before you defame. If you're alleging that their source code is the result of stealing someone else's, you'd better have rock-solid, iron-hard evidence, I'm afraid. And if you are alleging that in effect because of the Microsoft licensing agreements, that Microsoft products are the only software that have any right to go on a PC - and believe you me, I have met such nutters - you're even less of a capitalist than Lenin - Lenin at least tried to moderate his monopolistic statist theory once he found it didn't work in the early 1920s.

	you sound stupid (2.00 / 1) (#179)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:43:57 AM PST

	<<that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines>> I hate to tell you this but you can't run 9x on a server. It's not a server OS/ What you ulimately have are networked PCs with file/print sharing. I'm a Network Amdin. I use Linux. I don't mess with source code. Therefore I am not a hacker. Linux is not a kiddy OS. I guess in your dindled minds the IGM Linux Labs emply kindergardeners.

	Stand back! We're scientists! (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Coward on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:28:49 PM PST

	Hi. I'm a professional programmer. A senior one, even. I am well paid and write the code that makes the whole world sing. I am glad you appreciate our fine work and choose our products. But I do need to set you straight on some things. I went to college once where I was one of those Unix hackers. (Linux wasn't invented yet nor was the PC) We wrote great code back then just as now. Better, even, because we were young and eager and not busy going to soulless business meetings. And better, because software design is really a young person's skill. That's why mathematicians (I was a math major) are considered over the hill by the time they're 25. I was also more trustworthy back then, having the ideals of the young and not the pressures to sell out that comes with having to come up with a mortgage payment every month. And so I say, trust that code of the young. It's a lot better than what "teams of professionals" turn out in most cases. I'll bet you were young once too. -- Support the home page homeless.

	Bleah (4.50 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:02:49 PM PST

	Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible. It amuses me to see all of these MS-haters who probably have a ton of indirect Microsoft stock in their 401(k) mutual funds. The recent terrorist attacks on America's economy and laissez-faire capitalism in general have severely hurt Microsoft and the country's economy. Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America. I didn't use Linux before the attacks, though I was always curious about it. I now know that I will never use it, nor will I associate myself with those that do (whenever possible.)

	How can linux be un-American? (2.00 / 1) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:00:28 PM PST

	GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter.

	Legally fallacious (5.00 / 2) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:11:45 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology.

	Correction (1.00 / 2) (#98)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:59:26 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. The only difference between a political essay(which is strongly protected by the courts) and source code is that source code has a much much more fuctional porpose. This makes it worthy of less constitutional protection, but it's still speach. Free software is no Anit-American. It's sharing of ideas. If you want your own source code to be closed source. Nothings stoping you.

	You are `correcting' the Supreme Court? (4.00 / 1) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:03:10 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. I believe that, within the jurisdiction of the US, we all would be better served by heeding the rulings of the US Supreme Court than your opinions...

	Re: Legally fallacious (none / 0) (#295)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:01:21 AM PST

	If Linux is so anti-corporate, why are companies like Mandrake and RedHat making money off of selling Linux? Linux is anti-monopoly, not anti-corporate. And just because the government says so, Linux is not speech, and is thus un-American? It is not the courts that decide what is American and un-American. It is the people who decide. If the supreme court decided that blacks should be re-enslaved, would you call anyone who disagreed an un-American? If so, then I think that you need to go reexamine the history of the United States, and its ideals. Is software speech? Many people believe so, and I believe so too. Microsoft tried to ban Linux on these grounds, but the courts ruled in favor of Linux. Capitalism doesn't equal America. Capitalism can just as well happen in totalitarianism, and most often does. While the leaders swim in wealth and knowledge, the masses are in poverty, and often ignorant. The Taliban regime is one of them. This is what Microsoft represents. They keep the knowledge from the masses, while they get filthy rich off of it. But how many nations are about individual freedom, community freedom, the right to knowledge? A very few, and America is the leader of the pack, and has been since 1776. This is what Linux represents, ideals and freedom. Both America and Linux are about individual choice. Both are about community empowerment. America is not entirely about capitalism. America is about democracy. It is about ideals. You are elevating the idea of making money over freedom and democracy, and that is un-American.

	Freedom (1.00 / 1) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:10 PM PST

	Agree. Is freedom un American? I don't think so. Way to go First Amenment. You say we should think how many MS stocks we have in our 401K. You should think of how much the other companies stock depend on Free Software. About half of all internet sites are powered by Free Software.- <i>GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter. </i>

	Re: Bleah (none / 0) (#294)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:47:40 AM PST

	Oh, I get it. You are saying that being a monopolistic power that does nothing but eat more wealth to make themselves fatter is what America is about? This is pure FUD!!! I would say that Microsoft is closer to Stalin's Soviet Union than a democratic republic. Do you own the Microsoft software that you are using? No, you don't. Microsoft owns it. you are only allowed to use it because of the EULA. What happens if there is a bug? You send a bug report, and wait months for Microsoft to fix it. Are you allowed to modify the software? No. What happens if Microsoft finds out that you installed Windows on your brother's computer? They will take legal action against you. Microsoft is very paranoid, even to the point of requiring to request Microsoft's permission to install new hardware on a computer running WindowsXP. Does this sound democratic? No. Does this sound capitalist? No. Capitalism rests on the foundations of free enterprise. Microsoft tries to kill free enterprise by stifling competition and innovation. Microsoft is a monopolistic power that is more akin to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union owned the industries, and Microsoft owns the OS. Read the UTICA agreement, and you will see. Linux, on the other hand, is American. It is a truely free operating system. If something goes wrong, you are free to find the source of the problem and fix it. You are free to see what goes on in Linux because the source code is there for everyone to see. If there is a bug, it is not uncommon for there to be a bug fix within hours of a report. The reason is that people who are enthusiastic about programming work hard to fix the problem. Unlike the Microsoft paradigm, you own the specific copy of the software you are using. So I can give a copy to my brother without fear of action. Not only that, I am free to "look under the hood" and make changes. You can take Linux and make it your OWN operating system. You can create scripts to make you system VERY powerful. Imagine if you are not allowed to open the hood of your car, and if you did, you faced legal action. Linux allows you to do that. Not only that, but you can create you own distribution of Linux and sell it. You can modify the Linux Kernel, and share it with everyone else. Linux is founded upon the ideal of freedom for computer users. These people hold ideals like the nation's founding fathers did. Read these documents by GNU. The philosophy is akin to the American Revolution. The intention is to bring freedom and democracy to the software world. The intention is to bring the highest ideals of both individual and communitarian freedoms into computing. These people are Americans are the very root. To say otherwise means that either you hate freedom, or you possess ignorance.

	I see (none / 0) (#363)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:35:34 PM PST

	>Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible....Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America.< I see. So you'll be advocating interment camps then?

	Why is Microsoft evil? (4.00 / 5) (#5)
	by Starship Trooper on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:43:00 AM PST

	The reasons for the Linux community's unending hatred for Microsoft (or Micro$oft, as Linux "haxors" often call it) have oft eluded me. How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system? How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity? How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly "superior" alternatives from Linux and Macintosh? The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy. These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth. They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan. Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that. --- A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

	Why is Microsoft good? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
	by Observer on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:23:04 PM PST

	Microsoft produces a relatively easy to use operating system. It is easy to use simply because it is ubiquitous and a great amount of research has been focused on the user interface. There is a highly standardized development model which makes programming under the Windows platforms very straightforward. Much of the development layer is documented in a clean and professional fashion. Multimedia aspects work wonderfully, as evidenced by Windows Media Player 6.4 on up and the automatic downloading of appropriate codecs. Business and productivity software are at the top, though there aren't many more new features which can be packed in. Alternatives are rapidly approaching the level of Microsoft Office. Those are the major points that initially come to mind. Now for the rebuttals: "How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system?" Simple - there's a catch. Market dominance, allowing practices of monopolistic abuse, evidenced by everyone else's subsequent requirement of paying through the nose for an upgrade which has skyrocketed in cost since the government turned a blind eye after the antitrust investigation. Besides, those who receive a free computer will end up having to upgrade it again down the line with more hardware to support the next generation of Windows which will be equally as exorbitant. As for Windows XP being excellent, you're probably right. I've no interest in it, but for average users, there's no reason to take the time to understand exactly how their computer works any more than they would need to take the time to fully understand how their automobile works. For those whom are not content to remain ignorant (this isn't a bad thing, necessarily, as we all rely on each other due to ignorance or inability in some aspect of our lives), learning about the tools we use, no matter how advanced, is an irresistable lure. "How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity?" Donations do not excuse arrogance, greed or intimidating actions. Put Bill Gates in a middle class position and he would be stepping on his coworkers to get to the top. These kinds of people make good executives, and we all know what dregs of the world they tend to be. For all the intelligence in the world, it can't redeem one from being an asshole. "How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly 'superior' alternatives from Linux and Macintosh?" It is a rare occassion that a superior technology is chosen over a less desirable one. The MP3 compressed music format exploded as several significantly more advanced formats were being released. MP3 is a mediocre technology by comparison, yet by chance and popularity, it has reigned as king of the digital music formats. The Apple Macintosh does not need file extensions - those awkward '.txt', '.mp3' and '.doc' style additions to a file name. Apple's usage of metadata was far superior to Microsoft's almost two decades ago, and still is, yet the popularity of Windows took off and eventually exceeded that of the Mac due to extremely aggressive business tactics which Apple refused to take part in. Apple is certainly no saintly entity itself, but the world could have been dominated by Apple instead and there would be enough complaints about it to make it a Microsoft, as it is seen by many even today. The top dog can be an evil bastard. The underdog can entirely good and yet it can be trampled. Corporations are the epitome of everything undesirable in human nature - greed, arrogance, hate, etc... therefore, the corporate world is essentially the battle to be the worst of the worst. "The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy." The people who work on Linux have little concern over the success of Microsoft. They are simply disgusted with the myriad problems in Windows which most users never encounter because they use it for everyday activities, such as email, browsing the internet and games. When a developer needs to get something done and has to end up working around the operating system, it is painful. When workarounds comprise half of a program, the developer is inclined to fix the operating system himself. When the operating system can only be fixed by a cabal of egotistical, money-driven businessmen, the developers who know their asses from a hole in the ground throw their hands up and look for a way out. The good are always outnumbered, as the ignorant can be swayed without their knowing. It pays to learn exactly how your car works, otherwise you'll end up being raped without even knowing it. "These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth." I'll only point out that you obviously have no comprehension of the places where most research occurs. Universities across the country are filled with thousands upon thousands whom are as intelligent, if not moreso than anyone at Microsoft's research centers. There are other research centers as well. Xerox PARC, for instance, where so many technologies have arisen and been incorporated into the fabric of today's society that it can be difficult to even keep track of them. "They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan." Banner ads have never been a business plan, no matter how many may have tried to use them as such. You'd do well to point your finger at the dotcom failures before you accuse those who simply follow their interests and create for the greater good because they like to do so. If the world were filled with more of these people, it would be a far better place than the one we have; filled with cutthroat businessmen. Do you think that physicians and surgeons always enter that field of work simply for money? There really are people in this world that realize the futility of monetary aggrandization. Of course, there are plenty of those at Microsoft whom are enjoying their jobs, especially with the lure of financial wealth. The company blinds them, though. I've seen it firsthand. When a person is making a six figure salary, it's hard not to rationalize away the blatantly vicious actions of your employer. "Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. This is the sharing of ideas, not material. You who jump so quickly to accuse the Linux community of communist properties would do well to first examine the scientific community. Linux is branched from computer science, which is still a very raw field. Being a science, it is focused on abstracts - ideas. These ideas can be applied to the material world to create products. The product brought forth by the Linux community is an abstract and therefore an idea, built from other ideas. Some in the Linux community make money, most do not. Still, the ideal behind Linux is still very strong. The jealousy you mentioned earlier is simply the over-zealous segments of the community. You misinterpret their calls for change as jealousy because you are blind to the shadows which Microsoft has cast upon a promising industry. There has been much damage wrought on the computer industry, and much to correct. However, this is changing. Linux was the poster child and there are others. Microsoft may have 90% of the user market, but the infrastructure of the industry is akin to a living organism and is rejecting the foreign object that threatens it's stability. If you've read through this entire rant, I'm impressed. Now, instead of watching TV or playing a video game, go and learn about the world around you.

	Gnu Apartment License (GAL) coming soon? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
	by Logical Analysis on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:08 PM PST

	"Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. In the words of Richard Stallman: "I did live in my office for 12 years, and I liked it. I was even registered to vote from that address. My situation was unusual because, for the first half of this period, the office was not officially my office and I had no official connection with the lab. I was a squatter in the AI Lab! The very idea is romantic." [...] "Unfortunately there was a new lab director in September 1997, who forced me to stop living in the lab. So I rented a room in Cambridge. At that very time, in October, the MIT student newspaper reported that a many MIT students were still unable to find any housing. The lab director's interference was not only inconvenient and wasteful for me; it also denied one student a possible place to live."

	Still not Communism (1.00 / 1) (#457)
	by Observer on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 01:14:42 AM PST

	If I choose to live on the street, it does not mean I'm a Communist. Stallman was not forcing anyone to share their residence. The man is dedicated, intelligent and obviously cares little for frills. Granted, there are parallels due to both concepts being idealogical, but enforcement becomes radically different in consequence. On one hand, the decimation of human rights by taking away the capacity of individuality. On the other, there is the continual sharing of ideas and knowledge, basically forcing honesty. Where lies the danger of free software, aside from that posed to business which tend to stifle research in general?

	And you know where all that cash comes from? (none / 0) (#505)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:29:26 PM PST

	It comes from doing illegal business, boy! comes from forcing people to spit out more money or else blood, but what would you know...

	linux (4.00 / 5) (#8)
	by error27 on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 02:23:54 PM PST

	When ever you say anything remotely objective about Linux, Linux users get very upset and start cursing at you. Tkatchev is a perfect example in this respect. The smaller minority of Linux users who don't just start cursing at you will try to make all kinds of excuses like, "You should have tried Slack Ware instead of Mandrake because the older versions of Linux are better." Or they will say something like, "Right now Linux isn't very good, but in four years we will have Internet Explorer for Linux and then everyone will only want to use Linux instead of Windows." These excuses don't cut it for people who have got work to do right away. In the end, I think the question Linux users need to ask is: Is there any free lunch? Throughout history people have come to realise that, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

	Yeah. (1.33 / 3) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:05:57 PM PST

	Like I said, the choice of Linux is not a rational choice for me. Let is be known that Linux does indeed suck, it just sucks infinitely less than Windows. Linux is a labor of love, a work of art (though a crappy one) whereas Windows is just a two-bit hack job by the industry equivalent of ghostwriters. I support individual creativity and initiative over mind-numbing corporate plus-plus-good double-think every time. -- Peace and much love...

	Not throughout all history. Just during... (4.50 / 4) (#11)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:07:59 PM PST

	...the history of reading Robert A. Heinlien books. Prior to that, everyone believed that lots of things could be had for free. Like love. Or sex. Or software. Or freedom. Now I know you're going to say "freedom isn't free." But I charitably assumed that when you said "there is no such thing as a free lunch" you were leaving out the possibility of stealing your lunch. If you allow for taking what isn't yours, then of course you can have lots of things for free. Now, since we are not considering that possiblity, on the assumption that we are speaking only of relations among honorable people, then no honorable person would infringe on your freedom for anything. Thus, you have your freedom for nothing. It's free! But as I've said before, free software is much more like sex than anything else: you get as much as you want for nothing. Sure you could pay a profesional for it, but why? If you are capable of giving up as good as you get (again both with sex and software) then you will get better than anything a whore could give you. Now you could be a lousy lay. Then you will probably not get much good sex for free. Then, yes, go to a pro. Absolutely. Maybe this means that ironically, geeks are the ones least able to beneift from free software. Just a thought. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	thanks for thoughtful reply (4.66 / 3) (#171)
	by error27 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:09:06 AM PST

	It's always good to read a well considerred reply. Even though I can't agree with your conclusions, you do bring out some good points that I hadn't considerred. One thing I've noticed is that Linux users make comparisons to free speech and free sex a lot. This is not necesarilly a bad thing but how far can you take those metaphors? For example, what about the various positions? How do they fit in with software and programming? Is there a Karma Sutra of software that is officially endorsed by the FSF? As I said before, it's always pleasant to read a well reasoned reply even though it may espouse views that one does not hold himself. Especially in a forum like this where too often the posts are simply irrational rantings and cursing without any redeeming value.

	Uninformed people make bad writers (1.00 / 2) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:45:37 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it.

	lies and half-truths (4.75 / 4) (#23)
	by cp on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:17:56 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. Only if you ignore the viruses that do in fact exist for linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. What of the reasons underlying that decision, which range from the technical merits and marketing viability of Linux as a platform? 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. ditto 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it. When MSWindows is bundled with all computers everywhere, there is no meaningful difference between these two statements: I payed $600 for this computer, of which $500 went towards hardware and $100 went towards MSWindows. I payed $600 for this computer, of which $600 went towards hardware and $0 went towards MSWindows.

	nope (1.50 / 2) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:20:06 PM PST

	However the way that Linux operates, unless virii are run as a root process which is very unlikely in any half-competant user, they can not deliver an effective payload. The reasons for microsoft not placing IE on linux is because Microsoft is known to not support Linux in the least, because it is the antithesis of what Microsoft is trying to do. It is also, with other forms of free Unix, taking a substantial amount of the server market from Microsoft. Don't be so quick to say that if Microsoft doesn't support it, it must be flawed in some horrible way. And finally, if Microsoft wasn't bundled with that system, the computer would cost $500 as opposed to $600.

	IE (4.00 / 2) (#93)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:47:31 PM PST

	Actually IE has been ported to linux. But no one uses it.

	solaris not linux (1.00 / 1) (#134)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:04:22 PM PST

	They are different operating systems with completely different philosophies. Solaris is made by Sun and is used as the basis for many of the BSD operating systems out there. Linux is made by various communist groups including China and Cuba.

	Wha? (4.00 / 1) (#150)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:49:52 PM PST

	Their philosophies are irrelevant because the issue is that the Solaris version of IE will not compile under linux, atleast not without a bit of work on the code (I haven't heard of anyone doing this though). Also for reference the Solaris version of I.E. is horribly old, so you would probably be better off using another browser under Linux such as Mozilla, its spawnchild Galeon, kmellion, or the horribly unstable Nutscrape Navigator. Furthermore, BSD is it's own operating system, their relationship is that they are both nix which branched from Bell Labs' original efforts. BSD was developed in UC Berkeley while Solaris evolved from System V, Sun's and AT&Ts effort at unix. Finally, I don't really see why you think its insulting that you make the connection between open source and communism, as communism (or more specifically, socialism) was just too utopian to work. What resulted of attempts at implementing it was* quite negative however. Can you really bash them for attempting to achieve a utopian concept? --FlatLine

	china? cuba?? (none / 0) (#172)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:10:39 AM PST

	<cite>Linux is made by various communist groups including China and Cuba</cite> give me the name of one cuban programmer that aided linux. I know many linux kernel hackers, I don't know anyone from Cuba, nor from China

	Links please? (none / 0) (#147)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:37:52 PM PST

	Can someone post a link to the linux version of IE??

	IE for Linux? (none / 0) (#214)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:26:57 AM PST

	Show me the site. I know it has been ported to Solaris and HP.

	Correction of part of article (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:46:19 PM PST

	The Free Software Foundation are most certainly not "anti-capitalist hackers". A reading of the FSF website should make this clear to any intelligent person (the author although intelligent, must not have done his research, or is writing for effect). Mandrake Linux itself is created by a company that fully supports the goals of the FSF (look for the links from the linux-mandrake website to FSF website), but also aims to make a profit.

	GUYS SETTILE DOWN (1.00 / 1) (#265)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:22:22 AM PST

	you guys have wasted my time reading all this bullshit, bieng an average user i like useing win2k its nice and seems to stay going for a few weeks,sure i want to get into useing linux, and unix seems that any 15 year old who wants to get a job in the IT market has to get an mcse, and what it looks as tho i'll have to get other shit certifications because this place moves soo fast that hell win2k will prolly be called old in 5 years ( hehe ) anyway who really cares ! if it works it works, most users dont give a fuck, hell half of us are chinese and japanese anyway :P~

	Damn straight! (5.00 / 1) (#266)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:47:26 AM PST

	i was a linux user back when thay started making the first linux linus 0.0.0 and i remember when esr sed to linus stallmen that linux as going to be the cathedral and the basaar but linux tallman sed it was a NEW/linux hahahaha it was funny because it was true anywar jakob nelson was trying to get everyone to use his special web fonts that mde you see the title of images but we all knew thats what flash animation is 4, so we told him to shove it and we all got kickass websites and now everybody makes monet from linux especially esr who is rich from his valinux shares that they gave him for free when they put him on the board with chris diboner but i dont think richs have changed esr hes still all about liberty andthe second amendment which is more important than the first sinc you cant ddfend your freedom of sppeech without gins can you no i didnt think so but everyone seems to be forgetting riched torman who writes emacs that lunic is based on but nobody gives him credit for his work on emacs and they just call it linux which is wrong its real name is readhat linuc and igf you don t call it that then they all get mad and flame you because its not right to ignore peoples work like nobody forgets the names of the guys who make microsoft they gat alll the credit for inventing compeuters which should cgo to esr and pms cause they were there and they incvented ai at the mit ai lab where all good software is free and there are no women because women cant program or something actually i went to mit once and it was like the nerd campus total sausge fest like almost no girls on campus and noe at all in ai lab because girls all do law and commerce and management and marketing because they arent smart enough to do a subject like computers that makes so much more money than mangarers and lwayers thats why theres a glass celing that keeps the girls out of computing and anywar now people are getting angery at linuux because hes a communist from geernlend and communists blew up the world trade center using lniux cryptogerphy so we have ti get gnu lwayers to save linuc from the grpl again so im pretty busy but its good because there are sime women lawyers and there hot so there

	i love my linux, i love it good (1.00 / 1) (#288)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:09:03 AM PST

	So linux distros don't run windows apps, that's what VMware and WINE are for, and if ur running a substandard machine u don't want a gui in the first place, so don't install one, Win2k on a 486, i'd like to see that. If you wish to remain ignorant keep running windows and letting all the little "hackers" and "crackers" into ur backdoor, the way to enlightenment is lin. if not linux at least dabble in other OS's such as BSD, MacOS or BeOS, experimaentation is always good, how many people do you know who haven't tried alcohol, ciggarrettes or weed?

	WTF did he say? (2.00 / 1) (#319)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:32:51 PM PST

	Learn to spell, you illiterate fool. If you are going to say something then say it, don't drivvel on for half an hour with a lot of useless crap which I dont need to read.

	Mandrake doesn't run Windows software! Oh, no! (1.00 / 2) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:00:37 PM PST

	Now there's a Blinding Fash of the Obvious. What dark secret will Adequacy.org expose next? Of course, Mandrake doesn't run Windows applications -- Linux is set up to be an alternative to Windows, not give Bill Gates even more money. Yeah, Mandrake doesn't run Windows applications; instead, it provides alternate applications that work as as well if not better than Windows apps. And you don't have to drive down to the local Best Buy and shell out $100 for Power Point, like a friend of mine had to do this weekend because her college forces her to hand in assignments on Microsoft products. $100 for Power Point and over $400 for the Microsoft Office Suite! Do you people really have that kind of money to burn? I paid about $50 for Mandrake 8.0 on CD a month or two ago, and it includes an office suite. As for the poster who says Linux supporters are unpatriotic anti-capitalists -- what the hell are you talking about? Have you gotten past an eighth-grade economics or political science class?

	keep you sarcasm to yourself... (4.00 / 2) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:58:31 PM PST

	>>Now there's a Blinding Fash of the Obvious. What dark secret will Adequacy.org expose next? Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? Sure you may have time to write your own software or whatever. And so you think you're pretty smart. The rest of us don't have so much free time as you and so we don't keep upto date on all this technical stuff. We just want to get work done. If this Linus stuff can't run windows applications then that's valuable information for us know. Your sarcastic attitude is a little bit upsetting. My mother always used to say that, "If you don't have anything good to say then you shouldn't say anything at all." This seems like a good piece of advice to me. You should consider it before the next time when you want to say something sarcastic and hurtful to someone who doesn't know everything about computers like you do.

	why do you come to this site? (none / 0) (#84)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:32:27 PM PST

	why do you come here? you want accurate information, right? you expect that people "in the know" will help you make an informed decision, right? well, if this web site decided to write an article about how the moon is really made of cheese and that you could drink motor oil and draino would you accept it, or would you write an e-mail of complaint? I am not by ANY strech of the imagination a "technical" person. I am a garbage man. and I am Linux user. I don't write programs. I don't know how to write a script file. I rarely use the command line in Linux. and I get work done. I also know that the moon is not made of cheese and that drinking motor oil and draino is suicide. In my opinion, adequacy.org loses it's credibility with this obvious hack of an article. this is like the blind leading the blind. why would you accept it? the poster is not belittling non-technical people. why would you real an article about computers from a non technical reviewer. the person you are getting defensive with is actually HELPING YOU! He feels indignant over the fact that this article is filled with erronious statements. that belittle him as well as every other reader. he is right to be angry, you should be too. real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	Hmm (none / 0) (#91)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:45:25 PM PST

	Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? Sure you may have time to write your own software or whatever. And so you think you're pretty smart. The rest of us don't have so much free time as you and so we don't keep upto date on all this technical stuff. We just want to get work done. Good point. There are tons of people in the Linux comunity that don;t understand there are people who are not technicaly skilled If this Linus stuff can't run windows applications then that's valuable information for us know. I think most should know this. Afterall, Mac can't run windows programs either. Although a small amount of programs like IE have been ported to it. But, IE has been ported to linux too. The only reason Mandrake does not include it, is that they would be sued if they did Your sarcastic attitude is a little bit upsetting. My mother always used to say that, "If you don't have anything good to say then you shouldn't say anything at all." This seems like a good piece of advice to me. You should consider it before the next time when you want to say something sarcastic and hurtful to someone who doesn't know everything about computers like you do Maybe the guy who wrote this article should have realized this too. He got so many things totally wrong it was hurtful to many Linux users. ;-)

	Well, here's my beef. (none / 0) (#118)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:32:42 PM PST

	<I>Good point. There are tons of people in the Linux comunity that don;t understand there are people who are not technicaly skilled.</I><P> Correct. And as this review so aptly demonstrates, non-technically-skilled people shouldn't write reviews of Linux distributions. :-)

	exactly wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
	by error27 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:38:27 AM PST

	Microsoft is better not just because of the technical aspects. (Although windows is a little bit better in that regard also). But most of all Microsoft products are better because they are designed for real people, not these smelly pale skinned hermits who write their own OS. If Linux programmers wanted their software to catch on they should pay carefull attention to articles like this. Instead of trying to insult the author and call him a "dufus" or "doofus" they should thank him. If the author wrote a similar article about Microsoft software, you can bet that he would get an email directly from Microsoft thanking him. These kind of articles are a marketting departments dream because they tell exactly what things need to be worked on for the next version.

	Smelly Pale Skinned Hermits? (1.00 / 1) (#184)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:41:34 AM PST

	Ehm, do you really think that if it weren't for the people who actually DO the thinking, you would have any of the luxuries you enjoy now? Do you think the Internet would exist? Or the WWW? Or the server and forum software you are now (ab)using? When you're talking of "smelly pale skinned hermits" you might just as well be referring to Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, K&R or Isaac Neuton. But ignorance is what ignorance does... people tend to fear and contempt all that they cannot understand. Respect requires a little bit more on the intellect side to function. Apollon Koutlides

	Einstein? (none / 0) (#215)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:29:55 AM PST

	I don't see how you can compare yourself with that great man of the sciences. I really doubt that Eistein would waste his time trying to write his own operating system if there was already a perfectly good one available from Microsoft. Or in your mind, would Eistein try to hax0r into the interweb? Perhaps you imagine Eistein reading Slashdot for 14 hours a day every day? You're free to think whatever you want but personally I have far too much respect for Eistein to think he'd use Linux.

	Heh. (none / 0) (#237)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 04:30:52 PM PST

	I really doubt that Eistein would waste his time trying to write his own operating system if there was already a perfectly good one available from Microsoft That's Einstein, dude. And why wouldn't he write his own OS if the one he didn't like the one he was using? He rewrote the laws of physics when he didn't like the laws he was currently using ;)

	Pot, kettle, black (none / 0) (#365)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:42:43 PM PST

	>Why do Linux users always feel they have to belittle non-technical people? < Largely because the non-technical feel they have the right to pee on the technical with impunity.

	<Sigh> (3.33 / 6) (#17)
	by floodle on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:01:04 PM PST

	Ok, I'm sorry to have to do this, but since this guy is such a flaming moron, I feel I have no choice. The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. The man's name is LINUS. The operating system is called Linux because Linus+UNIX=Linux. No coincidence here, it's all on purpose. Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. Linux is not "shareware," it is distributed under the GNU general public license. Very different from shareware. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! The kernel can be recompiled to run on just about anything, including a 486. The 32mb memory requirement is a recommendation. You can certainly run it with 16, just expect lots of paging. Take a look at your WinXP memory requirements sometime. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? The fact that you have to ask that shows how little you know. If Mandrake tried to include IE in their distro, they would be sued into the stone age. I won't even try to explain the difference between win32 programs and Linux apps you compile from source. It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Actually, all of those work using a program called win4lin, which gives you a virtual windows desktop under Linux. Try it before you say it's impossible. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. That's because there aren't really any viruses for Linux. That, and the basic design of Linux makes it difficult for viruses to do any damage unless you're logged in as root all the time. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. Mandrake includes several firewalls BUILT-IN to the distro, most of which are better than ZoneAlarm. If there's another one that you like better, just download it since most Linux software is free to use. Mandrake is more secure out of the box than any version of Windows. ...rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux. I'll give you that working with Linux might take some additional time and effort for a newbie user, but price? Please. Compare the cost of downloading Mandrake and burning it to a cd with buying WinXP at your local CompUSA. There are a few more errors in this terrible "review" of Mandrake, but I'm too tired to refute them right now. It's OK to dislike Mandrake or Linux in general, but please, have your facts straight first.

	RE: <Sigh> (3.00 / 2) (#20)
	by Plan571 on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:11:17 PM PST

	Yes, HE's the moron.

	Wrong. (3.20 / 5) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:22:52 PM PST

	Linux is not "shareware," it is distributed under the GNU general public license. Very different from shareware. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. The kernel can be recompiled to run on just about anything, including a 486. Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. The 32mb memory requirement is a recommendation. You can certainly run it with 16, just expect lots of paging. I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). That's because there aren't really any viruses for Linux. That, and the basic design of Linux makes it difficult for viruses to do any damage unless you're logged in as root all the time. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. Mandrake includes several firewalls BUILT-IN to the distro, most of which are better than ZoneAlarm. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? A security mechanism that is too difficult for the user to use offers no security.

	Research, research, research! (3.00 / 2) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:49:03 PM PST

	I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product, Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system: if something hasn't been written for it yet then yes I suppose it is limited because it cant perform the task that you ask of it. The two "limited functionalities" are very, very different. Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. The two are very different. Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Also the complaint seems to be aimed at all of Linux, and most Linux distributions allow the user the choice to choose kernels from another media (such as floppy or cd) at install time. I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Antiviral programs do absolutely nothing against worms, because they aren't virii! Hence, no user-level antiviral software is needed. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? A security mechanism that is too difficult for the user to use offers no security. Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! This is especially valid since the author once again chooses to bash Linux in general instead of focussing on Mandrake. There countless firewall/packet-filtering packages available for Linux, many of them also with adequate documentation and even some exceptional ones with simple ways to implement basic protection (and zonealarm is quite basic as well).

	Oh god (4.50 / 2) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:18:46 PM PST

	Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product Eh, you don't purchase shareware, you download it off the net. Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system This is a factually false statement. Windows has many features that in Linux are either (a) lacking (e.g. wizards), or (b) incorrectly implemented (e.g. the GUI). Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing `make world` as under BSD. For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Nope, this is bad security policy, which every real security expert advices against. A firewall should be a first line of defense against attacks from outside your network, not your whole network defense. Firewalls can be compromised and/or bypassed by skilled enough attackers, and won't do anything to protect you from attacks inside your network. Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Given the vanishing percentage of the R&D budgets in the Linux industry which are spent on usability studies, your bald assertion is laughable. Do you know how much money commercial companies spend in making their software usable? Do you know the amount of research they conduct into this? "Free Software" developers do nothing of the sort. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! Oh, yeah, the good old "since you can change any component in Linux, it doesn't actually have to include any good components-- the user can change them, after all!"

	Ha (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:24:28 PM PST

	>>This is total FUD Shareware has limited functionality in order to encourage purchase of the complete product Eh, you don't purchase shareware, you download it off the net. >>no, you donwnload a limit version of the internet, and then if you want the full version you have to purchase it Linux's limited functionality is as limited as any other operating system This is a factually false statement. Windows has many features that in Linux are either (a) lacking (e.g. wizards), or (b) incorrectly implemented (e.g. the GUI). >>Linux is simply a kernel it is not an OS like windows. Madrake is simply the linux kernel with a set of tools and programs. You can do everything you can do in windows. It has an office aplication, Star Office. It has standard web browser, Netscape. Furthermore, the difference between licenses is that under the GPL (general public license) the source code is free for anyone to distribute, modify, and use in their own projects, as long as credits to the original authors are maintained and that the license is upheld in the subsequent product. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. >> one good point Not necessarilly, there are a myriad of sources where one can find precompiled kernels and there are pretty simple methods to install said kernels without having to boot into this version of linux. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing make world as under BSD. >> I can't beleve you run BSD, when you come up with these ignorant comments. BSD is very simelar to GNU/Linux For future reference, it's usually bad practice to criticize someone for answering a technical point (many people wont even understand how ram works, so if you're going to criticize anyone, criticize the ignorant writer of this article) with a technical answer. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. >>good point Well even in this case an antiviral program is useless, since protecting against cracking by way of services open to the internet is prevented with firewalls and maintaining current and secure versions of the tools and services running on the system. Nope, this is bad security policy, which every real security expert advices against. A firewall should be a first line of defense against attacks from outside your network, not your whole network defense. Firewalls can be compromised and/or bypassed by skilled enough attackers, and won't do anything to protect you from attacks inside your network. >>uh? thats what he said, you need to keep your sowtware up to date, and your uneeded web services off. This is after firewall security Please do some research before bringing up a point like that. As a matter of fact, the documentation is quite good. Given the vanishing percentage of the R&D budgets in the Linux industry which are spent on usability studies, your bald assertion is laughable. Do you know how much money commercial companies spend in making their software usable? Do you know the amount of research they conduct into this? "Free Software" developers do nothing of the sort. Nada. Zilch. Zero. >>actually they do. Have you ever looked at all the docs included with Madrake. It well of 200mb. Furthermore the users aren't limited by whatever has been packaged with mandrake! Oh, yeah, the good old "since you can change any component in Linux, it doesn't actually have to include any good components-- the user can change them, after all!" >>you can get them of the web stupid. I have you ever downloaded software. Or did you think your win95 cd had all the programs you ever needed.

	Bah (none / 0) (#111)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:55 PM PST

	Instead of repeating what was said in post #77 (titled "Ha"), I would like to focus on a few points that were left uncovered. Why do you linux nazis have always to present this argument as if everybody knew how to program a computer (not to mention use one)? No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works. So the fact that I can theoretically modify Linux makes no difference to me. I was simply stating a major difference between shareware and open source software. I was trying to say that just because they are both free, doesn't mean they are the same thing. While having access to source code may not mean a whole lot to the regular non-coding users, it can be a very powerful tool for people that would like to further develop the software or use its existing technology in their own projects. Also source code allows the entire security industry to find exploits in it, and while this may seem like a very negative thing, this open policy also allows for quick patching of holes and doesn't give the end users a false sense of security, which is far worse than to have than no security at all. Eh, the whole distribution is compiled with Pentium optimizations, you need to recompile everything. And I'm sure Mandrake doesn't come with an automated build system such as the ones included with the BSDs, so this is not a simple matter of typing make world as under BSD. I concede, that is true, though the original article is still horribly flawed by bashing linux in general simply because one of the distributions which is already considered worse than many other more powerful ones (such as debian or slackware, which can in fact run on 486, and debian can even run on the PowerPC architecture as well) by experienced linux users, does not allow the user the option to run it on older systems. The faults of mandrake do not necessarilly reflect on all of Linux. I'm sorry, but what's really bad is to try to use words your interlocutor doesn't understand in order to project an aura of superiority without even addressing the arguments. If you want to argue with me, you will please "lower" yourself to my level of tech ignorance. I was simply trying to say that an issue which was brought up on a technical level should be addressed on a technical level. The original article does so and I find nothing wrong with refuting it in a technical manner as well. The technical language in the reply was not, as far as I could see, used to create an aura of superiority, therefore I felt that there was nothing wrong with it and it didn't need to be brought down to a level that laymen could understand. --FlatLine

	Oh God (1.00 / 1) (#212)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:12:10 AM PST

	UH! Shareware - download of the net - setup, read terms of use - click ok or not ok, mostly "ok" program installs. Generally with Shareware announcement that after 30 days the program will cease to operate, or the program has certain functions turned off and in order to gain full use of the programs functions register at their website and pay something like 19.95 to get a code/license, enter reg # - full featured program is turned on. Freeware - download of the net. setup, read terms of use/disclaimer - install. Full featured program. No mandatory registration to use, can upgrade to a version with more features for a small fee, or not (AkA Zone Alarm, personal version is freeware. Pro version is Shareware - try it for 30 days and then pay small fee for full time use). GNU public licence. Freeware with all the source code available to modify, rewrite, tweak at leasure, impliement into what you like (in other words no funny squiggly, abstract symbols and characters that are not intelligible to humans - write in plan uncoded programming language). Give it to who ever you want. Basic premiss: Just like scientific research and publications - you must give credit where credit is due. In otherwords no plagerism. You can't take credit for someone else invention (or coding as the case may be). You can't hijack a program that was writing by several programmers, make a slight change, then run down to the patent office and lock out any further development or charge money for a program that others invented. I'm not a programmer or in the computer industry in the slightest. I;m a registerd nurses. I run linux because it's safe, stable, and affordable (yes i paid for it, a lot less expensive the Windows). I run a duel boot system. I use Windows to play games (though less these days since Linux games run better in most cases). I'm not a Linux nazi, I believe you should use whatever you comfortable with. My major contention is end-user choice. I do believe you may find somethings distasteful in the next couple of years related to Microsoft, cost, and privacy. then again, maybe not. Windows did what Bill Gates said it would. I put a computer in every house (that's if every house buys a computer). However, the main focus of Microsoft is to make money for shareholders, that's fine also - not a problem! The way I see it is that with 9 out of 10 desktop computers running Windows. The focus is on sales - not really technology (though Microsoft does a lot of development). The focus of Linux is on Technology, and then sales. Seriously, Linux has become quit user friendly. The point is that like shareware vs freeware vs proprietary is what it gives the user. I find Linux gives me what I need, doesn't crash, and hasn't trashed by a virus/worm. Oh and linux comes with at least 4 or 5 different firewalls, And SuSE 7.2 (running the 2.4.4-4GB kernel) came with both "Antivir" and AMaVIS (A Mail Virus Scanner).

	Eh? (1.00 / 1) (#360)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:57:06 PM PST

	>No, I don't know how to program; I've never done anything remotely related to programming, and I have no idea of how it works.< And yet you insist on having opinions eh?

	Eh what? (5.00 / 1) (#361)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:20:19 PM PST

	I see we have a Nazi in here. Using your logic, nobody would be able to have an opinion on anything except what they do. Therefore, we would not have a right to criticize world leaders, movies, Bill Gates (are you a CEO? No I didn't think so), etc. This is the kind of world we would live in if Linux users had anything to say about it. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Godwin's law (0.00 / 1) (#401)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:54:56 AM PST

	>I see we have a Nazi in here. Oh come on, kewl d00dz like YOU should be able to come up with better than THAT. >Using your logic, nobody would be able to have an opinion on anything except what they do. < False. There is a qualitative difference between the uniformed opinion and the expert opinion. Or do you plan on having "opinions" on how the surgeon does your by-pass should that day come? >Therefore, we would not have a right to criticize world leaders, movies, Bill Gates (are you a CEO? No I didn't think so), etc.< Specious. It actually would be legitimate to question my non-CEO opinion on matters which require expertise in high level business. Meaning, I don't KNOW how to be a CEO so any opinion on such from me would be uniformed and useless. That doesn't mean I can't ever criticize Gates. Not everything he does is limited to the technical realm of the CEO. There are, in fact, areas in which he has "opinions" which are as uniformed as the last homeless guy you passed. >This is the kind of world we would live in if Linux users had anything to say about it.< Oh ha. Ha ha. Ha hee ha hee hee. Or something to that effect. Boy, you guys are just... yawn... excuse me, too funny.

	There is no Godwin's Law. (nt) (none / 0) (#420)
	by elenchos on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:12:01 PM PST

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

	oh Troll on my Windoze brotha! (1.00 / 1) (#246)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:12:51 PM PST

	I'm sorry, but I fail to see the supposed "difference" that you claim exists. Shareware is software with limited functionality that you download free off the net. Linux is a program with limited functionality that you download off the net. Thus, it follows by syllogism that Linux is shareware. Quick question: Are you a Microsoft Shareholder (wouldn't that suck?) or are you having sex with someone who works at Microsoft? Which means that you can't install it if you don't already have a computer running linux to recompile the kernel specifically for a 486. Duh. The article's complaint stands. He can't install Mandrake in a 486. Well, if the author is so grossly ignorant he doesn't know that the i586 came after the i486, and that programs compiled with 586 optimizations won't run on a 486 then maybe that is his problem. God forbid he learn how to read the minimum requirements, or grab the 486 version that is plainly available. Programs compiled for i586 or better not running on a i486 is true of programs compiled with Microsoft's Visual C++ too and not just some "Linux thing."<sup>TM</sup> I'm sorry, but if you expect to win over regular desktop users like me, you better speak to us in terms we can understand, not all this propellerspeak (like "paging"-- isn't that what the machine in my belt does?). 'Paging' is also known to you proppeller-speaking Windows users as "using Virtual Memory." When you don't have enough memory installed in your computer to run the operating system and user programs you are running some of the memory that isn't being actively used will be copied to the harddisk to make additional room for applications and user data. You know what 'applications' and 'user data' are, right? No, I didn't think so. Wrong. Since the most popular Lunix distro is famous for security holes (plenty of remote root attacks discovered all the time), there have been successful worms that exploit them. Since this distribution is marketed to people who don't know how to close up the system, and it installs by default all sorts of unneeded exploitable network daemons, that means that for an average windows user like me that doesn't know the meanings of terms like "remote root attack", "network worm", "distribution", "exploit", or "daemon", the virus risk from Linux is much higher than with windows. There is a point and click interface to add and remove daemons that are needed or not used. During the install you are told not to run daemons you do not use. About 80 or so Windows users on the same network segment with me have their C:\ drives shared with the world c/o Windows 98's tight security. If I were so inclined I could leave notes on their desktops. Thank you Microsoft! Would you care to perhaps NAME A REMOTE ROOT HOLE? You know, or perhaps recount for me all the many virii that have hit Linux in the past 5 years. Then, you can try recounting all the Windows virii in the past 5 years but you may have FBI at your door for launching a Denial of Service attack if you list >5% of them. Are they point-and-click? How good of an interface? How good are the help files? Do they have wizards that guide you through choosing the right configuration? Yes, they are point and click. They have beautiful and fully functional interfaces. They offer from a simple wizard that a novice could use all the way up to a powerful and flexible wizard for the pros.

	hehehe (1.00 / 1) (#268)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:33:26 AM PST

	Jesus I though Morons like you were only in comic books ;-) Nice to see there are some left in the real world :-)

	You read comic books? (1.00 / 2) (#284)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:37:40 AM PST

	Are you illiterate or just a loser?

	are you sure you've used Linux? (3.40 / 5) (#37)
	by otak on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:06:20 PM PST

	Your post is so full of obvious distortions and misunderstandings that I really can't be bothered to reply to it all. Perhaps this one thing will illustrate your level of knowledge: There are a few more errors in this terrible "review" of Mandrake, but I'm too tired to refute them right now. It's not 'Mandrake', it's Linux Mandrake, or just 'Linux 8.1' if you're in a hurry. 'Mandrake' is the version name, like XP or NT. Please don't try to fake knowledge if you don't have it - adequacy has a lot of smart people posting to it and you will be found out.

	Mandrake is not a "version" of linux. (2.50 / 2) (#50)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:26:20 PM PST

	The latest version of linux is 2.4.10. Linux is merely a kernel. Mandrake, a distribution, is a combination of the linux kernel and a bunch of software that does something useful. There are many distributions of linux, such as Redhat and Debian. These all use the linux kernel, but the other software bundled around it is sometimes vastly different.

	You suck (0.50 / 2) (#274)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:30:47 AM PST

	Didnt you just make yourself look the fool?! PS. call it Linux 8.1 again and I'll personally kick your ahole anew.

	are you sure you've used linux (none / 0) (#521)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:09:51 PM PST

	Talking of knowledge.... The correct name of the distro is MandrakeLinux not Linux mandrake. The version number 8.1 has no meaning in the context of Linux, it only refers to MandrakeLinux, other distros are at different version numbers. Perhaps you should try to get your facts right before yu criticize others petew

	You fucking idiot (none / 0) (#522)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:12:07 AM PST

	The correct name of the distro is MandrakeLinux not Linux mandrake No, it is called "Linux Mandrake". Read this page you fucking halfwit. Mandrake is a French distribution, and nouns (that's the word "Mandrake" to you, dipshit) precede the adjective (that's "Linux" to you, asshole) in the French language. Hence, they call their distribution "Linux Mandrake", not Mandrake Linux. Can you get that into your thick fucking skull, you Lunix weenie?

	Congratulations... (none / 0) (#536)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 05:18:49 PM PST

	Lemme splice this up a sec... Mandrake is a French distribution... nouns (Mandrake) precede adjectives (Linux) in the French language. Okay, so simplified, you just shot your own argument out of the water. What you just said yields "Mandrake Linux."

	Windows comes free with most computers? Wrong! (1.00 / 3) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:06:59 PM PST

	The author said, "After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality." Ummm, that's not close to true. There's a Windows tax on every PC you buy that's loaded with a Windows OS. Computers would be several hundred dollars cheaper without Windows pre-installed.

	True true true (none / 0) (#211)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:02:35 AM PST

	Windows ME or Windows 98 costs us OEM distributers around $100 that we lose in profit cause we have to sell Windows with the computers. Windows 2000 costs in OEM close to $160. So Windows doesn't come Free. IMHO.

	bullshit (5.00 / 1) (#220)
	by Peter Johnson on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:40:21 AM PST

	The version of Windows that comes preinstalled on computers from major manufacturers like Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq (now also HP) costs very little. Less than 40$ for the most part. The reason for this is that the major manufacturers agree to pick up support costs for the operating system + hardware. When they do this, Microsoft saves a huge amount of cash on support costs and passes the savings along to the vendor. (despite charging for phone support, Microsoft does not make money on tech support.) If the major manufacturers sold computers with Lunix preinstalled, they'd still have to pick up the tab for support, and the usability problems with Lunix would incur greater support charges than the $35 or so they pay to MS. This is why back when Dell sold home PCs with Lunix, they charged more than for an equivalent Windows box. Your friend, --Peter Are you adequate?

	Right Tool for the Job (4.00 / 3) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:10:32 PM PST

	At its root, software is simply a tool for productivity. It provides conveniences and shortcuts so that your your life is easier and more productive. In my younger days, I believed that software was an art; It could be elegant and clear or it could be a clumsy hack. Perhaps that's still true, but it doesn't affect the vast majority of computer users out there. 99% of computer users are only concerned about getting the job done. Now, the battle has been raging for years over whose operating system can beat the snot out of the other operating systems. Win32: I have the most market share and applications! Linux: Yeah, but I don't have to reboot every hour! Mac: I'm more secure and user friendly than you guys! And on and on it goes. I am a firm believer that each operating system has its strengths and weaknesses, and that there will always be zealots from the various camps. Ultimately, I don't think there will ever be a unanimous consent on which is the "Best" operating system, because different people have different needs and agendas. Choice is a good thing.

	Right Tool for the Job (none / 0) (#337)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:15:57 AM PST

	I agree. Use the right tool for the job. This makes for a good laugh though.. Microsoft: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go, tomorrow? UNIX: Hey, you guys coming?

	I'm surprised (1.75 / 4) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:11:43 PM PST

	I just wandered here & read a couple of stories & comments. Adequacy indeed. Maybe that should be changed to barelyadequate.org. In this story alone I've read maybe one almost factually correct comment. Almost nothing in the parent story is correct. Since I'm bored, and you guys obviously need a little education, I'll correct a few items: 1. The person who created the Linux kernel is Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. Linux is the operating system, Linus is the person. 2. Mandrake, Red Hat, Slack Ware (slackware), Storm and Coral (Corel) are all different distributions of Linux, similar to the different types of Windows (NT, 95, 98, 2000). They are all different, but have much in common. 3. Mandrake is a particular distribution tailored to Pentium computers. Other distros are not. I run slack happily on several 486s with 8-32mb RAM. Each distro has it's strengths & weaknesses, and it's own target audience. So does Windows. 95 might run on a 486, but I bet he won't run 2000 on it. 4. Internet Explorer is not a standard. It is a proprietary piece of software written by MS. It mostly follows the standards, which a few extensions. All browsers extend the HTML standard, so I won't knock them too much on that. The reason there is no Linux version is because MS doesn't want to write a compatible version. If it were open source, someone else could port it to Linux. (that being said, is one of the biggest arguments in favor of open source software such as Linux). However, most distributions ship with Netscape, at least, and usually 4-10 other browsers. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ is the place to learn about HTML standards. 5. There are several Office suites available on Linux, and not a few games. However, if you want to run mostly MS software, you should be running Windows. And yes, currently Windows is a better gaming platform. Not as good as a Playstation, but better than Linux. Linux is good for a lot of things, but not everything. As to the unreliability of the software, if he actually installed Linux, he'd find out that the free beta (testing) software is much more stable & reliable than Windows. I reboot windows at work daily. I reboot my Linux machines when I feel like it, some of them only get rebooted when the power goes out. 6. As for security, there is a good reason why there are few virus scanners for Linux (I've heard of one or two, used for mail servers that serve Windows PCs), almost all viruses run only on Windows PCs. You can't get them on Linux. And many commercial firewal products (linksys, dlink, etc) are based on a Linux core. Just because you don't see Linux doesn't mean it's not there. Every current Linux distribution offers firewalling, the version in Mandrake 8.1 is supposed to be one of the most user-friendly. I don't know, I have an old 486 running a Slackware based firewall for my entire network, and it also acts as a web server, a file server, and a mail server. It's so reliable in it's tasks that I don't even have a monitor or keyboard for it, it'll email me if it's having problems & automatically lock out any "hackers" trying to break in. Code Red, Nimda? Both only run on Windows servers. They cause so many problems because most people don't even know they have it. 7. Windows does not come free with new PCs. You pay for it in the cost of the computer. Bill Gates did not become a billionaire by giving away his products. In closing, Linux is not for everyone, but neither is Windows. There are many instances where I would not recommend Linux, where Windows is a better choice. Linux is making incredible progress in the arena of user friendliness, but I'll give it a year or so before I'll tell my grandmother to install it. Still, I'll use it, and many other people will start using it when they realize how expensive it will be to run WinXP, and the fact that MS will soon after start operating on a lease basis, where you have to pay a monthly fee to use it or it stops working. jred www.cautioninc.com

	wrong, wrong, wrong (4.00 / 4) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:39:03 PM PST

	1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux. 2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings. 3. Windows 2000 is a server operating system. 486s are not server hardware. Your point is irrelevant. 4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist. 5. Thank you for admitting the superiority of Windows. It helps to excuse your other fallacies. 6. As someone else pointed out in another comment, viruses do exist for Linux. The reason why you haven't heard much about them can only be because Linux users and traderags that cater to Linux users don't want to burst the bubble of Linux's perceived invulnerability. 7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm? In closing, you're going to have to do much better than that if you're going to help Linux Torvalds achieve world domination for GNU/Linux and the GNU Public License he promotes.

	you know nothing about linux (2.20 / 5) (#40)
	by real linux user on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:11:41 PM PST

	its linus not linux linux is the kernal linus is the person linux ( the os ) was originaly called freeix i dont feel like going through the rest of what you have wrong but if you dont like linux dont use it I dont like windows but thats my opinion and i respect your opinion of liking windows and i wont try to insalt windows not that i couldnt its just if you like windows you wont like linux nuf said.

	Welcome real linux user! (5.00 / 7) (#57)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:45:53 PM PST

	I think you have a natural poetic talent, but if you apply yourself more, you can refine your innate creative drive through a disciplined study of the technical aspects of your art. Even today's free verse should have some form. It should scan, even if only lightly. If I may take the liberty, here would be how I would proceed with a second draft: It's Linus Not Linux a poem by real linux user It's Linus not Linux; Linux is the kern[e]l; Linus is the person. Linux ( the O.S. ) Was original[l]y Called Freeix. I don't feel like going through The rest of what you have wrong. But if you don't like Linux Don't use it. I don't like Windows but that's my opinion. And I respect your opinion Of liking Windows and I won't try to ins[u]lt Windows, not that I couldn't. It's just [that], if you like Windows You won't like Linux. 'Nuf[f] said. -- -- See? Now, I know some poets these days still reject standard punctuation and capitalization, and I can respect that if you really feel more comfortable writing that way. In this case, I showed my preference for a return to standard English. The whole all-lowercase, no punctuation thing is just so... well, so 1985, you know? It's really been done so much that it hardly has the effect it once did, so why not take advantage of the contrast you get with standard English, vis a vis your radical ideas and your traditional form? But really, that's up to you. If you want to take out the punctuation and put it all back in lowercase, go ahead. You'll still have a pretty good poem, either way. Good work. I hope to see more of your writing here! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Horrible rebutals.. (1.50 / 2) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:13:51 PM PST

	1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux. Linux is not a person, nor the kernel. Linus Torvalds is the person that created the Linux kernel. Linux on its own is the entire operating system. and GNU/Linux is another name for Debian which is the Free Software Foundation's (atleast I think that's the name. Whatever foundation sponsored the rest of the Linux operating system besides the kernel.) distribution of the Linux operating system. All distributions are not referred to as GNU/Linux. 2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings. Well, you're half right. As I've stated before they're not all GNU/Linux, but that's a technicallity. Though he's more correct in calling them distributions, because the types of windows that he mentioned are different versions of Windows, not different distributions. 3. Windows 2000 is a server operating system. 486s are not server hardware. Your point is irrelevant. A nice thing about linux however is that the distributions that can run on older hardware can effectively make it a server. There are tons of people that are using old 486s among other types of hardware as the gateway machines on their networks, to share internet access and firewall the rest of the network. His point remains valid. 4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist. He was referring to protocol standards, determined by standards groups such as the International Organization for Standards (ISO). Any web browser can be coded to comply with these standards, therefore IE is not a standard on its own. It may be a benchmark for web browsers, but that's not the same issue. 5. Thank you for admitting the superiority of Windows. It helps to excuse your other fallacies. That's mature... Don't throw away the basket just because one egg is bad. 6. As someone else pointed out in another comment, viruses do exist for Linux. The reason why you haven't heard much about them can only be because Linux users and traderags that cater to Linux users don't want to burst the bubble of Linux's perceived invulnerability. That person was incorrect in assuming that worms and exploits were the same as virii, and I have already replied to their post to correct this. There is no massive conspiracy in the Linux community to cover up the dangers of virii, in fact the Linux and open source community is a big opponent of security through obscurity and is generally quite open on all issues. 7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm? Internet Explorer was created and given away in an attempt (a successful one at that) to grab internet market share when they realized that they were being passed by in this field. Other than patches and similar small attempts to gain market share (such as windows media player), and patches, what else does he give away? His operating system? Heck no! Oh and the things that are given away, their source code isn't released to the public either. In closing, don't argue about thing that you have no experience or knowledge of!

	duh (2.00 / 1) (#176)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:34:46 AM PST

	<<Linux on its own is the entire operating system.>> So by that logic ntkernel or kernel32 are OSes? I think not. They are KERNELS.

	.....step away from the crack pipe (none / 0) (#191)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 06:36:03 AM PST

	Um, no I'm afraid not. Linux is an operating system, just like Windows 98 or Windows NT are operating systems. Linux has a kernel, it is called the linux kernel. Windows 98 has a kernel, it is called kernel32, Windows NT has a kernel as well. There is a distinct difference between an Operating System and a kernel. Would you like further proof? www.linux.org/info/index.html Doesn't get more official than that. See all of those references to Linux being an operating system? Very good now. --FlatLine

	what?? (1.75 / 4) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:24:23 PM PST

	that was the most idiotic load of garbage I have ever read?!?!? Linux Torvalds?!?! was this written by Batchfile Gates?

	Yawn again ... (1.50 / 2) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:42:07 PM PST

	<cite>1. Linux is both the person and the kernel. The operating system is GNU/Linux.</cite> The person is Linus Torvalds. "Linux" was the name Linus and a friend at Helsinki University came up with for the Operating System kernel he found himself writing. "GNU/Linux" is the word the FSF and the Debian group use. <cite>2. Those are different versions of GNU/Linux, having both the Linux kernel (coded by Linux Torvalds) and GNU underpinnings.</cite> Praise be!!! He got at least one thing right! Let us declare a national day of celebration! <cite>4. Standards are defined by marketshare. 90% of computer users use IE. Therefore, IE is the standard. You must be a netscape apologist.</cite> I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact that standards also need to be maintained by a standards body with some sort of inertia so that we don't have Microsoft users complaining perpetually to computer mags about "Office 2000 doesn't play with my Office 97 files", etc ad infinitum, ad nauseam ... Also, what is wrong with being a "netscape apologist", please tell? If competition is part of capitalism, why do you personally have a downer on netscape, one of Microsoft's erstwhile competitors? Are you one of Microsoft's Taleban? <cite>7. IE is given away for free. Why would Bill Gates be giving IE away for free if he weren't already in the habit of giving his software away for free? Hmmmm?</cite> Market share! Do they teach you nothing at college these days? Market share in this case is generated by giving away the sausage and selling the sizzle. And by making sure that Internet Explorer runs on practically every desktop, Bill Gates makes sure that Netscape won't make any money. That's a long, long way from giving away the source code so that the product can be independently reviewed and debugged. In short, the review was atrocious, a joke in bad taste, and yes, if the reviewer had bothered to pay any attention, he would've noticed that Mandrake is also available for 486s.

	You've got to be joking! (2.50 / 2) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:46:14 PM PST

	I thought at first this article was a 'troll' by a Linux user trying to make an obviously stupid comment and seeing who'd bite. But jees , I think now its for real. Unbelievable. I can't believe how wrong this article is .. calling that guy ignorant is really the most charitable thing I can say. So I'll leave it at that. However just replying to what you said: 1. The guy's first name is LINUS not Linux. Check it out its not a secret. 2. Different distributions of Linux may still have exactly the same kernel they are not different versions. Version has a very specific meaning in software development. And anyway the current Mandrake is based on the current RedHat. 3. I am writing this from work on my Win 2000 WORKSTATION not server. And I use it to run an xclient to the server which runs RedHat. 4. Standards are open. IE is usually the default browser but since IE is not open perhaps by standard you mean typical. 5. Windows is good for gaming. And Office is better than comparable suites on Linux ... at the moment. Linux evolves MUCH faster than Windows. 10 years ago Linux was at the level of Dos 1. 3 years ago it was at the level of Windows 3. Today I prefer it to windows. 6. There are FOUR known viruses for Linux, and they are rare, don't do much damage and one in fact has an anti-virus written for it. New Windows virii come out daily. Fact of life. Most people in the linux community just laugh at all the damage done by SirCam and CodeRed and Nimda. Doesn't affect us at all. 7. IE was given away free to destroy Netscape .. which it has succeeded in doing. Read the judgement of fact in the monopoly case against MS. Maybe this is all still a troll ... surely people aren't that clueless ?

	a minor correction (5.00 / 1) (#107)
	by Logical Analysis on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:12:56 PM PST

	GNU/Linux Close, but not quite right. Normally I would ignore such an obvious typo, but since this article is geared towards computer "newbies" I think it is important to have all the facts correct. The question of what is the correct name for "Linux" has been a hotly debated topic amongst its users and developers. Fortunately, at the 2001 Linux World Convention, a name was agreed on by all participants (Including such luminaries as Linux Thorvalds, Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymonds, Commander Taco, and Jack Briggs). The correct, full name of "Linux" is in fact GUN/LINUX. Furthermore, GUN/LINUX is now a registered trademark of Linux Thorvalds and is also an ISO and IETF standard. Thank goodness this debate can finally end! Now if we can just decide on the proper pronunciation! For more information on the new name, check out this website: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/geeks-with-guns/

	check your data (none / 0) (#177)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:37:40 AM PST

	<<The correct, full name of "Linux" is in fact GUN/LINUX. Furthermore, GUN/LINUX is now a registered trademark of Linux Thorvalds and is also an ISO and IETF standard. Thank goodness this debate can finally end! Now if we can just decide on the proper pronunciation!>> I think you mean G-N-U not G-U-N. GNU is a self proclamation acronym that stands for GNU's NOT UNIX. The correct name for Linux is NOT GNU/Linux. GNU has consitantly stated this. I don't supposed you ever heard of HURD.

	Isnt his name (none / 0) (#247)
	by Husaria on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:32:33 PM PST

	Linus Tolvalds? Sig sigger

	Well with users like you, I understand why windows (1.66 / 3) (#163)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:43:27 PM PST

	crashes all the time. Do you use the CD drive for a coffee cup holder?

	Please don't bring propaganda here. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:44:28 PM PST

	Mandrake, Red Hat, Slack Ware (slackware), Storm and Coral (Corel) are all different distributions of Linux, similar to the different types of Windows (NT, 95, 98, 2000). They are all different, but have much in common. How does this differ from what the article says: Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! Frankly, this is easily among the most dishonest rhetorical devices I've seen. Internet Explorer is not* a standard.* Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is the standard web browser. Oh, yeah, redefining the word "standard" to mean "what I'd like to be widespread" is another dirty rhetorical trick. The reason there is no Linux version [of IE] is because MS doesn't want to write a compatible version. Unless you are a high-level executive at Microsoft, I see no reason to believe this claim from you. Perhaps Linux is not technologically advanced enough to run IE? There are several Office suites available on Linux No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh? I can't be bothered to answer more than this fairly representative sample of your lies, distortions and strawmen. Hopefully this will be enough to deter any rational person from believing you.

	Get your facts straight (4.00 / 1) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:05:47 PM PST

	Your argument is specious. You have only a limited knowledge of the linux operating system. Let me show you: NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Those are all different versions of Microsoft Windows. Technically, Linux is only a kernel (the liason between the application and the hardware.) As such, you can't do much with just a kernel. You need applications on top of it and a suitable operating environment. Natually, there are numerous options available for the POSIX (UNIX and Linux-like) operating system. This is what marks the difference between the different distributions (not versions) of Linux. Mandrake has created a collection of applications and operating environments ON TOP OF the linux kernel. They are similiar, but it would not be entirely accurate to say that Red Hat, Slackware, etc are different version of the Linux Operating System. Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is* the standard web browser.* It is true that Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world. As such, any web developer is going to make sure that his work is rendered correctly in IE. This is not to say that IE or Microsoft defines the standards. The standards are defined by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), an international organization devoted to standardizing HTML, CSS, DOM, and every other imaginiable aspect of the Web. So far, no browser is fully compliant with these standards. The closest I've seen is the Gecko-based browsers (Netscape 6, Mozilla, and Galeon.) IE6 supposedly supports both W3C standards as well as previous (non-W3C) code, and you can choose which mode to view in. No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. I really don't know what you were thinking when you wrote this. Of course Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux (at least, when it's not emulating Windows) but to suggest that there are no alternatives is pure fallacy. StarOffice, KOffice, and various others are all perfectly acceptable substitutes for the vast majority of MS Office functions.

	*yawn* (5.00 / 1) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:34:54 PM PST

	Those are all different versions of Microsoft Windows. Technically, Linux is only a kernel (the liason between the application and the hardware.) As such, you can't do much with just a kernel. [more techno-babble deleted] In this paragraph you contradict what you said in the message I was replying to. How can I argue anything with you, if you are happy to claim different things at different times just to win the argument? It is true that Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world. As such, any web developer is going to make sure that his work is rendered correctly in IE. This is not to say that IE or Microsoft defines the standards. This is doublespeak. Again, you are just redefining the word "standard" to suit you. I really don't know what you were thinking when you wrote this. Of course Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux (at least, when it's not emulating Windows) but to suggest that there are no alternatives is pure fallacy. Here's what you said: There are several Office suites available on Linux Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands.

	Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:27:36 PM PST

	Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands. "Office" is used for defining a group Office Productivity Applications NOT a Microsoft Product! And most people refer to it as "MS Office" or "Microsoft Office". Also if I remeber correctly StarOffice (which runs on Linux & Windows amoung other platforms) was created in 1985 long before, MS Office became "Office"

	Here's a dime go buy a clue (none / 0) (#224)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:03:13 PM PST

	It's really, really sad to see someone defend their own ignorance in such a sad manor. Red Hat linux is made by Red Hat, Inc. (www.redhat.com) it is at version 7.1 Mandrake Linux is at very 8.1 and in made by MandrakeSoft (www.mandrake.com). SlackWare Linux is at version 8.0 (i think) and was made by Walnut Creek Software, but is now made by others (www.slackware.com). Linux is a commodity it is made by several _different_ companys (unlike windows which is made by only one). You reviewed the Mandrake _brand_ of linux. The comparison ot XP, ME, NT is fails completely on its face since linux is an entirely different brand of best. This gives you the ability to try out different versions if you don't like the service or direction of your current distrubution. There are office productivity suites availible for linux. KOffice, OpenOffice, HancomOffice and Corel Office are all examples. A quick search on "office for linux" on google would have cleared this up. Further, IE is not a standard in the IT sense of the word, while it is the most commonly used browser no standards commitee has blessed it as standard. All of this information is plainly availible from non-linux sites such as C\|Net, ZDNet and others. Please if you are going to review something, please take the time to research it. Your ignorance is alarming.

	Where can I buy a clue? (none / 0) (#263)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:49:11 AM PST

	Should I take the CLUETRAIN to the third street CLUESTATION, cross the CLUESTREET, using a CLUESTICK to aid my walking, enter the CLUESTORE and select my clue from the CLUERACK? Here's a better idea: I give you back your dime, and you use it to buy a less cliched phrase.

	Typical.... (none / 0) (#275)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:39:40 AM PST

	Rather than admit that the guy is wrong, I get attacked for using a cliche. This despite the phrase I used "Here's a dime, go buy a clue" being a quote (from Plucky Duck a character in Tiny Toons Adventure), not a cliche. None of the points addressed, no logic used... I think changing the catch phrase for this site is misleading. I've seen very few adults (and I'm not including my reaction to this...I must admit my reactions do not reflect my years) on this site. Just bickering on both sides.

	It's not just the cliche I take issue with (none / 0) (#286)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:55:17 AM PST

	It's the fact that you started your post off with a snide and insulting attack. This sort of thing is becoming all to common on adequacy lately, and I blame the influx of linux zealots, who have demonstrated the worst manners I have ever seen. The fact that your choice of insult demonstrated your plebian attitude was only a secondary consideration.

	typo: plebeian. Wouldn't want to look like one... (none / 0) (#287)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:00:27 AM PST

	would I?

	Why didn't you _say_ that? (none / 0) (#347)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:15:26 AM PST

	Hey, if you think I'm a plebian jerk, that's fine. I've been called much, much worse by people I respect much more than an anonymous coward on the internet. As for the "linux zealots", from reading this article and related comments I see: 1) A review is printed thrashing linux pretty soundly based on misunderstandings and just plain wrong "facts". 2) A group of people point out that the article is wrong. 3) A small portion of the readship here jumps down their throat, and re-stating their original (and mostly wrong) facts. 4) THEN, the people trying to correct the article (whom you blanketly declare to be linux zealots) get rude. It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

	Re: yawn (none / 0) (#290)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:06:37 AM PST

	Again, this is a false statement. You made particular reference to Office, which is a proper name which denotes a software product sold by Microsoft corporation. Since no form of Office runs on Linux, your statement was a plain falsehood, and my rebuttal stands. Does Microsoft own the rights to the word Office? No. I rest my case.

	you are quite ignorant (2.00 / 2) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:56:31 PM PST

	did you watch Shrek? or how about TITANIC? all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. all the computer animated effects in TITANIC were done in Linux. ANY version of windows would not be able to handle the workload. and you have the nerve to think that Linux could not "handle" running Internet explorer?? hell, Linux can run the Windows98 desktop (OS) in a window and run Internet Explorer AND Office at the same time in win98 running in a linux window. don't get too confused now. LUCASFILM/ILM, DREAMWORKS, SONY PICTURES to name a few use LINUX, not MS products (they cannot handle the load) TiVO uses LINUX. THE SONY PLAYSTATION 2 uses LINUX!! get the picture? LINUX is versatle, portable, powerful. it is used in supercomputers all the way down to embedded devices. The NSA uses LINUX and contributes security patches to linux as well as having thier own Linux distribution The U.S. NAVY uses LINUX. they needed somthing more secure than Windows. So before I hear anything more about how UN-AMERICAN using Linux is remember, you accuse THE U.S. Military as well as the NSA and a bunch of U.S.Corporations. (this was for another poster) and when he said Office suit he didn't mean MS Office. an Office suit is a generic term NOT owned by Microsoft. Star office is an office suit OPEN OFFICE is an office suit, K OFFICE is an office suit. you are such an ingrained Microsoft user that you don't even know that other products exist. I bet that you are one of those people who asked if thier was a linux will run in windows. sheesh real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	What do movies have to do with it? (4.00 / 2) (#63)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:04:03 PM PST

	did you watch Shrek? or how about TITANIC? No. I don't watch any Hollywood movies, they are all bad. I watch european cinema. I don't know anything about those movies. all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. all the computer animated effects in TITANIC were done in Linux. ANY version of windows would not be able to handle the workload. Wrong. In the case of Titanic, the reason Linux was used was not because they couldn't have done it with Windows; it was because they were overbudget by the time they had to render, and couldn't afford to pay for the Windows licenses. If they had spent their money more wisely they would have chosen Windows. and you have the nerve to think that Linux could not "handle" running Internet explorer?? I have no more "nerve" than you with your bare assumption, born out of nothing but blind faith, that Linux could indeed run IE. I was merely pointing out that the original poster was not in a position to explain to us why Microsoft hasn't released that, since he doesn't have access to the company's decision process. As for the rest of your post, you seem to have not taken your medication today. Rational people don't launch into such incoherent, loosely held together rants when something ultimately as unimportant as computers is discussed.

	wait a min!!! (none / 0) (#108)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:17:53 PM PST

	last time I checked TITANIC wasn't european cinema. I have run IE in linux running win98. not blind faith, FACT. that fact that you consider ALL cinema but european "bad" is your opinion. Hollywood filmmakers NEVER used MS windows for high end rendering, they used SUN servers and SGI workstations, servers running Unix variants Solaris and IRIX now SGI uses Linux and SUN is using linux as well as thier own Unix. but, after all, what do I know I am just a mere public servent. compared to your high moral european standards how could I compare. oops, gotta' go take my medication. or I'm likely to have scary convoluted dreams comparable to european cinema.

	rendering for dummies (5.00 / 4) (#148)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:40:06 PM PST

	all the rendering was done with linux in Shrek. Yes but rendering is not very exciting. It looks like this: bash$ ./render rendering ... [2 weeks later] redered! bash$ view render.dat cannot view anything. Get Windows. bash$ edit render.dat cannot edit 3d artwork. Get Windows. bash$ emacs render.dat While emacs loads, please familiarize yourself with the following text. GNU is Free Software. When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. --More--(18%) Ctl-Alt-Del

	Oh what's the point ... (3.00 / 1) (#64)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:04:39 PM PST

	<cite>No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh?</cite> You mean - gasp, etc - that Star Office isn't an Office suite? You mean to tell me that KOffice isn't an Office Suite? You mean ... <cite>Frankly, this is easily among the most dishonest rhetorical devices I've seen.</cite> I agree - redefining Office to mean Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office only is one of the most dishonest rhetorical devices someone can use. And last but not least: <cite>Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! </cite> Windows 1.0 to WinME are successor version of a Graphics Shell (Windows) on top of a DOS kernel. In the earlier versions, DOS was the entire kernel. In the latest versions - Win98 onwards specifically - most of the kernel functions have been taken over after booting by the some of Windows' own code. Windows NT to Windows XP are successors to MS OS/2, built on the same original source code. Eg, you install Windows NT 3.51 by typing winnt in the i386 directory - you install windows 2k by typing the self-same command. You have to make the same choices for both in identical situations if you want identical setups. <b>I know this - I've done this.</b> Have you? Whereas Red Hat is a distribution of Linux published by the Red Hat company. Linux-Mandrake is a distribution of Linux published by the Linux-Mandrake company. Corel Linux was a distribution of Linux published by the Corel company. Debian is a distribution of Linux published by a group of individuals connected via the Internet. I could go on ... but what's the point. Dumber and dumber is the message I'm getting from the Microsoft Taleban on this web site. Wes

	This only strenghtens my argument. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:17:26 PM PST

	You mean - gasp, etc - that Star Office isn't an Office suite? You mean to tell me that KOffice isn't an Office Suite? You mean ... Exactly. None of those are Office suites. (They are office suites, but that's not what the original poster claimed.) I agree - redefining Office to mean Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office only is one of the most dishonest rhetorical devices someone can use. But "Office" (with the capital letter) does mean Microsoft Office. [lots of techno-babble about versions of Linux and versions of Windows deleted] Since all this contradicts the original post I replied to, it only strengthens my argument.

	only strenghtens my argument - Yeah, right (3.00 / 1) (#173)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:16:53 AM PST

	<cite>[lots of techno-babble about versions of Linux and versions of Windows deleted]</cite> <cite>Since all this contradicts the original post I replied to, it only strengthens my argument.</cite> Since you don't care to answer the points I raised about either the Windows 1.0 to WinME family or the Windows NT to Windows XP family I presume that means you haven't got all that much experience of any of those operating systems. Let alone installing them. Let alone the meaning of the word "distribution" in the Linux world. And technobabble - you mean to tell me you are quite content to enter into a heated discussion with people on a subject you know next-to-nothing about? I'm not that arrogant.

	Distribution (none / 0) (#291)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:21:47 AM PST

	What is meant by distribution? Let me use a non-computer example for this. Let's think of fast food. You have McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Both of them produce hamburgers. However, they are different because different companies produce them. A distribution is basically a flavor of Linux. MandrakeSoft is one company that makes Linux-based operating systems. Their Linux is geared towards the newbie, and the home user. It is a flavor for people just getting into it, and for people who want to do things like surf the Internet, play mp3s, play Quake, etc. Another distribution is RedHat. This company makes Linux geared mainly for servers, offices, business use. They have several office suites, ftp, just about any business product that you use. Debian is another distribution. This one, however, is the GNU distribution. It is geared for "true believers" and hackers (hacker in the sense of computer experts, not in the sense of breaking into other computers). This is basically difficult to use, but makes up for it by being VERY customizable. There are countless distros around. I would say that RedHat is more like the Big Mac from McDonalds, Mandrake is the Whopper from Burder King, and Debian is a fancy burger from some high priced restaurant. In a nutshell, distros are made by different companies, and are entirely separate from other distributions. Distributions have their own versions. So while Mandrake and RedHat are technically the same OS, they are produced by entirely different companies, and are in competition with each other, the same way MS Office is in competition with Corel Office.

	no it doesn't (1.00 / 1) (#178)
	by jcolter on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:43:50 AM PST

	Something contradicts something you replied to = strengthening your argument. Now that is logic! this is just painful

	Um, to nitpick (3.00 / 1) (#144)
	by amishjosh on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:24:36 PM PST

	How does this differ from what the article says: Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. NT, 95, 98, 2000 and XP are different versions of Windows. By your admission, they stand in essentially the same relation to each other as the versions of Linux listed. Thus, your "correction" has the exact same content as the article! Versions do not equal distributions! Different companies have released different distrobutions. They have released versions of these distributions. Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1 to 7.2 to 8.0 ad infinitum. Windows 3.0 to 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 98B to ME to XP home edition. Windows NT 3.5 to 4.0 to 2000 to XP professional edition. The only difference is that microsoft has released the windows operationg systems, and other companies have released their own distributions of Linux. Sorry, but just looking at the logs from the various web servers I manage contradicts this. IE is the standard web browser It is an ad hoc standard. Noone except Microsoft has stated that it was a full standard. Unless you are a high-level executive at Microsoft, I see no reason to believe this claim from you. Perhaps Linux is not technologically advanced enough to run IE? As has been stated before, unless you are a programmer, you wouldn't understand the explanation of libraries, calls, API's and compilation. The main business reason they don't is because that would be supporting their rival. If they ported IE over to linux, then they would be giving people one more reason to use linux on the desktop. No, none of the versions of Office run on Linux. This is a plain falsehood. Your rhetorical bag of tricks is running empty, eh? Office suites do not equal microsoft office. Microsoft office is an office suite, but it is not the be-all, end-all of office suites. StarOffice is an office suite that was designed for linux.

	Re: Please don't bring propaganda here. (none / 0) (#289)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:04:01 AM PST

	We are not bringing propaganda here. We are bringing knowledge about Linux. There are major differences between Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. First of all, let me tell you that Linux is not Windows, not even close. The Linux philosophy is ENTIRELY different from Microsoft philosophy. You are very full of FUD. I was once a person that spread FUD, but then I realized that I liked the Linux philosophy better. As for your first comment, you need to realize that Red Hat, Debian, SlackWare, and Mandrake are not "versions". They are all different companies that produce their own version of Linux. Go to www.linux-mandrake.com and www.redhat.com, and unless you are blind or utterly stupid, this will be obvious. Mandrake has versions 6.0, 6.2, 7.0. 7.1, 7.2, 8.0, and now 8.1. Redhat has versions running up tp 7.1 Redhat and Mandrake are similar, but they are produced by two entirely different companies. Besides, if you want to know what version of Linux you are really using, look at the version of the Kernel. The latest version of Linux is 2.4.10. Mandrake, Redhat, and other distributions are suites. They are software packages. Internet Explorer is currently the de-facto standard web browser. And he is right. Microsoft does NOT want to create IE for Linux. Just in case you haven't noticed, M$ declared a holy war against Linux. And if you doubt that Linux is advanced enough, I CHALLENGE you to try the Konqueror and Mozilla and Opera web browsers for Linux. And also, Netscape 6.1 is available for Linux. Linux is definitely advanced enough to run IE. Not only that, but I can do anything on my Linux system that I can on Windows. I can play Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, mp3s, video, you name, and I am doing it on Linux. No Office? Microsoft is NOT the Alpha and the Omega of office! Maybe you should try Star Office 5.2. It is available for both Windows AND Linux. http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/ It is a free download. Try it! You might be impressed!! You have a lot of misinformation about Linux, and that is understandable. Microsoft has been spreading so much false propaganda that almost every software organization has blasted them. Yes, I am a Linux evangelist. Do I think Linux is a better system? Yes. But the choice is up to you. I do not care what OS you like. Many people tried Linux, and decided that they wanted to stay with Windows. But what I AM against is the spread of entirely false information, and that is what this comment is about. So for all of you who have "preconceptions" about Linux, I CHALLENGE you to try it. If you have about 5 GBs left on your HD, you can install Linux on it. There are many distributions, but I would recommend Mandrake because you would be total newbies. The OS costs only $20 when you buy it at the store. The OS is free (as in free beer) when you download it, but I would advise against this unless you have a broadband (cable, DSL, Satellite, T1, T3) Internet connection. You can burn the ISOs on CDs. And best of all, you can easily have Linux and Windows on the same machine. I run a dual boot OS. You can have both on the same HD, or better, you can easily buy a new HD and install Linux on that. So this is a challenge to those who hate Linux. Give it a try.

	Change the title of this article (1.00 / 2) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:12:15 PM PST

	This isnt a review of Linux Mandrake 8.1. This is an article about linux bashing and the facts are so wrong, the article actually needs to be pulled. The author of this article must be some kind of idiot.

	Sorry Mandrake didn't work out for you. (1.00 / 1) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:31:31 PM PST

	I was unaware that Mandrake had hardware requirements of a pentium and 32meg of ram, but to be honest if you were reviewing MS XP os would you do that on your old gateway 486? I'm a linux fan, and I 'waste' a lot of time learning about my computer. To me open source, means the opportunity for a greater understanding. While the code is free, it certainly costs me a great deal in time. As someone else pointed out, the reason that the commercial applications the reviewer mentioned (IE, Office and some firewall package) aren't available on linux, is because their owners choose not to make them available. Apple Mac owners have struggled with the same thing. I suspect we'll see most Linux users will have a moderate response to this article. Linux is out there, and for a lot of users it works just fine. If people choose not to use it, that's fine too. Yes you need a bit more knowledge to use it, because it has historically used by a market which had above average computer literacy. I personally wouldn't recommend linux for any of my friend who describe themselves as 'computer dummies'. Not yet anyway! This post is anonymous, not because I want to be anonymous, but because I don't see the need to register with Adequacy.org. I can be reached as 'david.maslen' on the 'iname.org' mail server.

	Re: Sorry Mandrake didn't work out for you. (none / 0) (#261)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:36:16 AM PST

	<< I was unaware that Mandrake had hardware requirements of a pentium and 32meg of ram, but to be honest if you were reviewing MS XP os would you do that on your old gateway 486? ?? Yeah, Mandrake is specifically compiled and built for Pentium class (and higher) CPU's. It is one of the few with most others supporting the 386 and 486. For the record, I have installed and run Mandrake 8.1. I enjoy it and think it is one of the better distributions out there (just my opinion of course). I enjoy looking for better ways to do things and ultimately this leads to readings some documentation. Anybody, no matter what the chosen OS, that wants to get sthe most out of their system or take their knowledge further must ultimately read the topic in depth. Just my 2 cents worth. Craig

	This comming from a site running Apache + Scoop (2.00 / 4) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:37:47 PM PST

	I find this really funny, how this author does not like Linux and tells us how much better Windows is, when in fact he would not be able to express such views was it not for free software. The site is powered by Scoop, go read the license. GPL... Maybe they run it on NT/2000 (don't know if that is possible). Well lets se what webserver they use. Well netcraft.com won't tell, hum okay there are other ways lets se... telnet www.adequacy.org 80 GET HTTP/1.1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>400 Bad Request</TITLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>Bad Request</H1> Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<P> Invalid URI in request GET HTTP/1.1<P> <HR> <ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80</ADDRESS> </BODY></HTML> Connection closed by foreign host. Uhh what is this running the Apache webserver ... does MS know about this. (www.apache.org) Oh and about the no anti-virus software, because there are no viriis for UNIX/Linux, and you know what Mandrake comes with a firewall already, but since you don't know how to install it you newer found out. Well Linux is not for everybody I guess, but please get the facts right next time.

	I'm not sure I approve of this (4.50 / 4) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:10:14 PM PST

	I'd say the adequacy admins probably aren't too happy about people hacking into their servers. Maybe you should respect other peoples property, and privacy.

	Hacking?! (1.00 / 3) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:20:42 PM PST

	I'd say the adequacy admins probably aren't too happy about people hacking into their servers. Maybe you should respect other peoples property, and privacy. I would like to point out that the action in question is not hacking, nor is it breaching any sort of security, nor is it compromising any system of any kind. Rather, it is obtaining a signature from the server. The server is gladly providing an indication that it is indeed an Apache server. No hacking, just looking.

	I've heard this before (4.75 / 4) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:32:33 PM PST

	From every l33t script kiddie who likes to go around "testing" people's security. You used an internet resource contrary to the way it was intended. That sounds like hacking to me. Your schoolboy's excuse isn't fooling anyone.

	Innocuous Action (2.00 / 2) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:02:08 PM PST

	You are correct in he is accessing the server in an unconventional way. It is also true that destructive hackers (not to be confused with legitimate ones) often precede an attack with probes of various kinds in order to obtain as much exploitable information as possible. However, I think it is plain to me (and to everybody else) that this action is not a precursor to an attack. Rather it obtaining a web server signature as evidence for an argument. I sincerely doubt that adequacy.org is going to sic their lawyers on him for obtaining something that is prominently displayed in the HTTP response. On a side note, as an apache administrator, I know that you can even turn off the server signature if you like. Adequacy.org chose not to do so, probably because they realize that it is a minor security hazard.

	We are talking to our lawyers indeed. (5.00 / 5) (#70)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:12:53 PM PST

	I sincerely doubt that adequacy.org is going to sic their lawyers on him for obtaining something that is prominently displayed in the HTTP response. As an editor here, I must say that tomorrow indeed we're talking to our lawyers. As you have said, HTTP is a protocol whose design criteria is communication between HTTP servers and clients, not between servers and nosy users. The information in the headers, thus, is provided for the benefit of the web browser, not the user, who has no authorization to access it; this is just like with a DVD, where there are restrictions on what you can do with the information on the disc beyond those which hardware imposes. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	interesting netcraft reply (2.00 / 2) (#99)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:01:19 PM PST

	what do you have to hide? www.netcraft.org came back with this search result when I put your address in. "We have been requested not to report on the site www.adequacy.org" you apparently don't want anybody to know what kind of OS OR server you are running. that is just a little bizarre. you have a poorly researched article about how bad and useless Linux is and by association Open Source Software, BUT! you run an Open Source WEB SERVER!! A news site should be HONEST with its readers. this is discusting. real_madpuppy@yahoo.com.removethis

	security... (3.50 / 2) (#130)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:56:10 PM PST

	You obviously do not know anything about security. If everyone knew what kind of an operating system that a server is running then script kiddies would try to hax0r it all day long. I suppose if it was left up to you the password would be posted on the front page as well??? This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Linux software not as secure as its Microsoft counterparts.

	To Gospodin Lysenko (2.00 / 2) (#155)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:32:28 PM PST

	<cite>If everyone knew what kind of an operating system that a server is running then script kiddies would try to hax0r it all day long.</cite> You mean they don't? Already? At their stage of psychological development, anything's worth it. Anyone can find out what sort of operating system someone's running, with a little digging. It's not that difficult. Most operating systems have some sort of digital signature that is in their executables. <cite>This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Linux software not as secure as its Microsoft counterparts.</cite> I see. You're an expert on security now. You know all the holes in Linux's source code, I take it. You know Microsoft's source code back to front and can quote me chapter and verse. You know why a buffer overflow is dangerous and how to deal with that. You know why an open review process might work with keeping politicians passably honest, but of course it won't work when we're dealing with software - or science of course ... Nice to meet you, Gospodin Lysenko.

	If you had any knowledge of Russian or history... (4.00 / 1) (#162)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:39:02 PM PST

	... then you would know that "gospodin" ("mister") would not be the correct way to address Lysenko, a member of the party and an solid champion of the motherland. The correct way would be to refer to him as "tovarisch" ("comrade"). It is only within the last decade that "gospodin" has been used to refer to anyone other than foreigners.

	That aint security (1.00 / 1) (#465)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 09:20:55 PM PST

	Someone actually capable of hacking into a remote system wouldn't give a shit about the web server or OS version as reported in easily to access, standard forms, like the web server signature, or the telnet login message. They'd use TCP/IP packet signatures, or something of the sort...in which both Linux and FreeBSD are unidentifiable due to their advanced randomization algorithms...but in which Windows NT hosts simply increment each time, making hacking a breeze.

	Nope (2.00 / 2) (#104)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:09:01 PM PST

	From RFC-2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 user agent The client which initiates a request. These are often browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools. Telnet would certainly qualify as a "end user tool". I also don't see anything in the RFC which says the headers are a big secret. But you were joking anyway, right?

	That action specifically violates our TOS. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:18 PM PST

	Telnet would certainly qualify as a "end user tool". I also don't see anything in the RFC which says the headers are a big secret. The RFC is not a legal document. Anyway, that action specifcially violates our Terms of Service. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Availability (none / 0) (#117)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:31:42 PM PST

	I did not try to connect to your site. But. Maybe you should make it available. I don't see a single link on this page. I invite a flame. ;-)

	The old TOS trick, huh? (1.00 / 2) (#119)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:34:43 PM PST

	Aha...so we're going to play the legal game. Well, it clearly states in Adequacy.org's Terms of Service: Adequacy.org gives permission for its servers to be accessed by any program specifically designed to be a legitimate HTTP client, by mail transport agents legitimately transporting email relevant to the site. Any other means of accessing Adequacy.org, including, but not limited to, telnet access to any port, port scans, and such, are not allowed, and constitute unauthorized access (a.k.a. "hacking"). I think it's pretty clear that using telnet to get the HTTP header violates this agreement. Wait a minute, did I say agreement? I didn't agree to anything. Lemme take a look here...Scrolls through front page, article page, etc. I don't see anything in here saying anything about Terms of Service. How am I supposed to abide by it if I can't even find it? Usually there's some very fine print at the bottom saying something like "By accessing this site, you agree to our Terms of Service" Maybe I missed it. Can somebody point it out to me?

	Sure! (3.00 / 2) (#133)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:01:51 PM PST

	It's on the meta page. You know, the one which nothing on the front page tells you you need to read before accessing the site... ;)

	Interesting. (1.00 / 1) (#121)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:35:55 PM PST

	From your T&C: Adequacy.org gives permission for its servers to be accessed by any program specifically designed to be a legitimate HTTP client, by mail transport agents legitimately transporting email relevant to the site. Any other means of accessing Adequacy.org, including, but not limited to, telnet access to any port, port scans, and such, are not allowed, and constitute unauthorized access (a.k.a. "hacking"). Interesting. Care to give a legally enforceable definition of a legitimate HTTP client? I believe that Emacs can browse the web (if it doesn't yet, I'm sure somebody working on it...) but Emacs wasn't really specifically designed to be a HTTP client, so I guess I couldn't surf your site with it... ;)

	Non-issue. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:39:11 PM PST

	I believe that Emacs can browse the web (if it doesn't yet, I'm sure somebody working on it...) but Emacs wasn't really specifically designed to be a HTTP client, so I guess I couldn't surf your site with it... ;) The w3 mode for Emacs was specifically designed to browse the web. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	To be pedantic... (3.00 / 1) (#129)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:54:53 PM PST

	To be pedantic, your T&C does not authorise programs which have functionality explicitly designed to act as a HTTP client. It ONLY authorises a "program SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED" to act as an HTTP client - Emacs itself was not specifically designed to act as an HTTP client anymore than Word was. It's a subtle distinction. But I'm not a lawyer, and this is getting to be a silly conversation ;)

	Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:01:46 PM PST

	The emacs w3 mode is code specifically designed to work as an http client. Telnet isn't. That's all that counts. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Then why can't I use telnet? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:13:11 PM PST

	Then why can't I use telnet? If I care to read the HTML in its raw form, then I can use it to read your site. All IE and like do is the same thing that telnet does, just with pretty interface..

	Nonsense? Nonsense! (2.00 / 1) (#140)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:13:39 PM PST

	So, if you don't have a problem with ANY program that has ANY functionality that serves as an HTTP client, I could modify a telnet program to act as an HTTP client and you'd not have a problem with it? Cool.

	Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. (none / 0) (#355)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:54:39 PM PST

	Let me enlighten you on just 1 fact that you fail to realize. Most of the applications used over any network connection, such as HTTP, SMTP etc, are all telnet based. Have a nice day.

	Linux users: (none / 0) (#425)
	by venalcolony on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:36:09 PM PST

	are as dumb as they think they are smart. You know that old saw about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing? It's magnified a hundredfold by access to modern computing machinery. Have an ignorant day, as if you had a choice. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	Linux users == dumb? (none / 0) (#561)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 04:12:13 AM PST

	According to you, simply because I don't use windows, I'm dumb. Right? Then who exactly is dumb? You're weird.

	Who needs telnet? (1.00 / 1) (#182)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:52:22 AM PST

	I just typed the following in my legitimate HTTP client: (netscape) http://www.adequacy.org/../ and I got ___________________________ Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. Invalid URI in request GET /../ HTTP/1.0 Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80 ____________________________ I think you have to ban my IP now. Terribly sorry. ROTFL....

	Oh no, now you're a criminal! (none / 0) (#183)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:31:45 AM PST

	Actually, by intentionally mistyping a non-existent and thus unauthorized URL pointing to the particular server, you have violated about 4.67e8 ULAs and TOSs, and should therefore be considered a criminal herefrom. You will most probably be brought before court soon, and you will have to pay dearly for your terrorist activities. Free Speech? What Free? What Speech? Apollon Koutlides

	You idiot (none / 0) (#272)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:05:22 AM PST

	Those TOSs are complete fabrications, devised by the adequacy editors, and not legally binding. IANAL, but I'm certain that if I were I'd be able to assess the legality of those TOSs and find it illigitimite. So I'm certain that nobody could possibly be going to court. OK? No need to get so worked up.

	IE (none / 0) (#559)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:40:40 AM PST

	I tried the same with Internet Explorer 6.0 and got the same result. I suppose IE6 should be banned as well?

	Apache (1.00 / 1) (#216)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:44:20 AM PST

	> lynx --head --dump http://adequacy.org Looking up 'www.wam.umd.edu' first. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:40:58 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 Set-Cookie: session=45a855c6fd0496a7482b18f2cc415011;expires=Wed, 31 Oct 2001 1 0:40:58 GMT;path=/;domain=.adequacy.org Content-Length: 41658 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html lynx is a legal web browser

	lynx is NOT a legal web browser (5.00 / 3) (#233)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:30:09 PM PST

	If lynx isn't already illegal, then it should be. By using Lynx, you are stealing bandwidth from webservers like ours without viewing the banner ads that help keep the site going. In refusing to load our ads, you are doing more than just spitting on the capitalist institutions our nation was founded on; you're spitting stabbing every American veteran or firefighter in the back. People like you make me sick.

	You're kidding I hope. (1.00 / 1) (#238)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:03:57 PM PST

	Lynx is a console based web browser. It is incapable of displaying graphics (including ads) becuase of the environment it runs in. That is in no way a reason to question the program's legality. When I am remotely logged into my Linux box (using ssh, which is basically an encrypted telnet-like connection (which is a completely legal use of my computing resources)), I am only able to use Linux in console mode. If I need to look up something on the web, be it documentation or a news posting or whatever, the only program I can use is lynx. There is nothing illegal about my use of a web browser to access publicly accessible web pages, even if I can't load images. If displaying ads is so important to the livelihood of this website, it's administrators should look into text based ads. What you are all are failing to realize is that Telnet, SSH, lynx, box cutters, etc. are all tools that can be used for legitimate as well as illigitimate uses. Even your beloved IE can be used to exploit back doors installed on computers by the Code Red II virus. I'll patiently wait for a reply saying that all the tools listed should be illegalized. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Capitailism and Vets? (5.00 / 1) (#298)
	by Rover on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:34:41 AM PST

	I am unsure as to what this is even about. I am a retired soldier and spent my life as a member of the U.S. Army. I have played in the Southeast Asian wargames, the drug wars of Peru, Panama, and god knows how many other places. I did so to give people like you the freedom to say anything that they might feel the need to say (even if it was total ignorance). This republic we live in (And to the Republic for which it stands. (note does not say Democracy)) was based on freedoms. As a soldier that premise is all that matters. Based on that I would like to know what Capitalisim has to do with anything. I do not understand how attempting to give the people the freedom of manipulating a piece of software to conform it to standards they may specifically require undermines the basis of the Constitution. It is all about freedom. Capitalism has nothing to do with what I as a soldier stood (and stand) for with the possible exception that you should have the freedom to be part of it if you choose to do so. I personally believe that capitalisim is nothing more than the greed of others using what ever it is that they may have at their disposal taking away the rights of others to further their own gains. Now at what point do you percieve the removal of rights to be furthering your freedoms. I do not see any accuracy to your statement. To say that undermining capitalisim is stomping on a Vet or Fireman is truely ignorant. The soldier is there to preserve your freedom not to find new ways to remove it. Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom and it damn well had nothing to do with the reasons for founding this great country we live in. P.S. I also find Linux to be the better and more stable OS but as a soldier I give you the freedom to choose if it or something else is best for you.

	Jeez what a rectal cranial inversion in action (1.00 / 1) (#468)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:44:54 AM PST

	This is just amazing. I have never seen more idiocy on the part of IN-adequacy.org - I think you should be fingered severely until you give out name rank and serial number, what a bunch of complete and utter asses.

	POW"S (5.00 / 1) (#480)
	by Rover on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 08:23:41 AM PST

	When I was a POW the Geneva Convention dictated that I only give out my Name,Rank, Serial Number And Date of Birth and I did so. Unless you have in some fashion found a way to make me a POW in my own country I do not feel the need nor the requirement to give said information to you. It is truely sad that the soldiers that defend (and those such as myself who spent their lives defending) this great country of ours, did so so that ass holes such as you could spout such shit. If it were not for us you would not have the capability to talk such trash. Also take note that my handle is stated above and you have access to pull my information if you feel the need to contact me on a personal basis more than can be said for an ANON Chicken shit like you . Lets see how much guts you have next time you spout shit Identify yourself. Bring it on Ass Hole.

	Very shortsighted. If it's serious. (1.00 / 1) (#445)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:07:32 PM PST

	I'm half convinced that this post is a joke, but I'm going to respond to it anyways. For one, it needs to be known that people do not use Lynx exclusively to skip banner ads. People typically use Lynx whenever other alternatives are not available. THIS CAN BE THE CASE, AND STILL IS FOR MANY PEOPLE. And telling them to "go upgrade" is not always an option; in the case of one couple I know who has to use a 'shell account' (a 'net connection of a type that limits you to Lynx and similar text-only browsers), no other internet services are offered that are available to them. For my other point... capitalisim fetishists always hate me for pointing this next bit out, but America was not founded on Capitalism. The Founding Fathers, for the most part, were people with heavy backgrounds in scientific thought (not just Benjamin Franklin; many of them were) and advocates of learning and public sharing of information. Pure capitalism tends to induce eventual totalitarian domination over those under same, and the Founding Fathers did not want that - they were trying to get OUT from such a system and PREVENT one from happening again. Encouraging thoughts similar to Capitalism and other means of driving the individual to excel is just a means of keeping the populace educated so they can make smart decisions when it comes to participating in their government, nothing more. (Disclaimer: I am not a socialist. I am not a Marxist-Leninist. I am not a capitalist. I am not anything resembling any of these. I do not subscribe to any 'pure' economic theory, because no economic theory has ever survived contact with the market.)

	you fool (none / 0) (#543)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 01:41:10 PM PST

	does this mean that blind people aren't allowed access to your site? you complete idiot

	HA HA HA!!!! (1.00 / 2) (#167)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:10:45 AM PST

	The terms of service are a complete riot!!!!! For the record, I am the guy who alerted em to the fact that wget can show full headers. (S)He(?) obviously missed my point: a valid http client will ALWAYS get the headers. It's just a question of if they will display them easily or not. The fact that a TOS can be changed so quickly does not tend to give it credence. I don't think anyone is going to take it seriously.

	neither... (1.00 / 1) (#314)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:14:40 PM PST

	Neither are your terms and conditions.

	What a load of shit! (1.00 / 1) (#305)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:51:03 PM PST

	Add me to the list of `hackers'. Here's proof I've done the dirty deed of telneting to port 80. Enjoy! HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:49:45 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 170 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>400 Bad Request</TITLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>Bad Request</H1> Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<P> client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /<P> <HR> <ADDRESS>Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80</ADDRESS> </BODY></HTML> -awpti awpti@awpti.org http://www.awpti.org

	LOL (none / 0) (#307)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:02:24 PM PST

	Hack the Planet! :P

	Not Funny (5.00 / 1) (#309)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:51:36 PM PST

	I'm sure you hackers think you're funny for supporting the open source movement by hacking web sites that have opposing opinions. I also believe you guys are correct that Adequacy.org is using an Apache server. Only an open source product would be so easily hacked, especially when the creators purposely insert backholes knowing that the non-hacking Linux community will believe the propaganda of Linux Torvald that he and his commie hackers made the software secure without any backdoors. This will do great for Linux's PR as a secure user friendly OS. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	On the contrary... (none / 0) (#311)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:40:49 PM PST

	Only an open source product would be so easily hacked. You are confused. IIS is by the far the easier to hack, and that's a Microsoft product. Don't take my word for it, ask The Register

	Technology Tabloid (none / 0) (#315)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:24:34 PM PST

	Nobody in the industry takes the register seriously. I wouldn't have thought that you could apply sensationalist journalism to computters, but they have been proving me wrong for years. The register is no more a news source than slashdot is. The fact that you take them seriously indicates that you are a dilletante.

	Dillettante? (none / 0) (#323)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:07:59 PM PST

	Dilletante? "A person who loves the arts"? Why yes, actually I am. Thank you so very much for noticing. Oh, wait, were you thinking of the other definition? But I have a question... where did I ever say I took the Register seriously? FWIW, I am in the "industry", So are the other people I work with. We quite enjoy the Register, it gives us a chuckle or two. I am quite impressed, though. It must have taken you an age to poll EVERYBODY in the industry, to ensure that NOBODY takes it seriously. Or are you just "inventing" facts... much like the guy who wrote the original article?

	Yes, of course I mean the other definition (none / 0) (#330)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:24:02 PM PST

	Since I actually speak english as it is used this century, not as it is presented in your ninety year old free version of websters. Your definition is archaic. Obviously you take the register seriously, since you offer it as a source of information. The only people who consider the register a useful source of information are those who share the same bias as the registers "journalists". Having had personal dealings with one of the hacks who writes for them, I can assure you that the ideas of research and fact-checking, as exemplified on this site have not been introduced at the register. By the way, studying comp sci at your state college, using linux, writing perl and posting to slashdot does not make you part of the industry.

	Archaic? (none / 0) (#349)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:23:01 AM PST

	Well, I speak English as it is spoken in England. You know, the country that originated it? My "ninety year old free version of websters" was in fact the Collins Shorter English Dictionary, 1993 edition. Just on the off-chance that the weird variant of English you purportedly use considers an "archaic" definition to be one only eight years old, I checked my other dictionary. This year's OED. Oddly, it doesn't seem to consider it archaic either. How wacky. "Obviously" I take it seriously if I offer it as a source of information? If I'd suggested that you look at User Friendly would that mean that I take User Friendly seriously? Please. Offering a link does NOT mean I take it seriously. Oh, I'm sorry, did I forget an emoticon? How terribly remiss of me. By the way, studying comp sci at your state college, using linux, writing perl and posting to slashdot does not make you part of the industry. I'll take your word for that. However, since I've been working in the quite sizeable IT division of a major UK financial institution for the past 14 years I couldn't really say. I work as an Oracle and Teradata DBA and use UNIX, not Linux. I don't write Perl. I don't post to Slashdot (well, OK... once or twice in the past two years). If that isn't "industry" enough for you... Well, too bad really. I won't lose any sleep over it.

	OK then (none / 0) (#376)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:37:41 PM PST

	So you were offering the register link as a joke? Thia changes everything. Evidently that entire post was sarcastic, which would mean that you are in total agreement with me about IIS vs apache. Good.

	Fuck Off (none / 0) (#383)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:19:36 PM PST

	All I have to say is Code Red... ~Solo

	So? (none / 0) (#396)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:04:17 AM PST

	When the Morris worm attacked the internet, the net went down. At the time, the net was composed almost entirely of unix servers. Code Red didn't cause anywhere near as much damage. Conclusion: the web is more stable running IIS.

	Speaking of The Morris Worm (3.00 / 2) (#400)
	by Solo on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:44:12 AM PST

	It is good that you are a History Buff, to remember the Morris Worm is a good thing, In fact we learned from it right? Oh, wait, how did it attack again, oh yea "buffer overflow". Wait that sounds rather familar, lets think what else attacked that way? It wasn't Code Red was it? Um, shouldn't IIS have patched a flaw that has been exploited back in 1988... Bet Unix did.

	Another thing (1.00 / 1) (#403)
	by jiminim on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:15:33 AM PST

	Virii must be targeted to particular software on particular hardware and that is why it is BAD for everyone to be running the exact same software on the same hardware. For instance a worm written for Solaris 8 on Sparc is not even going to bother systems running Linux on Sparcs, Solaris on i386's, or Win 2K on i386 except for maybe taking up bandwidth. The Morris worm only affected DEC's VAX and Sun Microsystems's Sun 3 systems. The bad thing was though in 1988 VAX's and Sun 3's made up almost the entire internet so it pretty much took the internet out. If "Wintel" achieve their goal of everyone running some kind of Windows on some kind of i386, the internet is doomed. There has to be some varity or one worm could take everything out. Jim -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

	Oh, have they? (3.00 / 2) (#423)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:32:40 PM PST

	Considering a new buffer overflow is found in the linux kernel every month, I'd say your reasoning is pretty specious. At least windows doesn't have that problem, since they aren't stupid enough to release their code and let hackers look for bugs. Your little communist free software fantasy world is about to fall apart, by the way. I took a look at netcraft, and it seems that IIS just took a huge bite out of apache's market share. Looks like this "apache runs the internet" crap is about to become as obsolete as a 30 year old operating system design.

	I Agree (3.00 / 2) (#431)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:21:22 PM PST

	I agree not releasing the windows source code is the smarter thing to do, I mean if we all found bugs in windows source and fixed them it actually might work.

	LINUX = Communist (3.00 / 2) (#435)
	by Solo on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:58:08 AM PST

	Why is Linux considered communist, because there are a lot of American Companies that use Linux. Lets see here NASA for one, I'm sure they are communist, fucking Red Bastards... Hmm, how about ILM, Industrial Light and Magic, That is Lucas Arts for you dumb asses out there. I'm sure that the best computer graphics company in the world, based in Amereica, is Communist. I'm sure that Georege pays all of his Secretaries the same that he pays his high level peogramers. Then there is IBM, the cornerstone of Capitalism, oh wait they use Linux fucking commies, You logic sucks cock. How can using an Operating system make you a communist.

	The Red in Red Hat Is for Communism (3.66 / 3) (#439)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:37:43 AM PST

	I think the fact that Red Hat's named Red Hat is proof that Linux is communist. As we all know, red is the color of communism. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Anti-Logic (1.00 / 1) (#446)
	by jiminim on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:27:37 PM PST

	So anything that makes use of 'red' is a communist? That makes sense. Maybe now you should start a movement to get that damn commie color out of the American flag. Can't have other countries thinking the USA is communist now can we? -Jim -- Avoid the Gates of Hell, use Linux --

	How about the Gartner group then? (none / 0) (#373)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:23:13 PM PST

	http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034 -Max

	STOP IT (none / 0) (#338)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:25:09 AM PST

	Cant you all see that this is all just a bunch of crap. anyone who really thinks that accesing a website with lynx is illegal is obviously just messing with you guys I hope

	heh (0.50 / 2) (#306)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:00:27 PM PST

	"I'm sorry sir, but your going to have to package up your computer and return it" "Its that bad is it?" "Yes, I'm afraid so." "Why?" "Because your too bloody stupid to own a computer!"

	In the mean time... (1.00 / 1) (#370)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:58:55 PM PST

	>As an editor here, I must say that tomorrow indeed we're talking to our lawyers. As you have said, HTTP is a protocol whose design criteria is communication between HTTP servers and clients, not between servers and nosy users. The information in the headers, thus, is provided for the benefit of the web browser, not the user, who has no authorization to access it; this is just like with a DVD, where there are restrictions on what you can do with the information on the disc beyond those which hardware imposes. --em (Associate Editor, Adequacy.org)< Will you also be talking to your "lawyers" about this comment from one of your "editors?" "Additionally, since we are not using voting, I've hacked something on to the voting system." Apparently your site is harboring a self professed "hacker" as per: http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/5/2653/23335 Scoop is OSS isn't it? Isn't that threatening freedom according to "otak?" (Lame site guys, lame site)

	You fool (1.00 / 1) (#474)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 07:20:39 AM PST

	I strongly advise you to go and inform yourself before expressing an opinion on anything technological. You are not currently fit to hold or express an opinion on anything more complex or advanced than an Etch-a-Sketch. 'News for Grown-ups' indeed - don't make me laugh.

	plainly specious (3.00 / 1) (#74)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:20:16 PM PST

	However, I think it is plain to me (and to everybody else) that this action is not a precursor to an attack. Rather it obtaining a web server signature as evidence for an argument. This is tantamount to saying Dmitri Sklyarov hacked Adobe's copyright-protection scheme as an academic proof-of-concept exercise. It doesn't matter what the intentions of the transgressor were. What matters is the damage wreaked upon the victim by the transgressor's plainly illegal acts. These people should get the death penalty, if you ask me.

	Different Worlds (3.00 / 1) (#88)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:33:27 PM PST

	This is tantamount to saying Dmitri Sklyarov hacked Adobe's copyright-protection scheme as an academic proof-of-concept exercise. To suggest that obtaining an HTTP server signature is of the same degree as breaking a cryptographic scheme to expose copyrighted material is completely inaccurate. Under the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent copy-protection of copyrighted material. That's a far cry from looking at the server's signature. What matters is the damage wreaked upon the victim by the transgressor's plainly illegal acts. Damage? What damage? That signature is spewed out thousands of times an hour. No damage is being done, the server's doing what it should. These people should get the death penalty, if you ask me. You're absolutely right. After all, they're just as bad as serial killers and child rapists.

	DUDE!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#67)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:10:50 PM PST

	It is NOT hacking. Stop being a moron already. All you're doing is requesting information on port 80, using Telnet rather than a regular Web browser. If people like you were in charge, "legal" Web use would proabably be with IE and Communicatior, while all other use (uh, last I checked, Konqueror wasn't IE \|\| Communicator, nor are any proxy servers) would be considered "hacking," which, soon, in the U.S., will be punishable with a lifetime jail sentence. Learn a bit before you open yer goddamn mouth. And go back to Slashdot, willya?

	Hey d000000d, let's not be morons now (5.00 / 2) (#85)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:32:55 PM PST

	I wouldn't want to look like an idiot, d0000d. Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries, precisely because people like you do not have the developed moral sense not to use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly prohibits the use of circumvention devices, such as telnet. Whether or not the act of circumvention was easy or difficult does not enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, that does not give me the right to steal it, d0000d. You seem to think that actions you take on your computer do not affect the outside world. Stealing information via computer is just the same as stealing in real life. You should have thought before doing this, d0000000000d.

	Ugh (none / 0) (#105)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:10:19 PM PST

	I wouldn't want to look like an idiot, d0000d. Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries, precisely because people like you do not have the developed moral sense not to use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly prohibits the use of circumvention devices, such as telnet. Whether or not the act of circumvention was easy or difficult does not enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, that does not give me the right to steal it, d0000d. Telnet is not a hacking tool. It is a program to communicate with different computers on the internet. I use it daily to check my email on my universities computer. This is because you get an telnet account at my university. Nothing to do with hacking. You seem to think that actions you take on your computer do not affect the outside world. Stealing information via computer is just the same as stealing in real life. You should have thought before doing this, d0000000000d. He was not stealing information. He was simply looking at what the HTTP transaction was. (sorry if this is too technical for you) This is actually the same thing you would do if you would enter http://www.adequacy.org in your web browser. Only the text is hidden from you because it would confuse less technicaly skilled people.

	Fallacious logic (none / 0) (#137)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:10:34 PM PST

	All hacking tools communicate over the internet. Your first paragraph, therefore, is meaningless. The fact that you attend a university who's IT program is so deprived of funds that they haven't even installed a decent webmail system or at least MS Exchange, and require you to hack in to their machines to access your email merely demonstrates that you are a person of such poor intellect and abilites that you have been forced to attend a skinflint regional degree mill. This has no bearing on the argument, of course. Finally, the information he was looking at does not belong to him. He can only have obtained it through theft. The fact that the theft was simple is neither here nor there, as I have previously demonstrated.

	Where do you get this from? (none / 0) (#145)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:30:39 PM PST

	The fact that you attend a university who's IT program is so deprived of funds that they haven't even installed a decent webmail system or at least MS Exchange, and require you to hack in to their machines to access your email merely demonstrates that you are a person of such poor intellect and abilites that you have been forced to attend a skinflint regional degree mill. A decent webmail system? The Tulane University IT dept (of which it receives $13M annually) uses telnet and SSH (an encrypted version of telnet) to access their servers. Not only the sysadmins, but the students (undergrad and grad) regularly log in via these tools to accomplish their tasks, including using shell email clients. Last time I checked, Tulane University was ranked in the top 50 National Universities in America. Hardly a skinflint regional degree mill.

	What's your point? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:08:18 PM PST

	You've admitted you use hacking tools to read your mail (and probably other people's, too). Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it? It's not exactly Harvard, is it? As for 13 million dollars, I suppose most of that money is going towards paying bandwidth fees for all the hacking caused by madating use of hacking tools. I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. Unless Tulane is some kind of "hacker university", of course.

	Here's my point (none / 0) (#157)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:42:16 PM PST

	You've admitted you use hacking tools to read your mail If by "Hacking tool" you mean "Legitimate Remote-Access Tool" then yes, I use hacking tools to read my email. (and probably other people's, too) Pure speculation, which is completely unfounded. Get some facts. Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university Tulane is not a place, it's a school, founded in 1834 in New Orleans, LA. It's the second-higest ranked Medical school in the South. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's worthless. It's not exactly Harvard, is it? No it's not. But I suspect it wouldn't matter to you, would it? As for 13 million dollars, I suppose most of that money is going towards paying bandwidth fees for all the hacking caused by madating use of hacking tools. Once again, speculation. And once again, unfounded. I might also point out that a talented hacker can break into a system on a dial-up from a pay phone. The only reason I can think of that you would need significant bandwidth would be for a DOS attack. I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. Many of the non-CS students do use a web-based email system (as well as POP3) but the CS students find it more convenient to use the shell with its added functionality and security than a web-based email exchange. Unless Tulane is some kind of "hacker university", of course. Yep. You figured it out. Your powers of perception are unparallelled and I bow before your supreme intellect.

	Harvard Uses Telnet (none / 0) (#354)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:50:29 PM PST

	Ok, after the comment about Tulane not being Harvard it got me to thinking so I decided to "Hack" Harvard, basicaly I went to www.harvard.edu and looked up a random name in the directory. Got their email address and telneted to the Harvard email server. to try this click start -- run -- telnet hcs.harvard.edu This proves that even a school as backward and ignorant as Harvard uses Unix systems and allows people to hack, sorry telnet, their email. ~Sesti

	LOL, you silly people (1.00 / 1) (#479)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 09:25:25 PM PST

	I was reading this for fun, but I can't help but join in the conversation. <CITE> Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it? </CITE> Wow, so suddenly you (whoever you are) are some sort of university expert? Ha ha ha ha ha. I laugh at your lack of knowledge. =) Seriously though, Tulane is right up there in the top echelon of colleges in this nation. If only the profs at Tulane read this... Ha ha ha ha. =) <CITE> I'm sure most of the undergraduates, and all of the post-graduates, would prefer a clean, usable email interface, such as that found at hotmail. </CITE> More laughter. I would hardly call hotmail a clean and usable e-mail interface. I have used several internet e-mail services, of which I have found hotmail to be the most annoying and perturbing. I admit to liking clean interfaces, but I'd wouldn't decry people who use telnet to check their mail. Nor would I seriously call it a "hacker tool" since its main purposes are not for hacking. This whole conversation is very funny while somewhat disheartening. The great lack of education I see here is astounding, and saddens me greatly. Apparently we need a lot more computer education in our newspapers and our school systems right now, since so many people have muddled ideas about hackers and about internet tools and about Linux. Sigh. Heh, and I'll probably get flamed. Hooray for me! I've never "hacked" a machine in my life, nor do I intend to. I just wish that people would become more educated about what they speak about before they spend pages ranting. --Just another college student, just another valedictorian, just another National Merit winner, just another computer scientist.

	Your fallacious logic is itself fallacious... (none / 0) (#324)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:22:33 PM PST

	All hacking tools communicate over the internet. Your first paragraph, therefore, is meaningless. I've discovered a seriously dangerous hacking tool that enables you to edit configuration files - possibly in a malicious manner! It's called vi. It should be totally banned, dude. As should notepad on the windows platform, of course. The only thing is, vi doesn't communicate over the internet. Oops, I've just blown your logic. Sorry. You should still run for president against Bush on a campaign platform of banning all text editors, though. Tell ya what, in order to get a massive number of votes tell the public that evil terrorists can start World War III with vi. It worked with Mitnick and telephones...

	vi is not a hacking tool (none / 0) (#341)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:54:23 AM PST

	Can you use vi to hack into systems? No. Can you use vi to steal my credit card number? No. Therefore, vi is useless for hackers. Please stop posting misinformation.

	Oh, how naive... (none / 0) (#408)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:44:51 AM PST

	Forgive my asking, but how can you be so naive? It should be obvious to everyone that once the EVIL, MONSTROUS VI-USING HACKER (who has, by the way, been proven to be a subhuman creature from another dimension sent to torment us all) is actually INTO the system he (or she) would need something to edit vital configuration files in order to do their hellish work! Without vi (and other INSIDIOUS, EVIL text editors) hackers couldn't do anything! (btw, I'm being sarcastic. I was the first time. Did you miss it?)

	So? (none / 0) (#424)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:34:28 PM PST

	Let's see hime get into the system using vi. Oh, he can't. Guess you lost.

	What? (2.33 / 3) (#444)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:50:27 PM PST

	Lost what? The statement was "All hacking tools communicate over the internet". NOT "All hacking tools that enable you to access a system communicate over the internet". Let's build a logical chain here... 1) vi can be used maliciously by hackers. It is thus a "hacking tool". 2) It does not use the internet. Thus it is a hacking tool that does not communicate over the internet. 3) Thus the initial statement ("All hacker tools communicate over the internet") was proven incorrect. Despite your seeming inability to discern sarcasm, the logic is still impeccable.

	How can vi be used maliciously? (5.00 / 1) (#449)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:42:51 PM PST

	Explain to me how I can use vi to break into other people's computers, since it doesn't communicate over the net. It's a simple question, but all you've done so far is try to evade.

	Are you being deliberately obtuse? (1.00 / 1) (#450)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 06:22:07 PM PST

	Where have I said that vi can be used to "break into" somebody's computer? I haven't. What I have said - more than once, yet still you seem unable to comprehend - is that once you have accessed the system vi can then be used to alter vital configuration files. These files, once altered, can then be used to subvert the normal functionality of the computer. In other words, vi can be used as a "hackers tool". Refer to my previous article regarding the logic chain to demonstrate that "every hackers tool communicates over the internet" is patently false. Oh, and since I'm an Oracle dba let me give you an example using a config file I'm particularly familiar with: If I can gain access to an oracle account and vi I can do PLENTY of unpleasant stuff to the init.ora of a database. Including placing events in there that can dump EVERY sql statement going through that database. Said sql statement MIGHT include credit card or user details... (and if the database uses cold backups, I don't even need access to server manager or sqlplus... I can just wait for the next backup for the init changes to take effect) Just a couple of questions: 1) Have you figured out yet that I'm being sarcastic? and 2) Have you figured out that a TEXT EDITOR can be extremely useful to a hacker once he's gained access to an account on a remote computer? If not, read the following: a) Use telnet, or ssh, or some other remote access tool to access an account on a remote computer. b) Use VI over the previously established connection to edit whatever the hell you like, bubba. Since vi is running locally on the remote machine it is NOT running "over the internet", but it's still being used to hack a config file to disasterous effect. There, has that explained things to you yet?

	You lost this argument 3 posts ago (5.00 / 1) (#455)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:32:44 AM PST

	Admit it. vi can't be used to hack into computers. "Hacking into" being the correct usage of the word "hacking", how can something that can't be used to hack into machines be a hacking tool? It can't and you lose. Better luck next time.

	Obtuse? I take it back. (1.00 / 1) (#459)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 06:20:06 AM PST

	I cannot believe this. Obtuse doesn't go far enough. I NEVER SAID THAT VI COULD BE USED TO HACK INTO A SYSTEM, sparky. What I said was, vi is a tool that could be used maliciously by a hacker (and thus qualifies as a "hacker tool" (Yes, this is sarcasm)). IT CAN. I even gave you a real-world (admittedly Oracle specific) example that could conceivably be used to obtain credit card numbers - what more do you want? Oh, and what if I want to hack a computer program? What if I wanted to, for example, hack a software DVD player? I could conceivably do that, couldn't I? Yes, I could. What machine would I be hacking into? Couldn't be mine, as I already have legal access. So, I guess a "hacker" isn't just somebody who "hacks into a machine", right? Why, in my hypothetical hack at a software DVD player I might use such software as, say, a disassembler! Gasp, another tool which can be used by a hacker which doesn't use the internet. Crikey, I might even consider using a malicious assembler! Quick, ban Microsoft Visual C++, it's a hacker tool!(this is sarcasm too) Oh, and hey, here's another thing: aren't evil, evil hackers usually blamed for computer viruses? And yet, to write a virus you don't need to "hack into a machine" at all! Wow, I guess they're not really hackers!(more sarcasm) Oh, and from The New Hacker's Dictionary: hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker. Also, from Dictionary.com: hacker (hkr) n. Informal One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker. And more from dictionary.com.... hack (hk) v. hacked, hack·ing, hacks v. tr. To cut or chop with repeated and irregular blows: hacked down the saplings. To break up the surface of (soil). Informal. To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database. Slang. To cut or mutilate as if by hacking: hacked millions off the budget. Slang. To cope with successfully; manage: couldn't hack a second job. Hey, look, looks like your definition isn't enough. Hmmm.... now, what could be used to access a computer file illegally? Hey, vi could do that! It's a hacker tool after all!(yet more sarcasm) [Note: I get the impression the sarcasm in every single one of my prior posts has not been noticed (even after stating it), so I've really explicitly stated it this time. I hope this helps.]

	Look, we are not rocket scientists here. (5.00 / 1) (#460)
	by dmg on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 08:55:50 AM PST

	Please explain in layman's terms exactly how I can use vi to hack into a machine ? Until you do that, I think you are getting your panties in a bunch for no reason. Unless you are talking about vim, which has some internet functionality, then I agree with you, yes vim is a hacking tool. But vi ? No way jose. Also, even if vi is a hacking tool, it would not be very useful, since vi only runs on unix and the majority of sites worth hacking are running on IIS. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Hello? (1.00 / 1) (#461)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 11:56:22 AM PST

	Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Are you guys illiterate? Did you even bother to read what I actually said? Seriously, do you people have "reading difficulties"? For the (third? fourth? time) VI CANNOT BE USED TO "HACK INTO A MACHINE" AND I NEVER SAID IT COULD, YOU MORONIC CRETINS. And have you managed to discern the concept of "sarcasm" yet? What I said was, vi could be used to... oh, sod it. Why bother to repeat something you appear incapable of actually reading? Just read (ask an adult for help, if you like) what I said in the last post. And the post before that. And then go and bang your head up against a brick wall for five to ten minutes until you've got a hole in your brain large enough to accept the concept of a "hacker tool" that is not used to directly "hack into a system". Can you do that? Do you know what a hex editor is? Do you have any concept of what a disassembler is? What about an assembler? Maybe a compiler? They can all be used maliciously by a "hacker" (as can regedit and notepad...). They are all "hacker tools" (oops, there's more sarcasm) which don't use the internet. Jesus, I don't know if I'm surrounded by baiting trolls or moronic cretins. Or possibly moronic cretinous baiting trolls. Layman, he says. I HAVE explained it in laymans terms, I've just not explained it in pre-neanderthal terms. Boy, do I feel dumb for not doing that.

	warez isn't hacking d00d (5.00 / 1) (#462)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 03:20:42 PM PST

	Yes, we know what diassemblers, assmeblers. compilers and regedit are. They are used by warez d00ds to make illegal pirate software for linux, since linux won't run commercial software. They aren't hacking tools, because warez d00ds aren't hackers, much as they pretend to be. Even so, warez d00ds have no use for vi, because it can't be used to crack the protection from software that keeps it from running on non-windows computers. Hackers can't use vi, because as I have said repeatedly, and been ignored, it can't be used to hack. It's as simple as that. vi is just a text editor, which is like a word processor, only not as modern or as useful. vi doesn't even have fonts.

	Christ, I just can't stand it... (5.00 / 1) (#463)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 04:11:05 PM PST

	diassemblers, assmeblers. compilers and regedit.. Yes, I can tell you have such a detailed knowledge that you can't seem to spell two of them. Why aren't I surprised? So, if you use a disassembler you're not a hacker you're a "warez d00d"? A quick question: if you happened be a legitimate researcher using a disassembler to examine a copyright protection measure (and remember, it's not illegal under the DMCA if it's for legitimate research...) ... you're a "warez d00d"? Jesus Christ, I give up with you people. You're either incredibly stupid (a very strong possibility) or just enjoy baiting people. In either case, for the record: go defenestrate yourselves. I'm going to go and do something more productive: sit and stare vacantly at a wall as some paint dries. Here's an idea... while I'm doing that why don't you guys go out and improve your education a bit? Might I suggest "Computers For The Intellectually Challenged"? Get the audio version, that way you'll not need to have somebody read it to you...

	Legitimate research? (5.00 / 1) (#464)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 05:19:31 PM PST

	I'm afraid attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate. Scientists may serve the laws of physics, but they are not above the laws of man. Many warez d00ds claim that what they do is just research to demonstrate how not to do copy protection, but this does not carry any weight with me or the courts of America. If you are not a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank, then you are not doing research, you are breaking the law. If you are a genuine researcher, you probably have more important things to investigate. Copy protection on computer games is not going to advance the field of human knowledge very far. When are you warez d00ds and hackers going to stop rationalizing your crimes in these ridiculously transparent ways? ...if you happened be a legitimate researcher... Obviously you don't know very much about legitimate research, since you can't be bothered to write in coherent sentences. I'm going to go and do something more productive: sit and stare vacantly at a wall as some paint dries. You're going to go and sit and stare? Are you sure english is your first language?

	Oh, I give up. (2.00 / 1) (#467)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 04:16:13 AM PST

	I'm afraid attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate.... but this does not carry any weight with me or the courts of America. What? Who said anything about violating copyright? Oh, unless you're referring to reverse-engineering a copyright protection measure? Well, that's not legally "copyright violation". It is illegal under the DMCA but... The DMCA (you may have heard of it?) explicitly provides legitimate research as an exemption! Don't take my word for it, go look it up. If you are not a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank, then you are not doing research, you are breaking the law. Wait, didn't you just say that attempting to violate copyright is never legitimate? Now you're saying it's OK if you're a researcher at a university or corporate thinktank? When are you warez d00ds and hackers going to stop rationalizing your crimes in these ridiculously transparent ways? I really wouldn't know, since I am neither a "warez d00d" nor a hacker. I am, in fact, an Oracle DBA (that's "Database Administrator" for those who either don't know or can't be bothered to look it up) for a major UK financial institution. Oh, and guess what? I don't use linux, either. I use Unix, MVS, Unisys and NT. All the software I use, both at home and work, is legimately licensed. I am, in other words, a completely legitimate member of the IT industry. Sorry to burst your "He's a warez d00d" bubble. And now I truly am leaving, because this site (which I assumed to be a semi-serious, quasi-humourous, website) appears to be populated entirely by morons. Goodbye, it's been... sickening. Note to Adequacy admins: Stop using Scoop. Seriously. Your users seem to think that any software created by the open-source movement was created by "warez d00ds" or hackers. They'll be wanting to burn you in effigy next :)

	doing things with vi (2.00 / 1) (#452)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 11:18:41 PM PST

	Well, I can't do much of anything with vi, it's a usability nightmare. You can't spell evil without "vi", clear proof of its developer's malicious intent.

	Learn the Facts (none / 0) (#377)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:46:58 PM PST

	Well, as for telnet to be hacking tool, sure why not, anything is right? Don't make unfounded accusations, do you know where telnet comes from? No, not from any hacker site, not from any secret file server for the elite, it is a basic program that comes with windows install. It's uses are wide and varied, and less than 1% of this list of uses is for hacking. Telnet can be used to remote control quake servers, cable companies use it to reset and adjust routers on their networks like road runner, admins use it to reboot servers, http consoles can be brought back online. Telnet was developed, and then later foillowed a messenger service, running by default on windows nt/2k/xp. If you don't like the fact that it is used for hacking 1/100 times, deal with it. As for the person who posted that he stole information by getting the certificate, no he didn't. He simply viewed what is sent to EACH and EVERY person who uses this server, yes, that includes you who are reading this, just go to view source in your web browser. He "stole" nothing, if you think he did, every poster and reader here is responsible for the same, and no one can even look at a singel page on this server without stealing somthing. The kinds of hacker attacks today are mainly denila of service, which would bring this site down before you could type blah and hit post. They can use fat internet pipes and f5 networks with multiple ip's across the net, and cause a server to overload by simply feeding it too much to handle....and it doesn't take a certificate. For those of you who think that he was really trying to hack the website, any kid with copy paste can show you that, because every connection to this server makes it. As for hackers, DOS attacks and simply shutting the server down are not that hard with apache 1.30. It seems that most of the people posting here do not know what they are talking about, or breaking into servers. It is in this sites best intrest to close this topic. This is the kind of topic that attracts real hackers, a challenge to one or many of us is not something a site admin should make.

	Lunx =! Freedom of Speech (5.00 / 1) (#385)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:34:39 PM PST

	It is in this sites best intrest to close this topic. This is the kind of topic that attracts real hackers, a challenge to one or many of us is not something a site admin should make. It is funny how Linux apologists claim how they believe in free speech (i.e. the Free Speech VS. Free Beer debate they have), yet whenever someone posts a review that demonstrates how poorly Linux is when compared to Windows, they not only troll our messageboard and illegally telnet the server, but now they are threatening to hack and destroy this site. Obviously Linux apologists are only pro-free speech when that speeh is focused on how l33t they are. Everybody take note: Linux Is the 21st Century Soviet Union! Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	USC uses telnet. (none / 0) (#411)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:53:59 PM PST

	I would not call USC underfunded, having toured their datacenter. Not everyone wants to pay the Microsoft tax, and the advantage of living in a gasp democracy is that not everyone has to. If telnet works, use telnet.

	telnet is not a cracker tool (none / 0) (#231)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:55:15 PM PST

	telnet was one of the first internet tools ever developed! it was around before web browsers ever existed. telnet was the precursor to just about every internet program everyone on the planet uses. i still use it to get my email when i'm away from home. and now you want to make it illegal?

	Telnet a hacker tool? (none / 0) (#386)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:12:32 PM PST

	>> Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some >> countries, precisely because people like you >> do not have the developed moral sense not to >> use it. In America, the DMCA explicitly >> prohibits the use of circumvention devices, >> such as telnet. Whether or not the act of >> circumvention was easy or difficult does not >> enter into it. If you leave your car unlocked, >> with the keys in the ignition, that does not >> give me the right to steal it, d0000d. Telnet is not a hacker tool. It is used to remotely access a computer from another computer or terminal. (eg. Your lab has a mainframe and several terminals and you access your account on the mainframe from your terminal using telnet). I seriously doubt that telnet has been banned anywhere. Microsoft windows comes with telnet. Just go to your windows directory in a dos box and type "telnet" if you don't believe me. In fact windows comes with all the standard networking tools; telnet, ftp, ping, route, tracert, netstat, and arp. >> You seem to think that actions you take on >> your computer do not affect the outside world. >> Stealing information via computer is just the >> same as stealing in real life. You should have >> thought before doing this, d0000000000d. Sorry, I think I missed something here...what information was stolen again? Anyway, telnet was being used long before the world wide web ever existed on the internet.

	Don't post INSTRUCTIONS for other hackers! (5.00 / 4) (#86)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:33:02 PM PST

	Are you trying to get this entire site shut down by the F.B.I.? If you want to be a 'cracker' (yes, I'm familiar with your '1337 terminology), that's fine. You're only putting yourself at risk. But for you to use this discussion site as a means to re-distribute your cracking methods to others in your gang is woefully irresponsible. All I have to say is that soon enough decent, normal citizens will take notice of the way you abuse your computer privliges and then this kind of thing will be not only illegal, but will be impossible. Since you have shown that the 'honor' system doesn't work, it is time to physically prevent any unlicesned civillian from programming a home computer in ANY WAY. In the mean time, you need to rent yourself a copy of the video Scared Straight and put some serious thought into turning your life around before it's too late and you do find yourself in prison. I would pray for you, but there is no God. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	funnier and funnier ... (none / 0) (#152)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:07:08 PM PST

	what a hoot. I'm currently running Win98 because I can't get my Linux-Mandrake 8.0 to talk to my conexant winmodem at the current time. <cite>But for you to use this discussion site as a means to re-distribute your cracking methods to others in your gang is woefully irresponsible. All I have to say is that soon enough decent, normal citizens will take notice of the way you abuse your computer privliges and then this kind of thing will be not only illegal, but will be impossible. Since you have shown that the 'honor' system doesn't work, it is time to physically prevent any unlicesned civillian from programming a home computer in ANY WAY.</cite> I go up to <ul>V</ul>iew on the menu bar in IE and click on it. I go to Sour<ul>c</ul>e and it asks me do I want to load the source code of this web page in Wordpad because it's too big for Notepad. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear ... a DMCA-circumvention device and it's given away <b>free</b> by those <b><i>All-American Vulture-Capitalist Heroes</i></b> in Redmond, Washington!!! Oh dear oh dear oh dear ... will I have the inadequacy lawyers and the FBI (Feral Instigation Bubbas) beating down my door tomorrow? I click on the Cancel button - I'm quivering in my boots - or is it shaking with laughter? What's your opinion? You can run but you can't hide!!!

	You have made a greivous error (5.00 / 1) (#154)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:14:06 PM PST

	Reverse engineering is not illegal under the DMCA. You are thinking of UCITA, which has not yet been passed, though we are all praying that it will, and soon. As for now, you are quite within your rights to reverse-engineer adequacy.org, provided you use a legitimate HTTP client, that does not violate their TOS. I still think your action is reprehensible. Some of us still value our intellectual property rights, and respect those of others.

	You have made a greivous error. Yes, indeed ... (1.00 / 1) (#165)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:57:59 PM PST

	<cite>As for now, you are quite within your rights to reverse-engineer adequacy.org, provided you use a legitimate HTTP client, that does not violate their TOS.</cite> Puleeze!!! Find me a page on www.microsoft.com that'll tell me either notepad or wordpad are legitimate http clients. And they're in Windows, and Microsoft offers anybody the chance to dissassemble <b>anyone's</b> "Intellectual Property Rights" provided they know how. Let's see, telnet, Internet Explorer, wordpad, what next? Sad, isn't it! Yours in tears of laughter. Have a nice day.

	I can't take it any more! (1.00 / 1) (#142)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:16:11 PM PST

	That's it! I had to post. You people are IDIOTS. MORONS. STUPID. You have no idea what cracking even is! You people don't even know what a script kiddie is! I bet you don't even know what l33t means. He made a legitimate HTTP request of the server. He used the protocol in it's intended manner. You damn, stupid moron! If you don't beleive me, just check the RFCs. Oh wait, you don't know what an RFC is either.... Well, damn, then I guess you'll just have to look it up! I am so sick and tired of you damned lusers(ooh, another word to look up) acting like you know jack shit about computers! YOU HAVE NO BLEEDING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! I get this every damned day. Some idiot espousing on how much he knows about computers and how little I know. Get this, bunky, you haven't got a clue! You people, you stupid people. We work so hard to make the net work and useful and what do WE get? Nothing but this mindless, idiotic tripe! We get disrepect. We get frigging half-wits calling Richard Stallman a pimple-faced kid! Stallman has FORGOTTEN more than any of you will ever hope to know about computers. It's mindblowingly ignorant people like you that figured someday we'd buy everything online. That figured Y2k was gonna destroy the world! That think their damned CD-ROM is a cup-holder! I'm here to tell ya, SHUT UP. Just shut the hell up. Maybe, if you wheren't such a bunch of arrogant little SHITS you'd learn something about computers! To the person who wrote the article which seems to have brought forth commentary from all the stupid people, you SUCK as a journalist. You should hang your head in shame. I feel a great deal of pity and sorrow for those that brought an idiot like you into the world.

	Your comment is entirely false (5.00 / 2) (#198)
	by auntfloyd on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:50:46 AM PST

	He made a legitimate HTTP request of the server. He used the protocol in it's intended manner. You damn, stupid moron! Your argument is entirely false. While Adequacy.Org is not a "techie" website, allow me to indulge you and your fellow "propellorheads". `GET HTTP/1.1` is not a "legitimate HTTP request" according to any Internet standard, and I challenge any "h4xx0r" to prove otherwise. It was, at best, an attempt to crash Adequacy's web-server by sending an illegal command. Ever since the attack by the HardOCP kiddies, we've taken this sort of thing very seriously. -- auntfloyd

	This whole thing has gotten out of hand (1.00 / 1) (#219)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:28:25 AM PST

	It was, at best, an attempt to crash Adequacy's web-server by sending an illegal command. There are two problems with your argument: 1) It was NOT and attempt to crash the server by sending an illegal command; it was a (successful) attempt to find out what server Adequacy.org was running. Why? So he could make a point, not to attack the server. 2) The W3C specification on HTTP/1.1 clearly states that in the event of an unknown request by the client, an Error 400 shall be returned. Apache conforms to this specification by generating an error page. Additionally, if security is such an issue, I would like to point out that the ServerSignature variable is easily modifiable and you can turn it off.

	ServerSignature can be turned off... (1.00 / 1) (#412)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:02:28 PM PST

	But the Server: string in the header will require a modification of the sourcecode. A simple modification, mind you, but obviously beyond the technical grasp of the staff of this site, if the 'evidence' presented herein (disabling netcraft lookups but overlooking the ServerSignature directive; banning 'wget' without realizing that every request, even from a "permitted" browser, can be sniffed on the client at the packet level, etc) is any indication. BTW, IANYAL, but I'm well on my way...

	IE does it (1.00 / 1) (#328)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:44:18 PM PST

	>>GET HTTP/1.1 is not a "legitimate HTTP request" according to any Internet standard, and I challenge any "h4xx0r" to prove otherwise.<< If you check the server logs, you will see that every connection from Internet Explorer sends that request. Without that form, the web server will not respond. That is the initiator of the HTTP protocol.

	You might want to think before you act. (4.50 / 2) (#49)
	by Starship Trooper on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:25:33 PM PST

	As any intelligent person should know, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act expressly prevents hacking attacks such as this. Expect to speak with Adequacy's lawyers shortly. --- A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

	Hmph....... (1.00 / 1) (#126)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:46:11 PM PST

	(comment to self) Guess these guys never open the hood of their cars either, to find out whats under the hood.. And whats this I read that telnet outlawed in various countries?? Can anyone post any proof of this?? FYI- Telnet is also installed on every copy of Windows too.. According to your own statements, you are now in posession of a program that violates the DMCA. Prepare to be arrested..

	LIE! (5.00 / 1) (#131)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:58:21 PM PST

	Telnet is not in windows. I just checked every single menu item, and there was no telnet. You are a liar.

	How to run telnet on Windows (0.00 / 1) (#141)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:15:59 PM PST

	Click on the start menu. Click on run. Type "telnet www.adequacy.org" Click OK. This post protected by ROT26. Because of this, it is protected by DMCA. If you can read this post, you are violating the DMCA.

	I have banned this IP (5.00 / 1) (#149)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:44:52 PM PST

	Posting hacking information on Adequacy is strictly forbidden. This IP has been banned. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	"I have banned this IP" - so you say (1.00 / 1) (#166)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:06:54 AM PST

	<cite>Posting hacking information on Adequacy is strictly forbidden.</cite> And you know what you are talking about. I hope. That must be why your reviewer couldn't get Linux to install - though he was presumably using Win95 to write his article. The which program having telnet installed by default. The problem is that anyone who knows anything about computers knows about telnet and the <ul>V</ul>iew Sour<ul>c</ul>e command in Internet Explorer. They even know about the fact that using telnet exposes you to losing your security because telnet doesn't encrypt anything it sends over the Internet. Unlike SSH and OpenSSH which encrypt it for you. Now which would you prefer to have - knowledge about vulnerabilities that could hurt you, or to remain blissfully ignorant? Didn't Jefferson say the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? And you're decrying it!

	You, sir, are an ill-educated knave (5.00 / 1) (#168)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:28:44 AM PST

	Any scholar worth his salt is well aware that Jefferson said no such thing. The vast number of half-remembered quotations ignominiously attributed to Jefferson by the indolent is a modern embarassment. In themselves, these misquotes amount to nothing more than encapsulated appeals to authority, and should be ignored in polite conversation.

	John Philpot Curran (none / 0) (#413)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:06:18 PM PST

	"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. (John Philpot Curran, Speech on the Right of Election of Lord Mayor of Dublin, 10 July 1790)

	Look a little further (1.00 / 1) (#143)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:17:47 PM PST

	Just because telnet is not plainly visible doesn't mean it isn't there. Try this: Start --> Run --> telnet (enter) Betcha $1M it works ;-)

	LMAO! (0.00 / 1) (#484)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 11:51:03 PM PST

	Bet you feel dumb :p

	Telnet does not equal hacking in any way. (1.00 / 1) (#135)
	by amishjosh on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:09:25 PM PST

	It's not encrypted. DMCA applies to breaking encryption. You people are foolish in your belief that telnet is hacking.

	They ARE much foolish. (IN-adequacy.org) (1.00 / 1) (#469)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:54:07 AM PST

	The DMCA was purchased by a set of corporations to legislate a way of doing business into continued existence. It is unworkable and generally will serve (as earlier anti-encryption legislation did previously) to drive encryption technology and research out of the USA and into more enlightened countries. How you confuse their interests with your own is beyond me. To decide that the DMCA made telnet to a port specific address illegal (I will bet your net admins, if you have any, would consider this a normal and very acceptable method of troubleshooting...) is an amazing piece of self-delusion, worthy of an IQ below 60. Have a great life, each day must be new and exciting to you. Kind of like my dog, but without the redeeming qualities of loyalty and affection.

	Netcraft reporting it OK... (0.00 / 1) (#110)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:20:42 PM PST

	Netcraft shows: The site www.adequacy.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP1 on Solaris

	that's a different site. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
	by em on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:29:10 PM PST

	We're adequacy.org, not com. Anyway, the right search returns "We have been requested not to report on the site www.adequacy.org", because for them to run their scan on our site would be a violation of our Terms of Service, which they are respectful enough to comply with (unlike the criminal in the parent post of this thread). --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	D'oh! (1.00 / 1) (#123)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:38:45 PM PST

	D'oh! ;)

	Oh my god.... (1.00 / 1) (#417)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:21:09 PM PST

	You people are sick.. sick sick... Just becuase my browser doesn't have the ability to show graphics it's illegal? Against your TOS? What if I make IE not display graphics... does that mean that IE is not allowed here then? Sick sick sick... and sad, very sad... Hrmm, lemme use a very legal tool, visualroute and see what it turns up? hrmm, yep apache server, how fun... guess I'm banned huh? LAUGH!

	lol (none / 0) (#563)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 12:06:48 AM PST

	"Anyway, that action specifcially violates our Terms of Service [which you never agreed to]." "If lynx isn't already illegal, then it should be." "So anything that makes use of 'red' is a communist? That makes sense." "Telnet is a hacker tool, banned in some countries.." "Let's see hime get into the system using vi. Oh, he can't. Guess you lost." "Since I've never heard of Tulane, or it's university, it can hardly be considered one of America's top universities, can it?" "If you want to be a 'cracker' (yes, I'm familiar with your '1337 terminology).." "Telnet is not in windows. I just checked every single menu item, and there was no telnet. You are a liar." Too funny. em, I bet Something Awful would be happy to host this site.

	Not Linux, however... (1.00 / 1) (#418)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:33:02 PM PST

	FreeBSD, from the look of things. Note that ALL packets sent from a host arriving AT my client are fair game, and have been sniffed and analyzed. No connection to this server was initiated other than legitimate HTTP traffic generated by a legitimate W3C-compliant web browser, but that every packet being sent FROM 63.89.124.239 in response to said queries carried with them identifiable characteristics.

	Misinformation Galore (2.25 / 4) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:43:03 PM PST

	I truly hope no one takes the above review seriously. There are so many mistakes in it, that it actually caused me physical pain to read through it. I'm going to take a minute to point out mistakes I caught in one read of the article. ...a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. His name is Linus, not Linux. ...including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system... This is backwards. BSD was developed years before Solaris was made. Just take a look at this for an outline of the history of Unix and it's variants. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. You are listing other distributions of Linux. The first two are still under active developement and should not be referred to as "previous versions" when compared to Mandrake. Linux is shareware... Wrong again. Linux is not shareware. It's is software copyrighted with the GPL, which allows for free distribution and gaurantees the right to modify it as you see fit. Notice I said "allows for free distribution", which leads to the next mistake... ...self-styled anti-capitalist hackers. If you had just said this without making it a link to the FSF home page, I wouldn't have had any qualms. I can't argue that there aren't supporters of Linux who happen to be anti-capatalist. I can argue, however, that the FSF is not part of that group. As that page clearly explains, they have absolutely no problem with making money via open source software. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Once again, you failed to research your topic and limited yourself to only one distribution of Linux. There are many distributions of Linux, including Mandrake, Debian, Redhat, Slackware, etc. Each distribution is made by a different group of people, with each group making different design decisions. Mandrake happened to compile their distribution for Pentium and above processors becuase it provides a slight performance gain. Mandrake, however, does not represent Linux as a whole. There distributions which are compiled so that you can use it on a 386, 486, IA-64, Power PC, Alpha and more. Just from that list alone, it's obvious that Linux provides a lot more flexibility than Windows ever has. ...why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Because it is owned and developed by Microsoft. If Microsoft does not port it to Linux, it is not the fault of Linux developers. The fact that you even posed this question proves beyond a doubt that you know next to nothing about software developement. You complain that Linux does not adhere to open standards! This has got to be a joke. Linux is nothing but open. Head over to kernel.org and help yourself to the Linux kernel. For free, you are able to peruse the heart of this operating system and you can use it however you like (as long as you don't deny that right to others). What more can you ask for? You go on to list other proprietary software that doesn't run in Linux with the same exasperation. Once again, I point out to you that that software is owned and developed solely by their respective companies. If the companies do not decide to support Linux, the companies are at fault. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. You prove once again that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Firewall capabilities are built into Linux at the kernel level. That means, no matter what distribution you decide on, you will be able to filter network access in and out of your computer to your hearts content. And there are frontends to the filtering system that allow you to setup a firewall with the braindead ease you seem to require. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Thank you for putting the final nail into your own coffin. You freely admit that you never even tried out the software you are supposedly "reviewing". I couldn't imagine holding myself to such low standards, and it makes me shudder that you do. Especially while trying to inform people about something you are so blatently ignorant of. As you can see, this article is way off base. I'm not arguing that Linux is taking over or that Microsoft is controlled by Satan or anything of that sort. The only thing I wanted to say was that this article is wrong. Obviously so. Painfully so. In the computing world today, Linux fills a small niche. I don't even use it exclusively. I use it as router and server on my home network. On my desktop computer I use Windows 2000. Both OS'es fulfill the role I assign to them. If you don't want to take the time to become familiar with Linux, that's fine. Just please don't stand up on a pedestal and denounce something which you know nothing about. If any of you would like to know more about the Linux operating system, I would highly recommend that you find a credible source of information on the topic. Feel free to email me if you would like to find out a bit more. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Please see a doctor. For your own good. (4.33 / 3) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:55:09 PM PST

	I truly hope no one takes the above review seriously. There are so many mistakes in it, that it actually caused me physical pain to read through it. If a disfavorable review of an operating system you have a manic inclination for really causes you physical pain, I think you should consult a doctor. Specifically, a psychiatrist. I can't argue that there aren't supporters of Linux who happen to be anti-capatalist. I can argue, however, that the FSF is not part of that group. As that page clearly explains, they have absolutely no problem with making money via open source software. Well, Linux is much used in China and Cuba, which proves your first point. However, your second point is like saying "these guys don't oppose swimming, but they advocate prohibiting beaches, ponds and rivers." Saying that you don't oppose selling software, while at the same time demanding that all software be free, is simply a contradiction.

	Sigh. (2.00 / 2) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:09:38 PM PST

	If you read the whole post, the end clearly shows I do not have manic inclination for Linux. It caused me physical pain becuase of the article blatent disregard for facts. However, your second point is like saying "these guys don't oppose swimming, but they advocate prohibiting beaches, ponds and rivers." Saying that you don't oppose selling software, while at the same time demanding that all software be free, is simply a contradiction. Ignorance knows no end. Please read that link I posted before you respond. Yes, they prefer free software. But not free as in price. Free as in what you are able to with it. It's all explained on the page, so read it before you respond. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	strawman. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:25:07 PM PST

	If you read the whole post, the end clearly shows I do not have manic inclination for Linux. It caused me physical pain becuase of the article blatent disregard for facts. Whatever the cause, if you suffer from actual physical pain when you perceive something as a "blatent [sic] disregard for facts," you do need to see a doctor. Soon. Please read that link I posted before you respond. I read it before I responded. Your accusation only reveals your deceptive character. Yes, they prefer free software. But not free as in price. Free as in what you are able to with it. It's all explained on the page, so read it before you respond. My argument was addressed to the content of the page you link, not the strawman you attribute to me. Please don't use rhetorical tricks to avoid a most serious argument.

	Here's your explanation (1.00 / 1) (#200)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:38:34 AM PST

	I'll refrain from making use of exaggeration again (the "actual physical pain" bit was the only time I used it in the original post. I was completely serious about everything else.) Also, I'll get my medical advice elsewhere, but thanks for the recommendation. Regarding the FSF, let me first say that I am in no way an official representative of them or their ideas. However, using the information presented on the page and expanding upon your analogy, I will try to clear this up. The FSF is calling for developers to free their software in the sense that users of the software are given maximum flexibility in how they use it. They want people (users) to be free to swim. They are definitely not asking to outlaw swimming pools (software). The FSF fully supports owners of swimming pools providing and charging for access to the pool (This is where capatilism is kept intact, which directly contradicts the anti-capatalist reference made in the original article). The request that the FSF makes is that the swimming pool owner should not keep secret how they run the pool. The swimmers should be kept aware about when it's open, when a lifeguard is on duty, that the pool is properly treated with chlorine, etc. etc. (This is the equivalent to the source of the software). Please remember, this is only an analogy. I only used it becuase you introduced it and it also happened to explain the situation pretty well after thinking about it. I'm not trying to use "rhetorical tricks" to avoid arguments. I seriously thought the above was readily apparent from the web page I linked to. Regardless of the FSF point, my original posts main point still stands. The "review" that was posted to this site was horrible. The reviewer had no idea what he was talking about and even admitted so himself when he stated he never installed the software in the first place. Once again, if anybody takes that review seriously, I'm sorry for them becuase they have been grossly misinformed. One last point, don't resort to calling me an open source fanatic. That's what most posters on here seem to be doing with everybody who is criticizing this article. When I first started reading this article I expected it to be a negative review. I didn't, however, expect it to be so obviously inaccurate. That's why I made that post in the first place, becuase the article is just wrong. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	FSF's PR Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#297)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:23:26 AM PST

	I'll ignore your attempts to change the subject to swimming pools and focus on the facts: They might not be outlawing the selling of free software, but they are indeed against it in the fact that their license states that even if you do try to sell your software, anybody else can give it away for free. The FSF only claim not to be against capitalism for PR. If you thought it was a negative view without him installing, then you would've just loathed the review if he installed it. I sadly did, and it turns out that the new version of Linux is as buggy as Netscape 6. It even messed up partitions beyond my F drive! They might be free, but I'm sticking to stable ol' Windows and Internet Explorer. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	...this is like screaming at a wall... (1.00 / 1) (#302)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:45:52 PM PST

	I wasn't trying to change the subjuct. I was using an analogy to illustrate my point. An analogy introduced by a previous post by another user. So your first sentence is wrong. You say that they are inherently against capatalism because the GPL insures freedom of use and distribution. Wrong again. There are companies that distribute free software, it just involves a different business model. The said company is supported by the FSF. The FSF supports capatilism, they're just calling for software developers to implement a different business model. Therefore, your second and third sentences are wrong. You then go on to say I would have loathed the review had he actually isntalled the software. That isn't the case. I was expecting a negative review. I openly admit, Linux is not ready for the average consumer's desktop. I wasn't expecting a completely misinformed mess posing as a review. Had the reviewer actually taken the time to get his facts straight, I would have enjoyed the review. So, your third sentence is also wrong. The last bit I cannot contest. You're actually sticking to something you know about, your experiences with Linux. It's true, if you don't install the OS correctly, you do risk corrupting your partitions. I'm sorry that happened to you. If you ever decide to try installing another OS again, I recommend you read all the pertinent documenation. There are numerous resources for help on getting partitions setup correctly for a Linux install. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	Hear Hear (2.00 / 1) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:14:43 PM PST

	Indeed... I read that article in total shock and amazement. I happen to use both linux AND Windows, side by side, daily. Both have their ups and downs...as a professional systems administrator AND systems programmer, I've written software for both systems, and in fact, have written software that's capable of running on BOTH platforms unmodified (thanks to the good offices of such multi-platform languages as perl, PHP, Java, Ruby, Python, and Gnu C/C++ (most of which happen to be open-source)). I have to say, that as a PROFESSIONAL programmer (11+ years of experience at that) that the above article was one that revealed a complete and total lack of research, and an absolute deficit of any knowledge whatsoever concerning how software is produced. I find it interesting that a person would say "But it doesn't run IE!". Sure it doesn't. Microsoft would rather commit ritual suicide than produce a version of IE to run on Linux...and there are some very good TECHNICAL reasons why IE won't be seen on linux as well. I could explain all about API differences, libraries, etc, but I would be wasting my time. Instead, I might point out that the humble reviewer, instead of crowing about his "bug finding prowess", might INSTEAD consider the very simple fact that he's completely ignorant of his subject. nuff said.

	Is this dufus for real? (1.33 / 3) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:00:20 PM PST

	If this dufus is an example of what is coming out of our higher education system, we are in a heap of trouble folks.

	Pardon me .. (4.33 / 3) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:39:41 PM PST

	.. for not taking seriously somebody who cannot correctly spell "doofus."

	Not so fast there, Mr. Language Person! (4.66 / 3) (#66)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:07:12 PM PST

	According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, "dufus" is a known variant of "doofus." I'm not really sure what standard I would apply to claim that "dufus" is not the correct spelling. While neither my unabridged Webster's, nor my Oxford Dictionary of Slang list the word at all, the aforementioned Dictionary of American Slang offers both spellings, as well as "duffus." While my source insists that the word is not of Yiddish origin, it can only offer comparisons with "goofus" and "doof" (Scot.) for clues to this interesting word's history. So. What can you do? If you think "dufus" feels more right to you than "doofus", then "dufus" it is! Or why not try "duffus" for a while and see if that suits you better? There are no clear-cut answers to this problem, I'm afraid. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Grossly inaccurate (5.00 / 4) (#44)
	by sdem on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:19:46 PM PST

	OK, overall, I appreciate the detail into which your article delves. But I have to take issue with some of the facts as you present them. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux. This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS, which is Sun Microsystem's standard operating system on their mid to high-range servers currently. Obviously, with an operating system this powerful out on the web, Linux won't be able to compete for long. Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. This in and of itself ought to be a black mark against Linux. After all, how many Windows computers do you see with a manual? None, because it doesn't need to come with one. When you can say the same of a Linux distro, come back and tell me all about it. After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality. If that's true, then how come there are a bunch of computers out there with MacOS installed? Why would they remove Windows, anyway? Perhaps you should re-examine the facts before you write your next story.

	More things wrong (2.00 / 2) (#170)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:03:14 AM PST

	<<This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS, which is Sun Microsystem's standard operating system on their mid to high-range servers currently. Obviously, with an operating system this powerful out on the web, Linux won't be able to compete for long.>> Actually, the BSDs are based off the original UNIX which the University of California at Berkely were the first to play with the original UNIX code. The BSDs were actually based on Unix 4.4 <<Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.>> Previous!?! What the hell do you mean PREVIOUS!?! These are names of CURRENT distributions. Distribution Company --------------------------- Mandrake Linux MacMillan Red Hat Linux Red Hat OpenLinux Caldera Also, Red Hat 7.2 will be more highly welcomed because Red Hat is a multi-BILLION dollar company that has done much for the advancement of Linux. It's also the most popular distro. <<The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.>> So I guess that means the guys at Industrial Light and Magic and Pixar are all college students and anti-capitalist hackers? They run Linux on the graphic rendering servers. << was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux!>> Maybe you should have downloaded the right ISOs then shouldn't you have? <<It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux.>> Kinda like how you can't take programs from any other OS and run them on Windows? Why don't you try running some Mac software under Windows. <<Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.>> Obviously you have never read the halloween documents where MS stated that Open Source Software and Linux software were just as good if not BETTER than their stuff. Note: MS confessed to the authenticity of these documents. <<The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.>> First off Windows took much longer than 10 years. Microsoft was WELL funded by many other companies from BASIC (Altair) to DOS (which was just a recoded QDOS which was a sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M-86) to Windows NT (which "borrows" much of its code from OS/2) all the way to XP which uses the NT kernel. Second I point you back to the halloween docs. Third, Linux was started by one man back in 1991 with version 0.01 and didn't become 1.0 until awhile later. Linux is a kernel. Using to make a OS didn't come until later still. And for a kernel that's now only at version 2.4.10 (DO NOT confuse this with 8.1 or 7.2) the Linux kernel hasn't done too damn bad.

	My god this is soooo funny (0.66 / 3) (#312)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:55:07 PM PST

	Ok, i know this site is mostly a joke, in a sense. and some people realize that (or not) and posted major mistakes about the article. well, one reader is being a serious troll, or a serious dumbass. And i since im bored, i thought i'd correct his mistakes :) "First off Windows took much longer than 10 years. Microsoft was WELL funded by many other companies from BASIC (Altair) to DOS (which was just a recoded QDOS which was a sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M-86) to Windows NT (which "borrows" much of its code from OS/2) all the way to XP which uses the NT kernel. " Windows, the operating SHELL was first developed by Microsoft in the middle of 84. the first real full release of Windows (windows 3.0) was in 85,86 or around there. Note that this is still a shell. it REQUIRES DOS to start and operate within (Exactly how X is on Linux/Unix). Now, the first Windows Operating system was WIndows 95. which came out in what, 96 ? second. DOS was not recoded QDOS which was a backwards engineered CPM/-86 or whatever. Marketing genius bill gates sold(licensed) IBM an operating system for their new computer (The PS/2) for 50,000$. the problem was that the only thing they had was a friend who was hacking his own operating system in seattle. it was NOT a hacked/backwards engineered port of CPM. it was a from scratch Command Line OS. Gates bought the source from the guy outright for 50k. and DOS was born. third, Altair, or ANY OTHER company has EVER given funds to Microsoft. BASIC is a programming language that Bill Gates and Paul Allen coded for the Altair Personal Computer (which was sold as a project kit in an electronics cataloge that i used to subscribe to). Alllllllllllllllll of microsofts money is from either selling stock or selling software. they have no accounts payable, they have no money that is owed to people. they have no debts. fourth. IBM and Microsoft teamed up together for about 3 years and worked on a project called, OS/2. They both wanted different directions so they abondoned the project, but both kept the source code to OS/2. IBM developed it its own way, and Microsoft theres. there are very few things different, other than NT 3.5 was marketed better than IBM did with OS/2, and the GUI interface. The Windows XP operating system is the first REAL, TRUE 32-bit Home multimedia enhanced operating system from Microsoft. Windows 95,98,98se, ME where all built around the old 16 bit DOS kernel. This is to maintain compatibility with ANY old hardware/software. Them throwing the 16 bit layer out breaks any of those old apps in windows 2000/XP, but i think no one cares one they realize how much stabiler/faster true,full 32bit kernels are. oh ya, Redhat is NOT a multi-billion dollar company. they barely turned a measly 600k profit after 5 full years in business. if you look at their stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT&d=t), you'll see that they're only worth about 3.50 a share (10/2/2001) major money there. :) ok, im done :)

	My god this is soooo funny (1.00 / 1) (#334)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:01:15 AM PST

	<<<Windows, the operating SHELL was first developed by Microsoft in the middle of 84. the first real full release of Windows (windows 3.0) was in 85,86 or around there. Note that this is still a shell. it REQUIRES DOS to start and operate within (Exactly how X is on Linux/Unix). Check your dates, Windows 3.0 wasn't available until early 90's. <<<Now, the first Windows Operating system was WIndows 95. which came out in what, 96 ? Wrong again.. Windows95 is a shell, just as Windows 3.0. Notice the MS Dos v7.0 which boots? <<<Alllllllllllllllll of microsofts money is from either selling stock or selling software. they have no accounts payable, they have no money that is owed to people. they have no debts. Wrong again... Microsoft contracts most of the programming out to various companies. They owe plenty people plenty of money. Not to mention, if you want my opinion, they owe anyone who's ever had an original idea some gratitude for their success. <<<third, Altair, or ANY OTHER company has EVER given funds to Microsoft. BASIC is a programming language that Bill Gates and Paul Allen coded for the Altair Personal Computer (which was sold as a project kit in an electronics cataloge that i used to subscribe to). I don't know if this is fact or fiction, but I'm guessing bill gates couldn't code his way out of a slot machine. <<<Windows 95,98,98se, ME where all built around the old 16 bit DOS kernel. This is to maintain compatibility with ANY old hardware/software. Go take a nap. Microsoft doesn't care about hardware issues. Windows9x kernel was coded by a completely different set of people, built around Multi-Media.. While it is true that Windows9x kernel had good support for old hardware, stating that it's only purpose of being 16 bit because of the hardware is just plain foolish. <<<oh ya, Redhat is NOT a multi-billion dollar company. they barely turned a measly 600k profit after 5 full years in business. if you look at their stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT&d=t), you'll see that they're only worth about 3.50 a share (10/2/2001) Since when do you have to show a profit to be a multi billion dollar company?

	You're an MCSE? (1.00 / 1) (#185)
	by pseudoanonym on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:46:34 AM PST

	This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS... Oh, I see, you're an MCSE, and that immediately makes you an expert on Unix. From www.freebsd.org: The FreeBSD project had its genesis in the early part of 1993, partially as an outgrowth of the ``Unofficial 386BSD Patchkit'' by the patchkit's last 3 coordinators: Nate Williams, Rod Grimes and myself. No mention of Solaris, I'm afraid.

	You fucking stupid unix weenies (4.33 / 6) (#192)
	by dmg on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 06:40:30 AM PST

	Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs ? Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ? Could it be jealousy that Microsoft 0wns the desktop, and soon the server room too ? This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place. You Unix elitists have brought this failure upon yourselves, but refuse to learn your lesson. Until you come down from your high-horses and start providing solutions, instead of half-baked pearl scripts, you will be forever marginalised. Microsoft OWNS you. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Got proof? (5.00 / 2) (#221)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:53:31 AM PST

	Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs ? Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ? According to ComputerJobs.com's 2000 Salary Survey, MCSEs make the least full-time salary at $42K / yr. On Monster.com's Tech Salary Guide a UNIX administrator makes almost $62K / yr. Could it be jealousy that Microsoft 0wns the desktop, and soon the server room too ? If you read the latest Netcraft Survey you would see that Microsoft, while having a significant majority of physical computers running web servers, still lags far behind Apache in the number of domains. It is also interesting to note that the Gartner Group released an Advisory warning against using IIS for security reasons. This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place. On the contrary, business already use UNIX in a wide variety of mission-critical applications. Chances are, your ISP uses a some flavor of UNIX. Sun Solaris is still used by a large number of businesses for their computing needs. Microsoft OWNS you. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft owns you, Mr MCSE.

	Oops (none / 0) (#223)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:02:07 PM PST

	Made some HTML errors. Here's the correct links: Salary Survey Salary Guide Netcraft Survey Gartner Advisory Mission Critical Applications

	I'm a MCP - Microsoft Corporate Pussy (1.00 / 1) (#276)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:44:17 AM PST

	Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft owns you, Mr MCSE Thats telling them!

	ahem its not l33t thank you! (0.00 / 1) (#264)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:12:38 AM PST

	HEY, its not l33t! if j00 4r3 a 1337 MC53 7h3n j00 5h0u1d b3 1337 700!!!

	grin (0.00 / 1) (#267)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:24:50 AM PST

	You provided the best laugh I've had all week :-) Thnx

	Yeah, so I'm unix weenie (1.00 / 1) (#283)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:29:46 AM PST

	Ok, so usually I let this sort of thing roll off my back....but your really torched it when you even MISSPELLED the frigging name of the language. Its PERL you twit. Let me see if I can't dissect this little treatise one mindless comment at a time <Why are you all so jealous of MCSEs?> Uhhh....if I wanted an MCSE I would have majored in CIS and not Computer Science. But I guess someone has to dig the digital ditches. <Could it be because we make more $$$s than you ?> Heh, not likeley. Ditch digging only feels like it pays more because everyone else feels pretty bad for you, average starting pay for a perl coder in the right environment is usually about 60,000 to start. <This MCSE bashing is part of the Unix 'I'm so fucking 133t' that caused businesses to reject it in the first place.> Hehe, you don't read the news do ya? I just delivered a full featured cXML business system written in perl on Linux that cost 1/5th the amount of a commercial solution, I got paid twice as much and still came in under that figure, its 10 times faster than Trading Networks, and if they don't like me, they can hire someone else to work on the codebase. I don't know any business that would pass that up given the present state of the economy. Businesses only rejeced the *NIX solutions because they needed a multi-thousand dollar server to run the OS on. The cxml system I wrote operates at full speed on a P-133. And yes, we are so fucking 133t. I've loved watching the tech economy fall from all angles. Almost every single MCSE I know is scrambling to find another job right now, but I and all of my Open-Source friends have more work than we can shake a stick at. Know why? Because we don't tie the client down to anything. Because I don't have to preface what I sell with:"well this will work if we buy this $10,000 package from MicroSoft first". Here's a nickel kid, go buy a real operating system

	In your dreams (5.00 / 1) (#285)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:49:27 AM PST

	The average pay for a Perl coder may have been that high during the late nineties, but since the dot-com crash has given personnel departments the excuse they needed to clean out the dead wood and management the chance to cut wages, Perl coders can't expect half that much. It's unlikely that they will ever see that kind of money again, unless they go back to school and learn java. JSP and ASP are fast squeezing out Perl on the server, due to superior design and functionality, and jobs for Perl coders are becoming increasingly rare. And it's spelt Perl, by the way. It is never spelt in all caps.

	In your dreams (none / 0) (#336)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:13:58 AM PST

	<<<<< The average pay for a Perl coder may have been that high during the late nineties, but since the dot-com crash has given personnel departments the excuse they needed to clean out the dead wood and management the chance to cut wages, Perl coders can't expect half that much. It's unlikely that they will ever see that kind of money again, unless they go back to school and learn java. JSP and ASP are fast squeezing out Perl on the server, due to superior design and functionality, and jobs for Perl coders are becoming increasingly rare. <<<<<<And it's spelt Perl, by the way. It is never spelt in all caps. Whoa, wait a minute Microsoft boi.. Do some research on Java. You'll find it to be incredibly(sp) slow. Not to mention.. It was designed to work platform independant. ASP? I'll pass. That's just as slow as Java. Now, throw some PHP code on an Apache webserver on your favorite flavor/distro of Linux or even some of the latest Solaris.. and you'll be set.

	I believe you'll find it is Perl that is slow (none / 0) (#340)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:51:53 AM PST

	JSP is quite well known for being fast "straight out of the box". To get equivalent performance out of Perl requires considerable tweaking, particularly if you are using mod_perl. Perl is a memory hog. Java is currently equalling C in speed of execution for many types of program. Take your uninformed Perl zealotry elsewhere. You are not dealing with ignorant slashbots here, and your fabrications will be exposed.

	Re: I believe you'll find it is Perl that is slow (none / 0) (#409)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:21:18 PM PST

	Been reading the Sun marketing stuff again eh? When was the last time you did a benchmark? Ok, sure java is pretty good on the back end, not too slow, but not too fast either (unless you jit). However, java has it's place and it's limitations. Ever try building a cross platform gui app with it? Not just a wizard or applet but a real app? I think you'll find that swing is a dog and it's API isn't that great. Now, perl may not be the fastest thing on the planet, it's interpreted after all, but it talks to almost every database and api around. It has it's place after all; and the performance and memory savings are largely in the coding. I've seen java programs that were slower and more memory intensive than their perl counterparts and vice versa. C'mon people let's be realistic. Like you point out, this isn't slashdot (but it that article on mandrake is any indication, it's worse).

	Wrong again. (none / 0) (#422)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:25:26 PM PST

	Try actually learning about things before you make up lies. Perl doesn't save memory, it wastes memory. You should see how slash eats memory, for instance. Besides that, you haven't offered me a single advantage over Java there, since Java also talks to every database on the planet, and through a cleaner API, to boot. Have you ever tried writing a cross-platform GUI app in Perl? How's Perl's 3D api working? Can you use Perl for OpenGL? You're final statement is the funniest. We've gone from "Java is crap, use Perl" to "they are about as good as eah other, for different things." I presume that we will soon be reaching the acceptance that Perl is obselete.

	wrong? (none / 0) (#498)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:50:26 AM PST

	Actually Perl and PHP can both do opengl... http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpopengl/ http://web.cs.ualberta.ca/~melax/perl/tutorial.html

	MCSE=incompetant (1.00 / 1) (#300)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:21:18 AM PST

	Microsoft OWNS everything! Why do you suppose that is? Because they possess a superior product? Quite the contrary. They possess the marketing power and support to force their product on the masses. "Why are we jealous of MCSE's? Because $?", obviously the comments of an incompetent MS drone. Take a look @ Unix Adminstration. You will find much more $ available for you. Oh yea, that's right you are an MCSE you're special. Dumbass. Please keep using Win, you are clearly not deserving of a man's OS. After all...without win, however would your wife vrate birthday cards?

	The Penguin kicked your LILLY ASS!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#318)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:53:39 PM PST

	It is interesting to witness the MCSE VS Unix thing.I think it is apparent that what we have with the MCSEs is a case of pure technological jealousy...that coupled with the fear of wasted time and money spent on a "MCSE based education." Unix has been around long before Bill Gates ever had his first ejaculation...alright. Maybe not quite that long. But a long time. It is a far superior OS. It is legendary in statute that has been trusted by many for a long time. I have used EVERY MS based OS that has come out since 1985...with the exception of Windows XP, which I will NOT bother with. NONE compares with the sheer power of Unix/Linux based OSs. NONE. The author of this article is more than entitled to his views. But it certainly would be nice to have somebody cover this subject that had a remote clue of what he was talking about (which this person clearly does not). Fact of the matter is, MS wants very much to obtain the share of the mission critical market, and what I find delight in is the fact that XP will again fail to accomplish this goal. So sorry little MSCEs. You will never know the true fruit of true mission critical applications.

	Every MS based OS? (1.00 / 1) (#320)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:39:54 PM PST

	How was xenix? Good? Crap?

	Xenix is still around; Caldera sells it (none / 0) (#528)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:19:15 AM PST

	How was xenix? Good? Crap? Microsoft never pushed XENIX because the company didn't want to "build a long-term strategy around an operating system they'd have to pay royalties to AT&T for" (source). XENIX is still around; it's changed hands and names several times, from "XENIX" to "SCO UnixWare" and now Open UNIX® 8. Caldera positions Open UNIX 8 as a server OS that can also run Linux binaries. -- Pinocchio pinocchio © pineight * 8m * com

	MCSE (1.00 / 1) (#367)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:10:48 PM PST

	MCSE = Must Consult Someone Experienced and yes... Money is everything... You try getting along with out it for a while. The other 2 were very true points.

	Value of MCSE(?) (1.00 / 1) (#398)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:22:42 AM PST

	First of all MCSE's are commodity items. If you leave, then you are easily replaced. Good for the business, bad for you. Secondly, how long will you be an MCSE? Is not Microsoft going to pull your ticket if you don't recertify for Win/2000 by year end? So MCSE's are in Microsoft's upgrade treadmill as well. I know that my skills as a Unix sysadmin are transferable to machines large (IBM S390 under Linux) and small (Linux, Free/Net/OpenBSD, Solaris, [need I go on?]) Also, there are fewer of my type than yours, so I am less of a commodity (so far). Have an nice day :-)

	You fucking stupid unix weenies (1.00 / 1) (#335)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:04:00 AM PST

	A.) Money isn't everything. B.) Most UNIX admins make twice that of an MSCE. C.) If it wasn't for UNIX, your windows wouldn't exist.

	Why would anyone be jealous of an MCSE? (1.00 / 1) (#378)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 07:17:27 PM PST

	I've yet to meet an MCSE who knew a damned thing about system administration. This supposed MCSE poster clearly knows nothing about Unix, which comes as no shock. He likely knows nothing about windows either. Oh, wait. He probably knows how to get a DOS prompt and type in it, which is doing a bit better than the rest of windows-users. Yes, if he's employed (and if he is, for how much longer being such an obvious imbecile), he prolly is making more than me, but at least I'm not some swill-spewing self-righteous idiot. And not being one of those is worth more than $10/hour....

	what!? (3.00 / 2) (#188)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:40:14 AM PST

	"...This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE)..." MCSE? HAHAHAHAHA!

	A rebuttal to the article by Peter T. Breuer (5.00 / 1) (#332)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:56:48 AM PST

	[from alt.os.linux.mandrake] --- Good evening I'll make a few comments on your review at: 'http://www.adequacy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/9/30/83943/2736' I'm sure you know by now that you've got the wrong end of the stick. But I'll go through the article and see if I can provide the perspective that might be missing. I don't have an axe to grind - I don't use mandrake and won't use mandrake, since I'm not interested in that kind of frilly stuff, but I may be able to point out what it is you've figured wrong. The article is really quite funny, by the way! It's like seeing an aboriginal tribesman reviewing a mobile telephone, and telling all his friends that it makes an absolutely terrible drumstick! se of the latest and greatest version of the Linux operating system, Linux Mandrake 8.1. Although älternative" operating systems are not usually of interest to Adequacy's readership, who prefer to trust us Mandrake is NOT a version of linux. Linux is a unix kernel: "linus' unix". Mandrake is an operating system that uses the linux kernel and adds its own user and system applications to provide what we normally think of as the system. Mandrake is commonly called a "distribution" of linux. There are many such distributions - all more or less incompatible with each other, just as there are many distributions of windows (windows me, windows 2000, windows 98, windows 3.1, windows NT, windows whatever ..., I'm not an expert on windows distros). Each distro will have its distinct target audience/market, just like the windows distros. Of the commercially motivated linux-based distros, mandrake is one which originally based itself on redhat (I think redhat is up to version 7.1 or 7.2 nowadays) round about version 5 or 6. They added some user-friendly frills which I don't like at all. I don't like redhat either. Mandrake like to number themselves about 1 more than the corresponding redhat release number, I suppose for commercial reasons. Oh .. and mandrake's original gimmick was that it was "compiled for pentium" - a nonsense statement in itself, but many suckers for technobabble like to buy it. It fact the code alignments they performed might amount to a couple of percent performance improvement over being compiled with more generic optimizations, but nobody runs a pentium nowadays - we run i686 or better - so it was just "washes whiter" adspeak. Perhaps that'll orient you a bit. Oh - and mandrakes pentium optimizations were sufficiently light that it shouldn't actually stop you booting on a 486. At least, that certainly was the case in earlier versions of mandrake, but of course I don't know how their kernel is compiled nowadays. They do have an i486 compilation available. For the release of Linux Mandrake 8.1, aggressively timed to coincide with that of Microsoft's much vaunted Windows XP, marks the start of I don't think it's timed for that, but what would I know? I imagine it's timed to beat redhat to the next punch. Considering the enormous significance of this release, I don't see any significance in it at all! 8.1 is not a big step up over 8.0. It should, according to the version numbering, be just a patch release, although many people seem to be complaining that it indroduces more bugs than it fixes. That's not surprising if what I hear is true: they're a small operation, with a QA team of one or two. redhat has at least 25, and they make bigger and better fubars too! The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Fail. Linus (note the s) published his kernel, and it was taken up by a cast of hundreds of programmers who transformed it into the basis of an o/s. Many such o/s's were put together, notably by sls, slackware, redhat, and others. The whole point of linux is that it is NOT the work of any one man or group. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solar Again, hilariously wrong. The BSDs (openbsd, freebsd, netbsd ..) are the descendents of the original unix kernel and o/s philosophies. Sun's original offerings were based on BSD unix, not the other way round! Sun later helped develop system V unix, a radical departure and fork, and later those unix forks merged together again in Suns solaris system, while other unix os'es such as irix (sgi) or aix (ibm) pursued their own lines. Linux was originally BSD-like, because a lot of the system utility codes came from there, being open code, but has grown more system-V like since. And these are not "alternatives to windows"; no, windows is a (poor) alternative to them, historically - windows has been the poor mans choice, because the other systems either required lots of money or lots of knowhow. I mean, when a Sun machine landed in my office in 1986, I put it together and got it all going and started using it without any trouble, but when the engineers came round a few weeks later, they told me that they were supposed to do that, because it didn't come with instructions, and I was the first person to manage it in the UK at least. Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark co No it isn't. Wrong. These aren't versions of linux. They're each their own commercial operation, and their names are the names of their own company. Each is a distinct operating system. There is no relation between them apart from the fact that each is based on the linux kernel, and each has access to the same sources, so they can all build variants of the same applications and system stuff, if they wish. But we know that by now, eh? My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers. Well, thanks for trying to make a literary story out of it, but no, each distro costs money if you buy it. It's the code that not only MUST be freely available, by licencing, but also IS freely available, and that's what you are downloading as a minimum. On top of that, each distro makes its boot isos available (I've never installed by iso, I prefer to use the net), hmm .. much as BG's enterprise tacitly welcomes the copying and piracy of their supposedly costly product. When was the last time you paid directly for windows? You didn't. documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 That's their major selling point! It's what their advertising guys dreamed up to make them MORE ATTRACTIVE over the other distros. It's just advert, of course. They have a 486 version. Go and download the OTHER iso image. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux Wrong. Substitute "mandrake" for linux, and you may be nearer the mark. Of course, let's not mention this to my ibm thinkpad 500, a 486sx50 with 8MB of ram on which I have run linux since forever. Perhaps we shouldn't believe what we read, or at least realize the context of what we are reading! And I would have imagined that 64MB and at least a P200 was the minimum sensible requirement for mandrake. It's reputedly a frilly, topheavy distro that needs a lot of gasoline. many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best Well, apart form the lawsuit from microsoft that would result, there's the little matter that microsoft haven't made the code available for their NONstandard browser (see the findings of fact in the case won by the DOJ), so nobody can recompile it or port it to linux. Isn't this a bit of a tyro's mistake? Besides that, their code probably requires windows support libraries! Well, if you really wanted to you could run Internet Exploder under a windows emulator in linux, but why oh why? efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators Errm. Have you received the letter from the IETF yet? They were formed originally with people from netscape on! You are severely misinformed if you think that microsofts offering is the result of and favoured son of the IETF. That's as inverted a view of reality as I have heard. Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. T It wouldn't surprise me at all! Why would you expect them to? Surely you don't expect a chinese bestseller to go be comprehensible to the inhabitants of birmingham, or diesel to work in a petrol car? Whyt then do you expect codes written and comipled for a winodws o/s (which?) to work on solaris, irix, aix, linux, macos, netbsd, openbsd, ... blah blah??? Sure, you can run them in a windows emulator inside linux, if that's what turns you on. Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to This is embarrassingly ignorant. Viruses can only target windows based o/s's, essentially because of their lack of build in security. There is no such thing as a virus for unix based o/s's. It's a meaningless concept. What would a virus do? The best one could hope for is a trojan that some ignorant user could be persuaded to run and which might hurt his own files. By definition it couldn't hurt anyone else's or the system's files. The things that are of concern in the unix world are known as cracks and worms. The combination of the two can be dangerous. But viruses! No. Hacks, cracks and worms, yes. That's what bugtraq and cert are for - to issue warnings of such things and ensure that the cure is published. Occasionally there are real concerns. is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne The linux kernel is a firewall. You don't need additional software. Mandrake comes with several fancy frilly userspace tools to configure it. The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the c Hilarious. Peter T. Breuer Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

	firewalls (5.00 / 1) (#339)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:47:33 AM PST

	Actually, contrary to the beliefs of every teenage linux enthusiast with a poor grasp of security and a passion for fiddling with things best left untouched, linux is not a firewall. A true firewall requires at least two routers, one inside, one outside, surrounding a bastion host, and perhaps some additional machines. Linux is at best an IP-filtering proxy, but this usage of linux should not be encouraged, as it serves only to give the incompetent a false sense of safety.

	uhm no (none / 0) (#342)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 04:37:35 AM PST

	Actually, linux does have an inside/outside configuration. You have input and output chains, which you can define for each network interface. In the middle of these is the forward chain, which forwards packets between input and output. Disable the forward and no traffic goes from one network interface to the other. I have a linux firewall in my home, with two network cards. Internet traffic moves in on one card, and only approved traffic goes to the other network card, which connects to my home network. Note that this doesn't simply block some traffic streams, it only accepts those streams I explicitly allow. Ofcourse, if you want to, you can also confdigure it the other way around, where it only blocks some streams, and allows everything else, because that's easier to do. Ofcourse, if I had to do all of this in a business, I'd just buy one of those ready-made firewall boxes. Relatively cheap, quicker to setup, and less maintenance.

	Is linux two routers and a host? (none / 0) (#344)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 06:15:14 AM PST

	No, it is not. Therefore it is not a proper firewall. I know your ego is built around claiming that you have a firewall in your home, but that is just a filtering proxy. This is not sufficient for the needs of real corporate networks. Please use the correct terminology in the future.

	Wrong (none / 0) (#358)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:43:33 PM PST

	> I know your ego is built around claiming that you have a firewall in your home, but that is just a filtering proxy. This is not sufficient for the needs of real corporate networks. Please use the correct terminology in the future.< Sorry but I've actually set up firewalls and, why yes, yes I do have one actually in my house. Running Linux. But I'm not sure if there's a point trying to educate people who think Mandrake, RedHat, Storm, etc. are "releases" rather than separate distributions. The "review" overall says more about the abysmal ignorance of the "reviewer" than anything.

	Morons with websites (1.00 / 2) (#364)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:36:57 PM PST

	A: What a freak'n joke B: Yes, Linux can be used as a Firewall I build/market them all the time, and unless you can name me some specific whole. That can be entered through iptables and not through some other Firewall configuration. Then shut up and get back to your MCSE class. C: Man I remember the good ole days. When the internet was first born... to hard for idiots like the moron that wrote this story and his lacky that thinks you can't build a Linux Firewall. Then MS came along and screwed it all up... What with there wide open architecture and "What the hell is Security?" attitude. Pathetic. D: Your 486 with 8mbs of RAM?? What year is this?? G-ZUS upgrade f00l... In closing... I'd like to add... That towel around your head must be to tight... Try loosin'n it up a bit... Give your brain some room to breath.

	Linux firewall (none / 0) (#371)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:03:01 PM PST

	Well, I have a Linux firewall running at home and at work just as the another Linux guy said. Reading the above post about Routers and a Bastion Host, have a little read of http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/lj-issues/issue25/1204.html Because I don't think you have a clue what your talking about when it comes to Linux. Don't listen to this windows guy he must have been corrupted by MSCE, what does he mean use the right terminology????? Input/Output chains are exactly what there called in Linux.!!! Windows makes up "Terminology" every day so why can't Linux?

	Yeah, there's an unimpeachable source (none / 0) (#372)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:18:41 PM PST

	Linux journal -- the paragon of computer reporting. Listen up, because I'm getting tired of saying this. Just because every loonix luser doesn't bother to learn how things weork, and just goes out and does it their own way, assuming they know what they're doing, doesn't mean they have the slightest clue. Just because you think you have a firewall, doesn't mean you do. It's like saying you have a router just because linux transfers packets from one network to another.

	Router Definition: (none / 0) (#379)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 07:19:05 PM PST

	"It's like saying you have a router just because linux transfers packets from one network to another." http://www.whatis.com/ "On the Internet, a router is a device or, in some cases, software in a computer, that determines the next network point to which a packet should be forwarded toward its destination. The router is connected to at least two networks and decides which way to send each information packet based on its current understanding of the state of the networks it is connected to. A router is located at any gateway (where one network meets another), including each Internet point-of-presence."

	based on its current understanding (none / 0) (#380)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 07:56:19 PM PST

	Does linux have a BGP stack? No. Does linux speak OSPF, RIP, RIP2 or any other LAN routing protocol? No. All linux has is a static routing table. Therefore it has no undertanding of the network. Therefore it is not a router. QED.

	This is hilarious (Is too a router so there) (none / 0) (#384)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 09:35:34 PM PST

	Okay by now I think it is obvious you are just trying to goat use poor linux users into an arguement. I'm game and I'm enjoying your responses. Linux can act as a router and yes it does have a BGP, OSPF and RIP stack, in fact it has a couple available. Just look up www.zebra.org and www.linuxrouter.org for examples. You know it will even work in a network full of Cisco routers as long as you stay away from Cisco's proprietary extensions.

	Nonsense (none / 0) (#393)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 02:00:11 AM PST

	It can slow down and break a network of ciscos, and it can provide an entry point into the copmlex world of router configs for complete ninnies, but I hardly think that is something to be proud of. You can keep your so-called BGP stack. There are only two decent BGP implementations in the world, and they were both programmed by the same guy. No self respecting CCIE would touch a linux based router. Now THAT would be a joke.

	Na Na Na (none / 0) (#406)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:30:57 AM PST

	I'm right and your wrong. NaNaNa Phhhtttt -Son age 3 Think that about sums up the Windows version of this argument I'm rubber you're glue everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. -Son age 4 And this is the Linux argument BTW I prefer Linux Mandrake to Windows any day of the week but that is my personel opinion. Also the reviewer who seems to have his head rectaly inverted needs to get a clue about what he/she/it is reviewing. Enjoy

	Break Cisco's? (none / 0) (#426)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:35:29 PM PST

	Only if you're such a stupid CCIE that you allow redistribution of routes from unauthorized machines, or are stupid enough to let a stupid person add to the route table. It's all rather subjective isn't it. I would stick my neck out and suggest that several thousand Linux and BSD boxes are acting as medium level routers carrying your Internet traffic right now. I expect it wouldn't be used for more than about 100MBit links, but then that's what specialised hardware is for. How do I know this? Because I set many of them up several years ago and after I finished constructing the networks several years ago no one has replaced them after several IT audits. But back to the original article, it is OBVIOUSLY a satire, but it sure did succeed in capturing the attention of a lot of people, good work. I'm also going to risk suggesting that all the windows-advocate flame bait is coming from people that knew this too, and they're just having fun with the nerds being outraged :-) Haven't had this much of a laugh reading the article and reponses for a long time, good to see people still have a sense of subtle humour.

	BSD yes, Linux no. (none / 0) (#427)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 05:55:23 PM PST

	Juniper Networks use BSD as the basis for their routers. Since they've replaced cisco in the core IP routing market, I'd say I'm passing through some BSD routers, definitely. Linux, I'd say no. Not a chance. No ISP is so poor that it can't afford low end ciscos that do a better job than a hacked up linux box. Cisco routers, by the way, are based on Mac OS 4, of all things.

	I just have to be the last on this thread. (3.00 / 1) (#447)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:31:31 PM PST

	MCSE, Unix System Admin, who gives a good god damn?!? You all friggin sit when you pee. Pick up a compiler and do something useful with your lives already.

	And you are. Congratulations. (5.00 / 1) (#458)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 01:35:03 AM PST

	i just have to add something to this (none / 0) (#481)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 03:03:18 PM PST

	WINDOWS RULES!!!

	No Linux as routers? (1.00 / 1) (#477)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 03:44:59 PM PST

	You didn't read the message I posted where I stated that there IS Linux being used as routers, not only the ones I set up but several others also use them. And no, not everyone running on minute margins can afford low end cisco's, because they are still 10x the price (including IOS) of an old pentium box with a free networking OS on it. Not saying it's the best, but there's no denying they're being used.

	HARDWARE fool (none / 0) (#492)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:17:22 AM PST

	Its not a HARDWARE router, but it can speak any of the routing protocols you just mentioned, including VRRP, and IPng routing protocols, so it is capable of being just as much a router as any piece of standalone hardware. Since you've obviously been jaded by Linux, it really doesn't make sense for me to argue with you, but you need to get your facts straight pal.

	firewall vs dmz (none / 0) (#404)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:34:53 AM PST

	Actually, a single linux box _can_ act as a firewall. What you have just described is a network configuration called a DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). The idea is to have an outside firewall, that protects certain machines such as mail or web servers, that need to communicate with both the outside world and the company's intranet (internal network). The intranet then sits behind yet another firewall that is itself behind the first firewall. What results is a network in which there is an outside world, and inside world, and a zone in between separated by firewalls from both the inside and the outside. You could use linux boxes to provide both of the firewalls if you wished. Corey

	No. (none / 0) (#421)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:18:50 PM PST

	You have been trained to misuse the definition of firewall. For linux to be a real firewall it needs to be two routers and a host. Much as you like to jerk yourself off about how much linux can do, it cannot turn one computer into three. Sorry. By the way, try not to insult my intellgence by presuming you know more about this than me. You obviously don't since you got the definition wrong.

	Firewalls (5.00 / 1) (#486)
	by joe on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 09:54:03 AM PST

	The whole thread is in response the lame complaint that Zonealarm ( a firewall product marketed as a firewall product ) isnt available for linux . . . shock horror. The reply stated that linux as standard comes with similar firewalling functionality. If you want to play word games about what a firewall is then go complain to all the firewall vendors out there and ask them how their software turns 1 computer into 3.

	so who are you (none / 0) (#491)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:11:31 AM PST

	A FIREWALL is just a method of preventing access to computers on a packet and/or content level. Using IPF (or now PF or whatever they use as their IPFilter replacement) on OpenBSD or FreeBSD, you can in fact firewall a network without using a router-- you just configure the box to filter all traffic while bridging its interfaces, so the box doesn't have any IP addresses on the networks its protecting. If you manage to compile IPF on GNU/Linux, you can in fact have a GNU/Linux box do the same thing. You can get more information on this at the OpenBSD Packet Filter HOWTO (http://www.inebriated.demon.nl/pf-howto/html/), section 3. Technically, a firewall is just a software or hardare solution to filter access to a computer system. Your rigid definition isn't complete in that sense that you can FIREWALL access to a multifunction machine and it can still be considered a firewall. Granted, a seperate device that does nothing but firewalling is your best bet, but that is not a solid requirement for a machine to be called a firewall.

	WRONG (none / 0) (#493)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:24:22 AM PST

	Just because you keep babbling on about this 2 routers and a host crap (2 turntables and a microphone...) doesn't make it true. You're almost right, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You need 3 DEVICES to create a physical separation between internal and external nets, and a decisionmaking 'host' to decide what can jump the void. This is what a Linux firewall configuration is: 1 NIC for external 1 NIC for internal inside 1 computer HOST to route them. The latest Linux kernel provides stateful packet inspection as well, which seriously improves it's standing and ability as an enterprise class firewall, but I'm sure even mentioning this has caused your eyes to glaze over and you've no doubt returned to Solitaire by now.

	"Physical" separation. (none / 0) (#500)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:41:08 PM PST

	...You need 3 DEVICES to create a physical separation between internal and external nets... This isn't really true, is it? As far as I can figure, you have to have ZERO devices in order to create a physical separation between networks. HTH, HAND. --Alex "Doesn't Have an Account" G.

	Beg your pardon? (none / 0) (#535)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 07:12:02 PM PST

	Do you even know what a router IS? A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. I should like to think I have a little bit more knowledge than that, so I'll share... A router is a process. A router, as most people use the term, is a little box with a bunch of rj-45 plugs in it, but inside, it's a small system permanently stuck to a hub/switch. It takes incoming packets from the WAN link port, inspects them, and routes them to the appropriate internal IPs. Now, check this out. Linux box with two NICs. NIC 1 gets an incoming packet from the ISP'S ROUTER, and it goes to the HOST PROCESS for examination. From there it heads to the second ROUTER PROCESS, which sends it out NIC 2 to whatever hub it's connected to. Incoming router, firewall, outgoing router. Dang, I believe that makes your definitive firewall in ONE BOX, doesn't it? Wow. But that's not a very streamlined way of doing things, is it? I mean, it gets the last two things done, certainly, but now that you've got them happening inside one box, you can streamline code like you've streamlined hardware. You can take the whole process, and tighten it up a bit, make it less exertion for your system. You might consider adding a linux cert to your current MCSE, Alex. Anyone else, feel free to correct me. Archai "doesn't need an account" Valkryn

	Linux just for blocking IPs (none / 0) (#437)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:59:26 AM PST

	Funny, last time I checked telent used its own PORT not an IP address. No you do not need 2 routers. The set up you are refferring to is in large network. The firewall is PAST the router then goes to the outside line. Your ISP holds the "other" router.

	Oh for God's sake (5.00 / 1) (#448)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:36:19 PM PST

	I don't mind it so much when people with half an education try to disagree with me, but when loudmouthed novices enter the game, I get annoyed. Here's a start: IP stands for Internet Protocol. As for the rest of your comment, I suggest you try to learn about networks from some other source than alt.linux.is.the.best in the future.

	IP addresses and ports (5.00 / 1) (#527)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:08:49 PM PST

	>I don't mind it so much when people with half an >education try to disagree with me, but when >loudmouthed novices enter the game, I get annoyed. >Here's a start: IP stands for Internet Protocol. Here's another: TCP stands for Transmission Control Protocol and allows several transmissions to share one IP connection. Each conversation goes over a separate "port"; clients connect to different ports on a server depending on which service they wish to access. For instance, HTTP normally runs over port 80, and telnet runs over port 23. -- Pinocchio pinocchio 4t pineight d0t 8m do7 com

	firewalls (none / 0) (#490)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:02:37 AM PST

	Well then neither can windows have a firewall based software then anyway the 2.4.x iptables kicks the arse right out of zonealarm yes linux can be used as a router even some people's dedicated routers run linux that most people are never aware of

	www.adequacy.org uses unix/apache (0.00 / 1) (#387)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:18:06 PM PST

	For all this bashing back and forward about what os is the best. Its funny to see that FreeBSD and Apache are the industry strength tools used to get this sites job done. =)

	What a Luser (2.00 / 1) (#391)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:44:36 AM PST

	I would not go around and proclaim that MCSE's are worth their salt in System Administration Ha ha ha! Secondly SunOS came from BSD and NOT vice versa. Thirdly, Linux is for the computer literate. Not for stupid MSCE lusers spawned by Gates. and Fourthly, The author of this article needs to RTFM

	Haha, your funny (none / 0) (#432)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:20:35 AM PST

	Hmm Solaris on x86 runs like a dog, might scare people away from it. That and not as much open source software = paying for apps. You will NEVER see Solaris pass Linux in terms of use on x86 machines. Me thinks you deserve that highly credible MCSE cert you got. FYI all boxed retail versions of Windows come with a manual, and gasp if you download Linux it doesn't. All in all your at least as dumb as the author (assuming the article isn't sarcastic, which it definitely has a taste of).

	Run your free software "Linux apps" on S (none / 0) (#529)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:33:17 AM PST

	That and not as much open source software [for Solaris as for Linux] = paying for apps. Most Linux software is written to POSIX API, which Solaris also implements. If you want free software, go to Freshmeat II or SourceForge't, search for what you want, ./configure, make, make install, and you're off. -- Pinocchio (about to get his own account)

	sun vs linux? (none / 0) (#502)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:10:58 PM PST

	um... well... I prefer linux to SUN as you may be able to tell from my post above. Anyway, my point is: "This is plainly wrong, as anyone worth their salt in systems administration (such as me, as I have an MCSE) knows that BSD is descended from SunOS, which is Sun Microsystem's standard operating system on their mid to high-range servers currently. Obviously, with an operating system this powerful out on the web, Linux won't be able to compete for long." Why do you think this makes such a powerful OS? I mean Solaris is cool and all, but it has already lost the server war to linux. It has been around for a while now and linux is already out doing it. Not to dis you or anything, but you are an MCSE, not a UNIX guru. As we speak, SUN is downsizing. Its number of servers ordered has dropped dramatically, and a lot of it has to do with linux. You can run linux on all Sun boxes, but most people don't because SUN hardware costs money. The other thing people always forget, is that Linux is open source. It doesn't have to compete with SUN or Windows. It will always win, because it is free. Now, Mandrake or Redhat might not be able to compete, but linux itself doesn't have to worry about such things. Redhat has done quite a number on SUN though, I must say. daniel s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p

	Final warning (none / 0) (#510)
	by dmg on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:32:15 PM PST

	I mean Solaris is cool and all, but it has already lost the server war to linux. This is so utterly false I have no alternative but to assume you are trolling. This comment will be deleted unless you can come up with some concrete evidence for this false assertion. I await your response eagerly. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	here is something to chew on (none / 0) (#512)
	by dotKAMbot on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 08:42:48 PM PST

	I couldn't find the exact articles I read in the past, but here is one article about Linux cutting into the UNIX market and not the windows market: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2816323,00.html here is a netcraft study that clearly states 30% of webservers are linux and 7% are solaris, BSD holds 6%, and 2% are other Unix. http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ If you check out the older studies, you can see Solaris losing more and more market share, where linux is gaining more and more. I don't blame this on SUN, or think that SUN makes an inferior product. I am just stating that Linux is kicking some ass in the UNIX market, and they are eating up SUN's market share. It is hard to compete with a free OS that runs on cheap hardware. I just saw something on CNN the other night about how SUN isn't selling much hardware these days, and are in real trouble. Infact they just had some major layoffs. If you would really like me to research this further, and include charts showing database servers and such I can. I know that Linux has taken the second place spot in file servers passing Novell... I don't believe Solaris has a significant number there though. peace daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p www.secretmedia.org It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

	Bull, big time. (none / 0) (#560)
	by cypher on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 08:18:40 AM PST

	>If that's true, then how come there are a bunch >of computers out there with MacOS installed, Come on PC is not a Mac complaint (read - different architecture). And about Windows coming as free - this is bullpoop because the price of your new PC that came pre-loaded with bloated OS already incliudes the price of OS. As for the whole article written, try to run WinXP on your 486 Gateway(ha-ha), and then try to install linux on it as a server (Pentium requirement is misunderstanding by the author, it runs on Intel x86 architecture, alpha, PPC, Sparc, etc.), or a firewall router and you'll be amaze what linux can bring you. Overall: Bullpoop gathered from unreliable sources, and put together by a lousy editor.

	INSERT CLUESTICK BEATING HERE (1.00 / 2) (#60)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:59:41 PM PST

	RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 1 : 1. Its Linus you moron RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 2 : 1. Quirkily? Uh huh I see you have no idea what your talking about 2. Versions of Linux, This just proves my point as if you actually knew wtf your talking about you would have reffered to them as DIFFERENT DISTROBUTIONS 3. You mis-spelled COREL you clueless boob RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 3 : 1. Nevermind you never mentioned that it CAN be purchased on CDROM Via the resptective Linux vendor 2. Its opensource, of course its legal you moron, read the GPL 3. Anti-capitalist hackers... Considering the LINUX Community is made up of programmers all over the world, and Microsoft has what? 1500 people coding? And how many of them actually work on their operating systems? Say for sake of arguement 1/3'rd of that number ( Thats 500 to you moron ). So hmmm lets do the math, a global network of programmers or Microsofts measly 500 programmers... RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 4 : 1. You should always RTFM! , Oh and BTW You moron, WindowsXP Isnt going to Install on that POS 486 either, nor will WindowsNT4 or higher. 2. OMG! Only Pentium Processors!! Holy Moses whatever will we do ? 2a. You didnt do your homework stating that Linux will only run on a 486 before opening your big mouth 2b. A whopping 32MB of Ram!? Holy hell, My VIDEO CARD HAS MORE THAN THAT! 2c. Linux is effecient as hell! You just like using buzz words like Internet and Bloatware dont you? 2d. And I suppose your going to expect Windows2000 to run on that 10 YEAR OLD WORKSTATION too RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 5 : 1. Industry standard web browser? Uhhh excuse me but Netscape was doing it a HELL OF A LONG TIME BEFORE MICROSOFT EVER INVENTED INTERNET-EXPLORER 2. Internet-Explorer is NOT the 'Industry Standard' 3. What information do you have that PROVES internet-explorer IS the industry standard? I dont see any Hyperlinks in this document to any substancial crediable information beyond your attempts to rant in this forum. RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 6 : 1. Of course its 'incompatible' you dumbass, its a WIN32 BINARY! Get a linux application 2. Uh I seriously doubt youve ever heard of the Wine ( WINdows Emulator project ) nor StarOffice, or ABIWord 3. It is your 'defination' of popular that is very misleading in your attempt to be an objective reporter on this subject. As views will vary, so will your Mileage! I suggest you look into LOKI GAMES for Linux, Oh ya I almost forgot, Return To Castle Wolfenstien hmmm and the performance specs are better UNDER LINUX than Windows... 4. Wide Range of software is freely available... Ya theres that damn opensource thing again 5. Oh and like Microsoft Windows or MS Office dont have bugs? ROFL! you need to be introduced to what the hell TECHNET is RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 7 : 1. WAHAHAH! Computer Security? OVERLOOKED!? ROFL! 1a. IPChains and IPTables have been include with linux for YEARS, Not to mention they are funded by Watchguard Technologies makers of the Watchguard FIREBOX, Watchguard SOHO and other various internet security and vpn devices. 1b. No antivirus is available? WAHAHAH Man you dont do your homework do you? Computer Assoc. Inc does provide Antivirus solutions for Linux, not to mention various other antivirus packages that are either commercial or opensource, try tucows.com next time. 1c. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU NEED WITH ZONE ALARM WHEN YOU HAVE IPCHAINS AND IPTABLES!!! 1d. You obviously have NO CLUE AS TO WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 8 : 1. How can you find a flaw if you never even installed it ? Oh ya its that Microsoft theory of reviewing software... look at the box. ROFL! 2. After 10 Years of Development... Yup Linux is 10 years old and going strong! 3. The Creators of Linux? Linux is a world wide by mostly voulentary contributed programmers operating system, there is no 'one entity or company' 4. Comes FREE My ASS! You PAY FOR IT, and if you dont belive me, you can contact GATEWAY DELL, HP (Formerly COMPAQ) 5. Inferior? Uh huh, lets see some TESTING RESULTS TO PROVE YOUR THEROY RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 9 : 1. WindowsXP and Linux, theres no comparision you are talking apples and oranges at this point 2. Waste money on Linux, oh ya thats right you got it off the net for FREE didnt you? FINAL SUMMARY You obviously have no clue as to what your talking about let alone have any information to prove any of the claims that you make in this posting. Its persons like you whom should just unplug your computer and ship it back for a full refund, Im sure your money would be better invested in something like napkin folding lessons or something of that nature. I normally will not respond to posts like this from some petty-ass'd website, but I felt it necessary in this particular case. This person obviously did no homework, didnt even install Mandrake 8.1 nor any other Linux distro for that matter, let alone has any clue as to what hes spouting off about. Nice review dumbass!

	sorry... (none / 0) (#122)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:37:33 PM PST

	I apologize for this clueless (read: condescending) linux user; we are not all this way... It pains me to see such misinformation in this article, though. I am not going to point out errors, as many people have already beat me to it. You are perfectly entitled to continue using windows, but if you want the real truth about linux, come and talk to the www.arstechnica.com linux community about it on the forums there or on the arstechnica irc server (irc.arstechnica.com channel:#linux). -Vagrant

	INSERT CLUESTICK BEATING HERE (none / 0) (#210)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:58:14 AM PST

	Microsoft Inventing Internet Explorer? I thought they bought it from SpyGlass.

	Does this Linux have internet filters? (3.50 / 6) (#68)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:11:08 PM PST

	I've heard a lot about this Linux, and at first glance it seems just the ticket for a poor parochial school. But one question I've never seen answered, does this Linux have internet filters? I sleep much better at night knowing that my children are guarded at home by the imprenetrable shield of netnanny, they can surf the net without a worry that they will be exposed to adult images and content and inappropriate viewopints. Is there something like this available for Linux? Iask you all. A. Rightmann

	Filters don't work with images. Fortunately... (4.20 / 5) (#75)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:21:13 PM PST

	...Linux is a Unix-based system, meaning that it is text-only; no pictures. In other words, it is a backwards-engineered version of the M.S.-D.O.S. operating system. This is by far the safest way for kids to "browse" the Internet. You just want to have your kids run the command grep -fvw "fuck" "cunt" [etc] at the command line for each page they view, which will remove all dirty words before they see the page. Take away the four-letter words and all the pictures, and voila: family Internet browsing! Let me know if you need a more detailed explanation. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Thank you kind sir (4.00 / 4) (#78)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:26:53 PM PST

	It appears that Linux may be a cheap way to bring the internet to a cash strapped parochial school. Images really aren't needed, the Bible was written in text, afterall. A. Rightmann

	Joke (1.60 / 5) (#113)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:25:14 PM PST

	I think this is a joke. But linux does have graphics and it does have internet filters if you know where to look.

	no joke silly! (none / 0) (#281)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:12:16 AM PST

	linux itself is text. text in, text out. sure break the text down into other forms of code whatever.. but the point is linux itself has no pictures! Get your head out of your new-fangled glossy over-pollished distro's ass

	How old is DOS? (1.33 / 3) (#174)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:21:14 AM PST

	<<...Linux is a Unix-based system, meaning that it is text-only; no pictures. In other words, it is a backwards-engineered version of the M.S.-D.O.S. operating system.>> The sheer fact that you say this screams you are an idiot. UNIX is older than DOS therefore it is NOT in anyway based on DOS. Infact here's the history. 1. Proprietary Software 2. UNIX 3. PL/M (Program Language for Microcomputers) 4. CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers) 1.1 5 CP/M 2.2 6 BASIC 7. QDOS (sloppily backwards engineered version of CP/M wriiten for Intel Processors which Ms bought for $50,000 after they promised IBM an OS they didn't have) 8. MSDOS 1.0 (slightly recoded QDOS but with an MS label) 9. CP/M-86 (Sorry but since DOS, was released on IBM PCs using Intel processors the popularity marginalized this great OS)

	Does this Linux have internet filters? (none / 0) (#353)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 12:33:40 PM PST

	<snip> I've heard a lot about this Linux, and at first glance it seems just the ticket for a poor parochial school. But one question I've never seen answered, does this Linux have internet filters? I sleep much better at night knowing that my children are guarded at home by the imprenetrable shield of netnanny, they can surf the net without a worry that they will be exposed to adult images and content and inappropriate viewopints. Is there something like this available for Linux? Iask you all. </snip> To answer your question, Yes. Most of your internet proxy services are ran on a Linux or UNIX based system. Moreso on UNIX. But for mere sakes of supporting GNU and the free software community, take a look at Dansguardian. It is a content based filter that works with Squid to filter out bad language, sites and IP addresses. There are many others out there to use as well, but I prefer the Dansguardian.

	Hopefully moderate response (1.00 / 1) (#71)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:13:31 PM PST

	I've just found this site, because of a link for this review of Mandrake. I must agree with most of the comments that make corrections to the articles mistakes. I have been using Linux since 1993, 90% for 5 years, 100% for 18 months. At work, I use Microsoft NT/2000/95 exclusively (version depends on the client). The reason I hate, (and I admit that), Microsoft is the quality of the software. I write software for a living, and for my personal benefit (sacash for example). I therefore feel like I can judge software in that manner. BTW, This response is being written in a Mozilla 0.9.4 browser window, running on Mandrake 8.0 . I prefer Linux, because I use Windows. I fight problems in Windows, that I can never get answers to. I've fought problems in Linux, but if need be I can always look deeper. One previous message said office suites were available for linux. This message was rebuked, by saying Office is a Microsoft product. "Office" is Microsoft. However an office suite is a collection of programs, such as KOffice, or Siag office. Most of these programs import and export many "Office" documents. Another message made a comment about firewalls. If the author had installed Mandrake, he would have found that part of the install allows you to setup a firewall. Point-and-click as well. Viruses: There have been "worms" (I'll leave the definition to other sites) however they are completely different than windows viruses. The fundamental difference, is that on Linux a normal user wouldn't have the ability to destroy the en tire operating system. On Windows 95,98,ME, and NT/2000 (without NTFS) the logged in user can delete the \windows (or \winnt etc..) directory. On linux, unless logged on as root, this is not possible. To error27, this review is not objective. Failing to actually install the operating system makes it so. To the author who attempted to compare Mandrake to XP: The minium requirement for Mandrake is a 586. However, that is because the default download is compiled to take advantage of the Pentium processor. None of the software itself requires a Pentium. It COULD be recompiled for a 486. If you want to try it on a 486, try RedHat instead. Redhat by default compiles the code for 386, making it available for older hardware but not taking full advantage of the CPU. (My install of Mandrake 8.0, fit the OS in 500meg Compare that to XP requirements. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobu y/upgrading/sysreqs.asp). 1.5gig for just OS. 300 Mhz processor, 64meg(limited performance)/128 meg. So as others pointed out, XP could NEVER run on the author's 486, although one of a dozen other linux distros would. Is linux right for everyone? No. Is it getting close yes. Was Windows, and Windows software always as it is today? No. It got more useful. And I think I need to say what Open-Source is to me. It is not having to reinvent the wheel. It is finding an existing solution to a problem, without having to write it myself. If that solution doesn't quite fit my problem, I can make the change, and release my change. Now someone else may benefit as well. An analogy would be if drug companies found new drugs and just released all the info. How many more people could afford the drug? How many more people might live? This isn't a perfect analogy, but it gives a feel. I know that not everyone is capable of changing code. That isn't the issue. The issue that it is out there. In 1995, as an intern, I found a problem with a Microsoft API. I felt it had to be a bug, and months after I left they admitted it was. If the code would have been available I wouldn't have wasted a week on the problem. If the code was open-source I could have made the change (something Microsoft's Shared-Source license doesn't allow). There is a lot of open-source code out there that I would never dig into. However, it makes me much happier to know someone can. And last to the Anonymous Coward who said "Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible. ... Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America." First, I didn't really understand where this comment came from. Maybe that Linux is available free? Second, if that is it, I completely disagree. Open-source software allows businesses not to have to re-invent the wheel yet again. To focus on solving business problems, instead of dealing with yet another Outlook-email virus. To not be forced into expensive license changes, yet again. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2001-09-27-msoft-software.htm) . Linux is the ultimate example of freedom. Thanks for your time. I would welcome thoughtful (please no flames, I didn't here so I don't think that is necessary) discussion from anyone. If you have questions I can answer, ask away. ScottCarlson@excite.com

	Amen (none / 0) (#112)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:21:46 PM PST

	Finally someone who is not an ignorant-linux-hater, or a no-social-skill-geek-linux-lover. I've just found this site, because of a link for this review of Mandrake. I must agree with most of the comments that make corrections to the articles mistakes. I have been using Linux since 1993, 90% for 5 years, 100% for 18 months. At work, I use Microsoft NT/2000/95 exclusively (version depends on the client). The reason I hate, (and I admit that), Microsoft is the quality of the software. I write software for a living, and for my personal benefit (sacash for example). I therefore feel like I can judge software in that manner. BTW, This response is being written in a Mozilla 0.9.4 browser window, running on Mandrake 8.0 . I prefer Linux, because I use Windows. I fight problems in Windows, that I can never get answers to. I've fought problems in Linux, but if need be I can always look deeper. One previous message said office suites were available for linux. This message was rebuked, by saying Office is a Microsoft product. "Office" is Microsoft. However an office suite is a collection of programs, such as KOffice, or Siag office. Most of these programs import and export many "Office" documents. Another message made a comment about firewalls. If the author had installed Mandrake, he would have found that part of the install allows you to setup a firewall. Point-and-click as well. Viruses: There have been "worms" (I'll leave the definition to other sites) however they are completely different than windows viruses. The fundamental difference, is that on Linux a normal user wouldn't have the ability to destroy the en tire operating system. On Windows 95,98,ME, and NT/2000 (without NTFS) the logged in user can delete the \windows (or \winnt etc..) directory. On linux, unless logged on as root, this is not possible. To error27, this review is not objective. Failing to actually install the operating system makes it so. To the author who attempted to compare Mandrake to XP: The minium requirement for Mandrake is a 586. However, that is because the default download is compiled to take advantage of the Pentium processor. None of the software itself requires a Pentium. It COULD be recompiled for a 486. If you want to try it on a 486, try RedHat instead. Redhat by default compiles the code for 386, making it available for older hardware but not taking full advantage of the CPU. (My install of Mandrake 8.0, fit the OS in 500meg Compare that to XP requirements. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobu y/upgrading/sysreqs.asp). 1.5gig for just OS. 300 Mhz processor, 64meg(limited performance)/128 meg. So as others pointed out, XP could NEVER run on the author's 486, although one of a dozen other linux distros would. Is linux right for everyone? No. Is it getting close yes. Was Windows, and Windows software always as it is today? No. It got more useful. And I think I need to say what Open-Source is to me. It is not having to reinvent the wheel. It is finding an existing solution to a problem, without having to write it myself. If that solution doesn't quite fit my problem, I can make the change, and release my change. Now someone else may benefit as well. An analogy would be if drug companies found new drugs and just released all the info. How many more people could afford the drug? How many more people might live? This isn't a perfect analogy, but it gives a feel. I know that not everyone is capable of changing code. That isn't the issue. The issue that it is out there. In 1995, as an intern, I found a problem with a Microsoft API. I felt it had to be a bug, and months after I left they admitted it was. If the code would have been available I wouldn't have wasted a week on the problem. If the code was open-source I could have made the change (something Microsoft's Shared-Source license doesn't allow). There is a lot of open-source code out there that I would never dig into. However, it makes me much happier to know someone can. And last to the Anonymous Coward who said "Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible. ... Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America." First, I didn't really understand where this comment came from. Maybe that Linux is available free? Second, if that is it, I completely disagree. Open-source software allows businesses not to have to re-invent the wheel yet again. To focus on solving business problems, instead of dealing with yet another Outlook-email virus. To not be forced into expensive license changes, yet again. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2001-09-27-msoft-software.htm) . Linux is the ultimate example of freedom. Thanks for your time. I would welcome thoughtful (please no flames, I didn't here so I don't think that is necessary) discussion from anyone. If you have questions I can answer, ask away. ScottCarlson@excite.com

	Some corrections (1.00 / 1) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:22:52 PM PST

	While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux. Actually, BSD was out first. SunOS was based on BSD and Solaris is based on a different 'flavour' of Unix - SVR4 which incorporates some parts of BSD in it. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. These are not previous versions. They're all current versions. A lot of vendors get the basic Linux system and package it with extra bits and pieces. check out RedHat for their current distribution of Linux. The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. His name is Linus Torvalds I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors The Mandrake distribution of Linux only runs on pentiums. However, you could have downloaded a copy of RedHat Linux which is also free and it runs on anything from a 386 up. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? This is a good question for Microsoft! I'm sure if they released IE for Linux a lot of people would run it. Anyway, there are a stack of browsers available for Linux including Netscape 6.1, Opera and Mozilla. All are fully functional browsers - you don't lose anything by not being able to run IE. Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Again, ask Microsoft. Remember that MS see Linux as the competition so they do not release their software for it. I think that IBM is working on a Notes client for Linux incidentally. There are stacks of alternatives to the Office suite available. StarOffice is the most fully functional (and it's what I use day to day). Also, gnome-office and koffice are suites that are being developed (although they're not really ready for prime time just yet). Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. Believe it or not, viruses are impossible to write under Linux. This is because when you log in, you don't have complete priveleges to the system so you can't do stuff like format your hard drive. You need to go into a privileged mode to do this kind of stuff and you can't go privileged without explicitly asking to do so. So, bye bye viruses. Also, as Linux can't run Outlook Express, that eliminates the major source of viruses being transmitted these days. As for firewalls, well you'll find that Linux comes bundled with a firewall called 'iptables'. It's not as easy to setup as ZoneAlarm but it's much more powerful. I think you'll also find that Linux is pretty secure out of the box. There aren't any C$ or Admin$ shares open to the world. Most services are turned off (eg: telnet, ftp, file sharing) and you need to explicitly turn them on if you want them. "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, Actually, you are paying a couple of hundred bucks hidden in the price of your PC for your 'free' copy of Windows. Unfortunately Microsoft force your vendor to sell you windows regardless of whether you want it or not (try calling Compaq and ask for a PC but without Windows - see how far you get). So, if I want to run Linux on a new PC, I am forced to buy the copy of windows that comes with it. Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux. I agree with you here. I think that XP will consolidate Microsoft's position on the desktop (can it be more secure). This is primarily for one reason - Microsoft Office. The operating system is not as important as most people think. The one thing that you can do on a windows PC that you can't do on any other (Macs aside - for now) is reliably edit Word documents. Microsoft refuses to develop Word for any other platform except for Macs - and that's their privilege to do so. But I can read my e-mail, surf the web, send instant messages - just about anything except for reliably editing a Word file on my Linux PC. So, XP will succeed. Not necessarily because it is better but because Microsoft back it up with an application suite that is a greater monopoly than Windows itself - Microsoft Office. Finally, it would have been interesting to see what you thought of Mandrake had you actually installed it. Surely you have a pentium system somewhere? Also, a comparison of XP and RedHat Linux on your 486 would have been interesting also. Cheers Mark Ferraretto Linux user/administrator/developer mark@ferraretto.com

	Your assertions are demonstrably false (5.00 / 1) (#187)
	by kip on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:30:21 AM PST

	Microsoft are not to blame for Linux's inability to run modern productivity applications. Those to blame are the Open Source zealots, too bigoted to build Microsoft support into their 'OS'. <p> Microsoft knew this, making Windows the most popular operating system in the world by supporting the existing MS-DOS system. They realized adoption of their technology would only come when people could use all their old software. <p> It is time that the Open Source world swallowed its collective pride and did the same.

	Huh??? (none / 0) (#195)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:24:09 AM PST

	With this logic, I should be able to buy a Ford with a GM engine, straight from the dealer.

	Microsoft Applications (1.00 / 1) (#227)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:43:44 PM PST

	Some software was mentioned that allowed linux to run Windows programs. WINE is one. So open-source enthusiasts are trying to please as many people as possible.

	WINE is inferior emulation (5.00 / 1) (#235)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:55:09 PM PST

	Why would you tell someone to run Windows programs through an inferior emulation layer like WINE when he can run Windows itself and get full performance? It just doesn't add up.

	yea right (1.00 / 1) (#260)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:18:58 AM PST

	Actually I do run many windows programs using Wine. They all run better in Linux using Wine than they do in Windows (yes I do have Win2000AS installed). This is mainly due to the fact that Linux has better memory management than windows. My Half Life runs MUCH better in Linux than in Windows. When my Windows application crashes (like IE) in Wine it doesn't require a reboot to get the system stable again!

	Hello (1.00 / 1) (#79)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:27:30 PM PST

	Just thought I'd state that I thought this was a highly accurate look into the mind of a clueless newbie who's been given the assignment of writing a highly informative review of an operating system. Truly an excellent example of why tech writing is an exception to the rule that a person should start out ignorant of the subject they're writing about.

	Heh (1.00 / 1) (#94)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:47:57 PM PST

	I keep hoping that this is a parody of every half-wit OS advocate out there. Please tell me it is. Anyway, have you ever considered writing for ZDNet, iat? They love this kind of stuff. Gets page hits like crazy. So did this story. It's either hilariously funny, or mind-blowingly depressing, to see someone blaming Mandrakesoft for the lack of Microsoft Internet Explorer in the distribution. Or any number of Windows apps, written by various companies, for the Windows platform and only for the Windows platform. Please, if there's anyone out there who took this article seriously . . . please comment here so I/we can explain the joke. I realize that not everyone is smart enough to see the humor. :-) I'm going to dredge up a number of such articles (many of which I'm absolutely sure are for real) for an upcoming article to be posted to another site. I'm going to include this one as an example, because I fear that, if this is indeed a parody (I hope to GOD it is) that most people Just Won't Get It. I'm a'gonna do my derndest to beat people over the head in a non-humorous way with the fallacies of these claims. And dear, dear iat...if you're for real, I feel for ya. Truly I do.

	Untrue (5.00 / 1) (#125)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:41:53 PM PST

	What are you talking about. This is a real serious objective review. It's not his fault linux sux so bad.

	Untrue? you are joking! (1.00 / 1) (#253)
	by ian on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:32:23 PM PST

	<CITE> What are you talking about. This is a real serious objective review. </CITE> It is nothing like a serious review nor anything like an objective review. To be a serious objective review the author would have had to firstly know what he was talking about. None of that capacity was demonstrated. He would also have had to have knowledge about the operating system he was thinking of installing so that he could describe any problems he found. No indication of that was seen. To be objective he needed to have some background knowledge of the computer industry just slightly above the average user so that he could speak with some knowledge. Nothing like that was seen. Sorry. The review wasn't serious nor objective. <CITE> It's not his fault linux sux so bad.</CITE> Sorry. Wrong. Linux has a lot going for it no matter which distribution you decide meets your needs. Many govenrment and community bodies are adopting Linux and StarOffice as their default computer specifications. They are getting sick of the constant virus/trojan/hacking attacks and moving to something that will be stable and seriously prevent disruption to their business needs. The abuse heaped on open source prgramming is silly and self-defeating. The Internet simply could not operate at its present level without the open source community that has written the software and the protocols for it to operate. Even this site operates because they use open source software as the base of the web server as do a great many sites around the world. The cost to run the web server software's nearest Microsoft equivalent could cost well over 5 or even 10 thousand dollars depending on the configuration. Do you think that too many sites could afford to make payments like that and survive on banner fees? Please, find out more information before running down Linux and open source. There is much more out there than what Microsoft would have you believe and it is good news.

	Is this the future of the human race? (0.00 / 1) (#106)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:11:19 PM PST

	The idiocy of the article and most of the people defending it is overwhelming. This is a joke site right? Please say this article was written for humor. Dear god, please. I'm not really going to comment on anything, because apparently very few people care to listen. Instead I'll choose to just sit back and laugh (running servers on windows 95/98...what the hell are you thinking?) while holding back sadness resulting from the knowlege that the world will be populated with idiots. Screndib@hotmail.com

	Joke site? (5.00 / 2) (#230)
	by nx01 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:08:15 PM PST

	Please. If you don't like something, debate it rationally -- don't just fling demeaning insults and attacks at it. Most of us here at Adequacy have rose above the playground insult mentality some time ago. "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

	Joke site? I hope so. (1.00 / 1) (#273)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:23:17 AM PST

	Most of us here at Adequacy have rose* above the playground insult mentality some time ago.* ...but apparently not above the playground grammar level. But seriously, this review and the accompanying discussion deserve scorn. The reviewer didn't even INSTALL the operating system for crying out loud! From what I read, it sounds like he barely even tried. (And I won't even get into the wisdom of trying to install an OS on a system that old without researching the requirements first.) What kind of review is that? And the discussion was just a total farce. As though it wasn't bad enough that the author misspelled Linus, people actually had the nerve to argue that he was right! I think that fact alone speaks very poorly of some of the people here. All they had to do to check was go to linux.org. It's right there in the first paragraph. But no, it's much easier to blindly defend the position you like than to actually check the facts. I really hope this site is just one big joke.

	Mandrake 8.1 (2.00 / 1) (#116)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:31:18 PM PST

	In my many years of electronic communications, on many different forums and systems( Remember FidoNet?) I have seen some bovine-generated organic effluent posted. Some real stinky stuff. But without a doubt, starting with the article, I have never seen so much gratuitous flamebait posted anywhere in my life. Now, if said flamebait was the least bit informed or had a scintilla of intelligence behind it, I could almost find some redeeming qualities in it, but the anti-Linux stuff I have read here is some of the most mis-informed, mal-informed and uninformed stuff I have ever read in my life, and I have seen a bit of that stuff. I am a Linux Newbie. Started out on Amiga, went to Windows for a while, fixed Windows machines and sold them(still do) and recently loaded Mandrake 8.0. AFter a few weeks, I wiped my HDD of Windows, reinstalled Mandrake and have not looked back. It's good. Real good. None of the security concernson has with Windows, and the apps are great, Now, before some of you Linux Critics get found out for who you really are, and have to face the laughing and pointing you so desperately deserve, I would suggest that you give Linux a try. I did, and I am really happy for it. Note to Mr. "Em": Before you go wasting a hour of billable time charges on that gentleman who telnetted into your server, only to see your server's banner, I would suggest you take a pill or something. You will be wasting your time, the lawyer's time and the company's money. If you cannot document any damage, or the connection, you are out of luck. Besides, why would you attempt to prosecute anything so penny-ante? SImply in the name of comparitive penile demensions? How sad this place is...

	Y'know, I thought for a while that (1.00 / 1) (#127)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:51:53 PM PST

	maybe there were a few places on the net where all the players in the tourney could at least take a strong serve and get in a volley or two. Alas, we are overrun with tyros rushing the net without their bifocals. There's a few decent players in the lists here, but I'm not about to waste my time waiting for a court if there's shit to watch in the meantime. Off to another arena, for now. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	More fun than (0.00 / 1) (#128)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:53:48 PM PST

	This thread is more fun than the "Collected Postings of Rev. Don Kool" (vols 1 through 18).

	IE standard browser?? (1.00 / 1) (#136)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:10:27 PM PST

	IE is not the standard browser.. SOmeone commented that their server logs contained more IE broswer hits than anything else. The says that IE is the most used browser. Says nothing about being a standard. And not to mention, it only says it about his/her site. Slashdot, or another linux site could say that Netscape under Linux is the standard broswer using the same arguement.. I personally feel that this article was a joke. It was so incorrect in so many statements, that it has to be. He complains about requiring a Pentium class machine to run Mandrake Linux 8.1.. If he had read the requirements, he would have known that upfront. (Mandrake also puts out a 486 version that work on his machine, more difficult to find, but its there).. This article was written like someone buying a stereo, bringing it home, only to find out that they didn't get speakers with it. If they had only researched before, they would have known.......

	Wrong-o! (3.00 / 1) (#164)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:55:07 PM PST

	A few months ago, a site was linked by slashdot that was gracious enough to display log information regarding browsers. 70% of slashbots use IE.

	Ok (none / 0) (#194)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:21:11 AM PST

	Still, show me proof that IE is the standard browser. I give you that its the most popular, most widely used. Show me proof of being a standard.

	Guess that makes windows the STANDARD OS! (none / 0) (#410)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 12:45:30 PM PST

	So since you can only use the STANDARD, all other OS's should be Illegal, and i should be arrested for running Linux Mandrake, the same version this idiot couldnt even get running when it attempted to review.

	Hmm....... (1.00 / 1) (#146)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:34:56 PM PST

	WOnder if the author even knew that MS bases their internet code (TCP/IP stack for techie types) on an open sourse license (BSD)?? Guess that rules out them using Windows.. For proof: Go to microsoft.com. Search for "bsd".. Scroll through the entries till you see one label "The WinSock API", with the following text: Summary: The WinSock API The Windows Socket API is a standard set of functions used on Windows-based computers to perform process-to-process communications across networks. It is based on the University of California, Berkeley, UNIX implementation BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) version 4.3. If you follow the link, it'll put you to a page describing it. I won't direct link it, as it requires you to have a Passport/Hotmail account.. But since most people here seem to be Microsoft supporters, they shouldn't have a problem following the link.

	what are you talking about? (1.00 / 1) (#158)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 10:49:53 PM PST

	I hate to do this because i'm all for free speech, but what you have written is 99% incorrect, lies and shows the writing of an uneducated author. And I along with many other would like you to remove it. However if you don't i'd like to point out some things. 1. Mandrake Linux is a distrobution not a version, Mandrake releases many versions as do redhat etc. 2. Mandrake is aimed at pentiums, others are aimed at 486s. Also you yourself said that you use an outdated version of windows, isn't that because current versions are too resource hungry? 3.Internet Explorer is not the internet standard and often goes against the standard, however there are many browsers available for Linux that are more standards compliant and often just better. 4.MS Office for win will not work with Mac either. Linux is no different, infact there are office sweats like StarOffice that are more compatible, load MS files and are completely FREE, not hundreds of dollars. 5.Security, Linux is in no way as vulnerable as windows, infact there are almost no viruses in Linux, thus no reason for anti-virus software, Linux is open-source which means that anyone who finds a worm can correct it quickly and they do. There are other issues with your article that I don't have time to correct, however this article should be withdrawn until you install Linux, read up on it's liscencing and learn that just because it isn't MS it isn't inferior. Michael Debenham mdebenham@hotmail.com

	A Plea: Don't DOS The Adequacy. Thank you. (4.55 / 9) (#160)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:30:35 PM PST

	As I've watched this interesting discussion heat up, a sense of forboding began to make itself felt. A similar computer article had the discussion "crashed" by an unruly crowd of devil-may-care technological junkies, hell-bent on disrupting the otherwise orderly and useful Internet with their wild sort of "frontier" methods. Because this 'Linux' inhabits a legal gray area, it seems to draw in a crowd from the other side of the line -- the so-called "hackers" who, as we can see from their verbally abusive and violent mode of debate, recognize few rules, if any. Yet they are not entirely feral. On some level, rational discouse means something to them, and when they feel themselves losing ground aganinst those with greater education in this Liberal Art, they become angry, and their urge to violence is redoubled. So the last time such "Hell's Angels" of the computing world invited themselves to The Adequacy, they acted out their embarrasment by trying to wreck the place. A devastating co-ordinated Denial Of Service Attack was launched, and Adequacy was out of communication with the rest of the world for a full year. I was one of those most affected by this loss, but many, many people were devastatd as well. You "Hackers" may not realize this, but this site serves a great many purposes beyond just this one article. The Diary section, for example, is a lifeline to an entire community of us, from enthusiasts in an obscure form of recreation imported from Japan (I won't detail it here) to a thriving nymphette artist patronage system. The Adequacy's heroic response to the recent WTC attack is well-known across both the Internet and the World Wide Web. This last item is perhaps the one you are most likely to have heard of. Please, think about these things. If you do stop and think, you will, I hope, choose not to act on your anger. Don't copy and paste that script. Don't run it. Please. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Isn't this getting a bit silly? (1.00 / 2) (#236)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 04:16:42 PM PST

	There are two possibilities here. 1) This is a completely serious article. 2) This is satire/humour/etc. If 1: This article is so ridiculously and grossly inaccurate that to respond to it is pointless, as the five year old who wrote it won't believe a word you say. BTW, Linux is completely legal. There is no "gray area". Trust me on this. Oh, crap, I forgot: Junior won't believe me. If 2: Yes, it's a hoot. Can we move on, please? Thanks.

	The GPL is a legal question mark. (4.50 / 2) (#239)
	by elenchos on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:34:37 PM PST

	And it is probably unenforcable. One basic reason that Linux and GPL software in general haven't moved beyond the narrow hobbyist niche is that the legal status of the so-called Copyleft is fraught with risk for any serious business venture. What happens if it turns out that, if the GPL is ever tested in court, it proves invalid? By it's very nature, it contradicts the basic intent of copyright law and the accepted standard for doing business in the Western world. You may pat yourself on the back all you want for the cleversness of speciously perverting the intent of the law, but you will find that real judges in real courtrooms have no time for such Sophism. They use simple common sense, and common sense tells you that the GPL has twisted the intent of Copyright so far that it is unrecognizable. So, Linux is most definitely in a "gray area." It is like some recreational drug that is so new that the FDA hasn't yet added it to its schedule of controlled substances. You couldn't realistically go into business selling such a drug, since you could expect to have it banned soon enough. In the same way, Linux has so far gone under the radar of legitimate business, but for how much longer? The smart prediction is that when Linux and/or the GPL is adjudicated in a real court of law, it will be found illegal, and so will be banned. This doesn't even take into account the recklessness of releasing the "source code" to the irresponsible masses. Users can do anything they want with Linux and it's (few) applications. Thus, any instance of Linux is a potential cracker's tool. Unlike the responsibly binary-only releases by Micro-Soft, Linux is virtually guranteed to be used to violate the law sooner or later. It just makes it too easy. Linux is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation? This is exacerbated by the type of wild-eyed maniac who is the typical Linux junkie. In practical terms, each and every installation of Linux is being used for cracking. The Linux fiend can't help himself, and among his gang respect for law, or for property, or for even the basics of civil discourse are utterly alien. Simply glance at the Linux response to this article. Numerous threats against the Adequacy server, and at least two documented cases of hacking. Several threats of physical violence. Uncounted cases of verbal assault, insults, and some of the most foul and obscene language I have ever read on this site. We know how you are, you Linux hackers! You yourselves bear witness to your crimes and perversions. How can you deny what is plainly evident here in this very discussion? I don't know what to make of your two "cases" that you mention. It seems a banality to me. You can read any article and surmise that the piece either is or is not a satire. How does that have any bearing on whether or not you believe the facts presented? If you think one of the statements in this article is not entirely accurate, post your criticism of that. So far I've seen nothing that credibly supports this odd accusation. Neither the general conclusions, nor the specifics of this piece have been refuted in the least. The author and this site have been insulted, they have been threatened, and numerous four-letter words have been hurled. But refuted? Where? As far as when you may move on, I have no idea what they power structure of a cracker gang is. I suppose you have a leader of some kind, and that the gang will move on when he tells you to. Unless one of you wants to challenge his authority in some sort of "rumble." I sometimes wish Adequacy was not so courageous in taking on topics like this. Any discussion of Linux always attracts a dangerously violent and lawless element to the site, and it takes days for a sense of security to return after they have moved on. I just hope that this time they will not wreck the site before they move on to other crimes. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Not True (none / 0) (#245)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:24:41 PM PST

	"And it is probably unenforcable. One basic reason that Linux and GPL software in general haven't moved beyond the narrow hobbyist niche is that the legal status of the so-called Copyleft is fraught with risk for any serious business venture. What happens if it turns out that, if the GPL is ever tested in court, it proves invalid? By it's very nature, it contradicts the basic intent of copyright law and the accepted standard for doing business in the Western world. You may pat yourself on the back all you want for the cleversness of speciously perverting the intent of the law, but you will find that real judges in real courtrooms have no time for such Sophism. They use simple common sense, and common sense tells you that the GPL has twisted the intent of Copyright so far that it is unrecognizable." You are right that the GPL has never been tested in court. But you are wrong about what you say about the GPL, and copyright. Actually the main purpose for a copyright is not profit, it's control. This is exactly what the GPL provides, only the author wants other people to see the code, but he does not want them to modify his work without releasing the source code. It's a lot more comparable to voluntary charity than to a communist police state. "So, Linux is most definitely in a "gray area." It is like some recreational drug that is so new that the FDA hasn't yet added it to its schedule of controlled substances. You couldn't realistically go into business selling such a drug, since you could expect to have it banned soon enough. In the same way, Linux has so far gone under the radar of legitimate business, but for how much longer? The smart prediction is that when Linux and/or the GPL is adjudicated in a real court of law, it will be found illegal, and so will be banned." Can you please explain how it could be legally banned. It contains no parts which would constitute an illegal contract. It does contain something's, when it comes to keeping the derived code opensource which could be constituted as invalid though. This is why some people are afraid about what will happen when the GPL goes to court. "This doesn't even take into account the recklessness of releasing the "source code" to the irresponsible masses. Users can do anything they want with Linux and it's (few) applications. Thus, any instance of Linux is a potential cracker's tool. Unlike the responsibly binary-only releases by Micro-Soft, Linux is virtually guranteed to be used to violate the law sooner or later. It just makes it too easy. Linux is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation?" Have you ever tried BSD. It releases the code in a much more liberal manner. Even Micro-Soft uses code which is released under it's extremely unrestricted license. "This is exacerbated by the type of wild-eyed maniac who is the typical Linux junkie. In practical terms, each and every installation of Linux is being used for cracking. The Linux fiend can't help himself, and among his gang respect for law, or for property, or for even the basics of civil discourse are utterly alien." I do agree that Linux and BSD are common OS for crackers. I think this is mostly because Linux and BSD cheap, it would simply cost more to legally attain an equally powerful OS from Micro-Soft, or Sun. Most people would probably try to bootleg them. Have you ever been in China? I was there on a business trip. I was offered Windows 2000 Advanced Server, on the street, for about $50. But his does not make "practically" every Linux and BSD user a cracker. I use both BSD and Linux at work, where I set up servers for legitimate business. I also use Linux at home, as an excellent software developing platform. I'm not a cracker and I know tons people who are not crackers who use Linux and BSD. "Simply glance at the Linux response to this article. Numerous threats against the Adequacy server, and at least two documented cases of hacking. Several threats of physical violence. Uncounted cases of verbal assault, insults, and some of the most foul and obscene language I have ever read on this site. We know how you are, you Linux hackers! You yourselves bear witness to your crimes and perversions. How can you deny what is plainly evident here in this very discussion?" I do agree that there is a very vocal minority of Linux Users who don't really know how to act. "I don't know what to make of your two "cases" that you mention. It seems a banality to me. You can read any article and surmise that the piece either is or is not a satire. How does that have any bearing on whether or not you believe the facts presented? If you think one of the statements in this article is not entirely accurate, post your criticism of that. So far I've seen nothing that credibly supports this odd accusation. Neither the general conclusions, nor the specifics of this piece have been refuted in the least. The author and this site have been insulted, they have been threatened, and numerous four-letter words have been hurled. But refuted? Where?" I disagree. I have seen several post here who have really pointed out valid points of major factual errors in this article. And who have done so in a nice way. "As far as when you may move on, I have no idea what they power structure of a cracker gang is. I suppose you have a leader of some kind, and that the gang will move on when he tells you to. Unless one of you wants to challenge his authority in some sort of "rumble." I sometimes wish Adequacy was not so courageous in taking on topics like this. Any discussion of Linux always attracts a dangerously violent and lawless element to the site, and it takes days for a sense of security to return after they have moved on. I just hope that this time they will not wreck the site before they move on to other crimes." I have seen a port scan that was posted on this site. I usually only do these on clients, since some people get angry if you scan them without their knowledge. Although it is technically not illegal. As a systemadmin I can tell you that this site either has an extremely exotic and uncommon network setup, or this sites sysadmin is just as clue less as the guy who wrote this article. I have to say, I have seen a lot of unfounded arguments from people who defend this site. Including you.

	You don't think Microsoft are Criminals? (1.00 / 1) (#248)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:53:31 PM PST

	Actually, there are no "back doors" in Linux where in Windows, there are deliberately many of them. Also, learn your jargon! the term, "hacker" merely implies someone who is knowledgeable about computers whereas, "cracker", implies someone malicious. I think you better tell NASA to stop using Linux, as well as Boeing (used on the 777 maintenance and cabin management terminals) and lest we forget, the movie industry for graphics design. You didn't really think "Titanic" was created on a 32bit PC operating Windows, did you? Actually, it was done on a clustered system running 250 Alpha 64 bit RISC processors and RedHat-5.2 with Beowulf clustering software. Your arguments for closed source are very weak! While many in Redmond use Linux for their personal use, they send their thanks for making a 40,000 employee company worth so much money. They need people like you! Really, they do! Dave Seattle, Washington

	I don't see much of relevance here, except... (5.00 / 3) (#258)
	by elenchos on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:45:59 PM PST

	...this bizarre comparison between giving a cyberterrorism weapon like Linux to every random demented teenage boy in the world, and authorizing a trusted Defense Contractor like Boing access to such a dangerous tool. Remember that Boing is also allowed to attach machine guns to their airplanes and even to equip them with nuclear weapons. It's their job, after all. The government keeps a careful eye on all aspects of their operations, ensuring that only Real Americans are allowed to work at their plants, and accounting for every nut, washer and drop of radar-absorbing paint within their heavily-guarded compound. Should we be surprised that the exact opposite of Boeing, the Hollywood Fithmakers would gravitate towards the "street" version of this dangerous munition, and use it for their amoral 'alternative-lifestyle' movies like Titanic? Naturally such cynical and jaded coke-heads and whore-mongers as we find making movies would try to use their substantial influence to 'mainstream' Linux, in the same way they use their power to push promiscuity and drug use into the mainstream, and on to Main Street, USA. I want to reply to your statements about Micro-Soft, but I frankly can't understand a word of what you are saying. It looks like random vitriol to me. Do you GNU zealots ever stop to notice how automated your rhetoric has become? It is this predictable string of "Micro-Soft this", "Open -Source that", "further-more Freedom...", etc. It is word salad! I think you have become so inured to spewing out these well-worn and scripted rants that you no longer are capable of realizing if they actually contain any meaning beyond "Micro-Soft is Bad." Perhaps a little rest would suit you. And please don't DOS The Adequacy. Thank you. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	From a biology graduate (none / 0) (#254)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:15:32 PM PST

	"This doesn't even take into account the recklessness of releasing the "source code" to the irresponsible masses. Users can do anything they want with Linux and it's (few) applications. Thus, any instance of Linux is a potential cracker's tool. Unlike the responsibly binary-only releases by Micro-Soft, Linux is virtually guranteed to be used to violate the law sooner or later. It just makes it too easy. Linux is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation?" If the above paragraph is correct. The whole scientific community is making a big mistake by releasing the human genome sequence because this information is virtually guranteed to be used to violate the law sooner or later (may be by producing biological weapons or human clones?). It just makes it too easy. Unlike the responsible Biotech Companies that patent nearly everything they have, academic researchers releasing research findings for free is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation? Ivan

	Quite so! (5.00 / 2) (#257)
	by elenchos on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:27:10 PM PST

	What kind of maniac would just dump the Human Genome into the cesspool of the Internet, to be freely downloaded by any mad hacker? They're just begging for disaster. And to what purpose? So drug addicts and ne'er do wells can 'hack' together their own GNU/Humans??? Just look at the dysfunctionalty of GNU/Linux if you want a peek at how well that would work. This kind of information, from computer souce code to genes to chemical formulae for explosives to recipes for making botulisim toxin are all a terrible threat to the public health and safety. Even to world peace itself! Beyond keeping this dangerous information out of the hands of the lonely teenagers and the frustrated desktop-support help-line workers that make up the Free Software Underground, I worry that it is too dangerous for the typical university as well. Here in USia, Ivan, university faculties are lousy with hippies, anarchists and COMMUNISTS, who ride bicycles to work, refuse to eat meat, and collaborate with such entities as the GREEN PARTY. You can imagine the kind of reckless stunts they will pull with the Human Genome in their hands. Can you imagine the kind of "demonstrations" or "direct actions" (code words that simply mean "terrorism") they would cook up? I am chilled at the nightmarish thought of it all. I'm grateful that we had a right-thinking man like Ivan in at least one biology department to put his foot down and say "No!" to this abuse of copyright, free speech, and the Bill of Rights. If only it were enough... I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	You dumb fuck (0.00 / 2) (#329)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:12:56 PM PST

	http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov WHat the fuck do you think they are doing with the information gained. Jesus Christ your ignorance knows no bounds!!! Only stupid ass american consumers are willing to eat a load of corporate shit, and pay more to get it the next time.

	GPL legal gray area? (1.00 / 3) (#310)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 03:34:27 PM PST

	Oh, damn. This entire thread has become a giant troll, but I can't resist myself * If you want to talk about gray areas... Microsoft itself is the world's BIGGEST legal gray area. You may not have noticed, but the Federal Goverment want to put the smackdown on Microsoft. A number of states want to bitchslap Bill Gates. The European Union are looking into Microsoft's affairs. Novell are suing them. And so on ad infinitum. They're the cigarette manufacturers of computer software. As for the GPL being a "legal gray area"... well, the "Terms And Conditions" on this very site are more of a legal gray area. They're about as enforceable as a total ban on breathing. As for the so-called "facts" in this article, they're nonsense. The reviewer cannot even get right the NAME of the guy who originated Linux. Oh dear, Linux is rubbish because it doesn't run Microsoft Software. Where does it claim anywhere that Linux does? You might as well claim that a DVD players is rubbish because you can't watch your favourite VHS tapes on it. btw, I work as an Oracle DBA (and yes, I use telnet daily) on a rather large Sun Unix box. It doesn't run Windows. I guess I ought to get my company to ditch it and run our banking systems on a Windows XP box, because any OS which doesn't run Windows software can't be much cop according to the article... This article is in no wise a considered review of "Mandrake, the latest version of Linux" (another fundamental factual error) and anyone who SERIOUSLY considers it anything other than humourous are deluding themselves. Adequacy are to be commended on producing a fine piece of comedy, but that can hardly be considered courageous. btw, for people complaining about all the linux people coming over and attacking or what have you... consider yourself lucky Slashdot haven't picked this up ;) Oh, and elenchos.... I didn't know "Boing" (sic) was a defence contractor... * And I'm not even a GPL zealot.

	THIS POST GOES OUT TO ELENCHOS! (none / 0) (#507)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:05:35 PM PST

	THIS POST GOES OUT TO ELENCHOS! "And it is probably unenforcable. One basic reason that Linux and GPL software in general haven't moved beyond the narrow hobbyist niche is that the legal status of the so-called Copyleft is fraught with risk for any serious business venture." Linux and GPL software has moved way beyond the narrow hobbyist niche. You can see my post above. I have worked at many companies and they couldn't function without GPL software. I am positive that every company that is on the web, in some way uses atleast one piece of GPL'ed software. So it just isn't true... You probably use GPL'd software and you don't even know it. You obviously aren't in the biz (not that even matters, there is more to life than computers), so I don't think you could comment on that. "This doesn't even take into account the recklessness of releasing the "source code" to the irresponsible masses. Users can do anything they want with Linux and it's (few) applications. Thus, any instance of Linux is a potential cracker's tool." What is wrong with giving away the source to software? What better way is there to develop a piece of software and to find bugs in it. This is a free country (US) and almost a free world. A butter knife, hammer, even puddle of water is a potential murder weapon. Should they all be outlawed, even though they all have practical uses? It is just unbelievable that you think opensource should be outlawed... Should credit cards and screw drivers be outlawed because they can be used to jimmy open locks? I think I made my point. Linux has a bit more than a "few" applications. I am starting to believe you are about as knoledgable as the writer of this original aticle. The point is, Windows can and is used as a cracker tool... You are misinformed if you think that all "hackers" and "crackers" are linux users. Not to mention you don't really understand the meaning of the word hacker, but I am not openning that can of worms. "Unlike the responsibly binary-only releases by Micro-Soft, Linux is virtually guranteed to be used to violate the law sooner or later. It just makes it too easy. Linux is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation?" Fist off, it is just Microsoft, no hyphen. I don't think that MS was thinking, "let's be responsible and only release binary versions of our software." I am sure if there was more money in open source, then that is the way they would have gone. I think it is more greed that made up Bill Gate's mind. Linux is already used to violate the law... NEWS FLASH!!! So is widows. You think all the little script kiddies flooding Yahoo and such are running linux? Nah... most of those idiots are using MS windows. They do make "cracker" tools for windows you know? For the most part, the kids that do that crap never touched the source code except to compile it into a binary. That is why they are called "script kiddes." They take other people's software, and use it to attack servers... They have no knowledge of writing code, or tweaking the linux kernel. If the scripts they used were available as a close binary, they would use those instead of having to compile some other persons code. For some reason you have it stuck in your head that these kinds of attacks wouldn't be possible without linux and opensource. The sad truth is that they really have nothing to do with it, and if it wasn't for opensource software, most of the targets they hit wouldn't even be available. Do you really think that the internet and software in general would be anywhere near where it is today without opensource? You do understand that virtually all e-mail travels at some point through an opensource mailserver (sendmail, postfix, qmail...). You do also know that apache is the most widespread webserver in the world right? You do also understand that no Microsoft product(s) come anywhere close to the status that these opensource servers have at this time. right? Another thing I find you are mistaken on is that Microsoft is doing the companies that use them good by keeping thier software closed in a binary. My personal belief is quite the opposite. Why do you think that microsoft computers are the target of such attacks on a regular basis? Because it is EASY to crack MS products! Why? Because they don't let more than a few hundred eyes look at the source code for mistakes. Proven servers like Apache Web server have been looked by thousands and thousands of people. If a bug or hole is found, you can bet there is a patch available within hours. Usually people that find these bugs are other programmers that are looking at the code and not malicious users. With closed source code like MS the people that find your bug and security flaws are "crackers" and often malicious users. Who do you think is more likely to write a patch and publish it and who do you think is more likely to write a script for all the script kiddies to use and attack corporate sites? My bet is the programmer that works on Apache is going to submit a bug report or even go one step further and write the code out for the Apache dev team themselves. You know why? Cause opensource hackers do it for that warm fuzzy feeling they get inside when they write something that people need or fix something that needs to be fixed. Script Kiddies that care little about advancing computer technology get that feeling from watching Yahoo and ebay go down in flames after launching a DDoS. You get the idea? The bad guys aren't using the ability to see the code, so if you take away opensource, they will still exist and still attack sites. Linux doesn't hack websites, lusers (luser=end user, not loser) hack websites. "This is exacerbated by the type of wild-eyed maniac who is the typical Linux junkie. In practical terms, each and every installation of Linux is being used for cracking. The Linux fiend can't help himself, and among his gang respect for law, or for property, or for even the basics of civil discourse are utterly alien." Generalize much? You seemed to be an intelligent even educated person until you hit this point. How many linux "junkies" do you really know? I mean personally. Are their eyes infact wild? Are they all maniacs? How do you know that each and every installation of Linux is being used for cracking? I personally have install hundreds if not thousands of linux boxes, and only a few of them have been used for cracking. Most of them deliver e-mail, serve webpages, store data, and answer dns requests. I admit that I am a linux "junkie", and I love it. It is a lot of fun to hack, crack, whatever you want to call it. I don't do it to hurt other people though. That is the key point. I do it to advance the computer industry, and to look for security flaws for I am a network security specialist. Wait a second... Bill is that you? The point is, I am a linux junkie and you know nothing about me, but claim to. "I don't know what to make of your two "cases" that you mention. It seems a banality to me. You can read any article and surmise that the piece either is or is not a satire. How does that have any bearing on whether or not you believe the facts presented? If you think one of the statements in this article is not entirely accurate, post your criticism of that. So far I've seen nothing that credibly supports this odd accusation. Neither the general conclusions, nor the specifics of this piece have been refuted in the least. The author and this site have been insulted, they have been threatened, and numerous four-letter words have been hurled. But refuted? Where?" Look up above... I tore the article a new one, and backed it up pretty well I think... I am not here to give a linux lesson though, so I won't. "Any discussion of Linux always attracts a dangerously violent and lawless element to the site, and it takes days for a sense of security to return after they have moved on. I just hope that this time they will not wreck the site before they move on to other crimes." Well... I may actually agree with you on some of this. I don't know about violence, most of the people that give that kind of response are 15 and stupid. I mean I am an adult, and would never respond that way, yet I still use linux... amazing... I just want to know, what did a GNU Linux user ever do to you? Did they break your heart? Leave you at the alter? It just seems like something really bad happened to you. "Beyond keeping this dangerous information out of the hands of the lonely teenagers and the frustrated desktop-support help-line workers that make up the Free Software Underground, I worry that it is too dangerous for the typical university as well. Here in USia, Ivan, university faculties are lousy with hippies, anarchists and COMMUNISTS, who ride bicycles to work, refuse to eat meat, and collaborate with such entities as the GREEN PARTY. You can imagine the kind of reckless stunts they will pull with the Human Genome in their hands. Can you imagine the kind of "demonstrations" or "direct actions" (code words that simply mean "terrorism") they would cook up?" hehe... I'm a vegetarian too. You must really HATE me! I am starting to catch on to you now though... You fear what you can't explain, and what you know little about. Tell me now why it is wrong to be vegetarian and care about the environment... Should I consume with wreckless abandone as well as use binary software. The very fact that you use the words dangerous when explaining linux, and comparing it to druggies and whatnot, now even talking about hippies a little and the Green Party. Hmmm... conservative republican right? I see where this is all going, and when you decide to open a book, or go to a website and read up a little on the topics being discussed, then get back to me sometime. I think what your problem is that you base your idea of the GNU/Linux community on what you read on message boards and forums... These are not actual linux guru's but little kids doing what they do to piss you off, and it is obvious that they have succeeded. How does that feel? The little kiddies are really getting to you. For the record, GPL is not the only opensource license out there, one of my favorites is the BSD license. There are actually probably over a hundred licenses besides the GNU GPL that could be considered opensource. Its progress, and you can't stop that. peace, daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p spam@burnit.net

	The GPL is a legal question mark (none / 0) (#520)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:25:27 PM PST

	Pompous!

	The intent of copyright (none / 0) (#530)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 09:47:09 AM PST

	What happens if it turns out that, if the GPL is ever tested in court, it proves invalid? IBM hasn't found any problems with the GNU GPL. Even then, provided your opponent doesn't bribe the judge, most courts consider the spirit as well as the letter of any contract. common sense tells you that the GPL has twisted the intent of Copyright so far that it is unrecognizable The intent of the copyright monopoly, as set out by the framers of the United States Constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" by giving authors a time-limited window in which to dictate terms under which a work may be used. (However, the entertainment industry has been slowly compromising the "time-limited window" part.) A contract called a "license agreement", such as the GNU GPL, spells out those terms. Linux is like giving away loaded guns with no safety. How long do you expect a civilized nation of laws to tolerate this situation? Citizens of the United States of America have enjoyed the right to bear arms on behalf of a militia for over 210 years now.

	Re: number 2 (none / 0) (#240)
	by theR on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:35:30 PM PST

	If 2: Yes, it's a hoot. Can we move on, please? Thanks. As Tonto would say, "What do you mean we, kemosahbee?" It's all right to cry, Crying takes the sad out of you. -- Rosey Grier

	And then... (none / 0) (#313)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 04:01:00 PM PST

	And then, mere seconds later, the Lone Ranger gutshot him and said "I looked up what kemosabe means, you sonofabitch" ;)

	this is a review? (1.00 / 1) (#175)
	by jcolter on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:23:59 AM PST

	Ok so when do we get to the part where you actually installed Mandrake?

	God damnit son! (0.50 / 2) (#181)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 02:16:30 AM PST

	I can't believe this, the author is an oblivious moron who needs to take his head out of his ass! It's bullshit like this which brings down the community as a whole. If I met you in person, I'd kick your ass.

	This article is plain wrong! (0.50 / 2) (#186)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 04:24:54 AM PST

	I'm deeply chocked by the ignorance I see from the author of the review and from the majority of the Windows users comments. I had no idea that the lack of knowledge about Linux amoung Windows using computer enthusiasts was that big. Iit's really sad if Windows-alternative software have to fight this kind of ignorance no matter how good it is. I'm chocked.

	Amazing zestpool of stupidity (1.00 / 3) (#189)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:55:14 AM PST

	Never.. NEVER have i read such a stupid discussion. I came by to read a review of Mandrake8.1 and got amused from the lack of absolutely anything shown by the author. The amusement stopped when i continued to see people eating the flamebait and the trolls getting away with even more insanity and ignorant answers and replys. I really kicked it when the paranoid and unneded editors joined in to defend something I still havent found out what were. So.. Dear normal people. Why don't you abandon this incredibly irrelevant site and spend your energy where it is needed and appreciated? Kind regards Ole Andersen "News for grown-ups"... Sheesh!!

	Adequacy more like inadequacy (1.00 / 1) (#190)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 05:58:27 AM PST

	While the facts remain on all operating systems are good for what they were created. The mainframe still exists and it was thought that it would die a quick death. The experts were wrong (again)! It seems to me that adequacy.com is trying to get its hit count up so they publish a story like this. Publishing a story like this will absolutely get the hit count up on your server and very quickly. You could also publish a religious story bashing other religions and that would work too. The fact of the matter is each operating system is good in its own right. If you are a Windows bigot then you should not write stories about other OSes unless you wish to get these types of resluts. Then you continue by insulting those that have a different opinion that you. The fact remains that you did an excellent job getting your hit count up on your web site. You have been recongnized across the Internet and the World Wide Web ;) (which just for note the "World Wide Web" runs on the Internet, so you either stutterd or you had deja vu). The really intersting part is lack of knowledge although you are obviously PRO Microsoft you should probably use Microsoft. And to discuss security for a moment you should probably secure your web server a little more Port State Service 21/tcp open ftp 22/tcp open ssh 37/tcp open time 80/tcp open http 110/tcp open pop-3 111/tcp open sunrpc 544/tcp open kshell 666/tcp open doom 2105/tcp open eklogin 8888/tcp open sun-answerbook 32771/tcp open sometimes-rpc5 Remote operating system guess: Solaris 2.6 - 2.7 There are a few ports here that should not be open :) But since you are the expert I will let you install ZoneAlarm on this system. Good Luck! Have a great day and good luck to you and yours. nkr1ptd

	Nice try script kiddy (5.00 / 1) (#209)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:43:40 AM PST

	If you were as l33t as you think you are, you'd have directed your hack attack at adequacy.org, not adequacy.com. Better luck next time.

	Apples to Apples (1.00 / 1) (#196)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:29:43 AM PST

	Linux and Windows are no where near alike so how can you compare two O/S's that are not comparable? Windows is intended for the basic user. People who simply want to surf the net,check e-mail and play games and are happy with and have no desire to change or fine tune their O/S. Linux is for more advanced users. People who want FULL control of their environment. Linux allows you full access to the source code. If you don't like anything (yes anything!) you can edit it and make it the way you like and re-compile it. Linux is a networking operating system,and as far as security goes......if your linux box isn't secure it's your own fault. Linux is not a company linux is just the name of the kernel that runs the operating system. RedHat is a company/organization that has an opinion on what they think is the best combination of apps and daemons that should be controled by the Linux kernel. Slackware,SuSe,and Mandrake have their own opinions/ideas as well. Linux itself is not user friendly and has never been. The diffrent companies are trying to provide technical support to help ease the pain of the average user and help them slide more comfortably into the bigger picture.</rant> My point is once again Linux and Windows are completely diffrent. If you don't understand it don't bash it. -=<cyplex>=- P.S. I can't Spell =)

	No argument? (1.00 / 1) (#205)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:15:47 AM PST

	I guess everybody agrees with my statement.... flexes

	Perhaps there would be more response... (5.00 / 1) (#206)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:32:14 AM PST

	...if you worded your post in English. Please, try to be literate. Adequacy looks down upon those who cannot articulate what they are attempting to get across.

	hmmm (1.00 / 1) (#213)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 10:14:56 AM PST

	You must be the person who wrote the original article.... You appear to be a very shallow individual. My post was very simple and to the point. How did you not understand? Perhaps you would like to explain? -=<cyplex>=-

	Yay Mandrake!!! (4.00 / 1) (#197)
	by jin wicked on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 07:48:10 AM PST

	I can't wait until I get my new computer!! I am making a Mandrake Linux/Win2K dual boot machine right away!!! Just like my boyfriend's!!!! :D "Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

	WARNING WARNING! (5.00 / 2) (#203)
	by jsm on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:11:08 AM PST

	do not attempt to install Mandrake before reading my user review of the same software, which ought to be published on adequacy.org later this week. Unlike iat, I did manage to get the bloody thing installed, and suffered pretty horribly as a result. Don't miss the forthcoming "Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Across the Linux Fault Threshold", exclusively on adequacy.org! ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	But thats why we have Debian (none / 0) (#550)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:25:44 PM PST

	Unlike iat's clueless babbling about not being able to install Mandrake, go try Debian instead. Or one of the many other Linux distributions. Oh, and iat, it's Corel Linux, not Coral (thogh that distro is now defunct, but it was based on Debian, so it's not like we're hurting from it). I encourage everybody to read the Linux Newbie Guide on Linux.org if you want a more educated review.

	You might want to read my guide to building a PC (5.00 / 1) (#218)
	by dmg on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:22:20 AM PST

	before you start. Its full of pointers and free of 'geek-speak'. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	What the hell? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:18:59 AM PST

	You're opinions seem to be comming from someone whom is under educated

	RE: What the hell? (none / 0) (#508)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:46:34 PM PST

	If you're going to insult someone's education, at least try to appear educated yourself. It's written 'Your Opinion' and not 'You're Opinion' you shit-brained rectal boy!!!

	I don't care which OS you choose. (1.00 / 1) (#201)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 08:40:42 AM PST

	I really don't care if what you think about linux or windows. If you want to send a large amount of money to Microsoft go ahead it's a free country. How much does it cost to be an MCSE? It can't be that much the markets flooded with them. I know, I have interviewed at least a dozen of them. We recently changed ISP's and decided to upgrade our whole infrastructure at the same time since our machines were getting quite old. Not to mention the problems with Code Red and Macro-viruses and such. A few of our techies got together and decided to use linux. We are quite pleased with the results and saved alot! Our apache servers our suiting our needs. The imap mail and apache combined with an open source product called phpGroupware does everything exchanged did for us for free. Our firewall was quite easy to set up a private LAN and a DMZ, it's an open source project called shorewall. It works for us. But do what you like! We did hire an administrator, we chose an MCSE who also loves linux and is currently a senior working on his computer science degree. That degree will allow him to grow in our company. We write software for NASA satellites, pretty much all of it is science applications running on linux beowulf clusters. It's our thing, and we like it.

	Wait a minute! (1.00 / 1) (#204)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:13:40 AM PST

	Ok, lets see. You couldn't get Linux to run on you 486 - hmmm! Well, there are a few variants of the kernel. The common version is for cpu's at 568/686 types - regardless of manufacturer, that being Intel or AMD. Then there's the kernel that's generally labeled as a "386" specific kernel. I can't tell you how many people turn there formally only good as a doorstop old 386/486 computers into very capable gateway/router computers for their home lan setup. And the damn things are like the ever ready bunny - they keep going, and going,... Now, lets consider the the "ppc" kernel?! You know "PPC" aka Power PC! Gee, Linux runs on the MAC? Sure does, and quit well. So lets quickly review. we have Linux for i386, Alpha, PowerPC, SPARC, S/390, AXP and more. Now, lets deal with another issue. I'm an R.N. I have no programming experience or knowledge. I have no system or network administration experience. I am running SuSE 7.2 Pro. It has the 2.4.4-4GB kernel. I am running an Nvidia GForce-2 MX card with the lastest, 1251 series nVidia drivers. I get about an average of 60 FPS in games like Unreal Tournament, Quake3A, Rune, Tribes2, Heretic,and.... I have a Celeron 800, I have 360MB ram. a nic, Ensonic/SB sound card, cdrw and cd, an adaptec scsi card for an "old" style zip drive, and HPT 370 on-board ATA-100 IDE controller on an Abit BE6-II, rev2.0 mobo. The First time I put in the CD for 7.1 It recognized and set everytyhing up "everything". Then when I upgraded to 7.2 it went flawlessly (wish I could say that when I went from 98 to 98SE). My friend (a masters candidate in Comp Engineering at a big ten school) has an Abit AMD board with a thunderbird 900. His set up flawlessly as well. I got 6 CD's with my disto and a DVD (my friend used this - nice, no switching cd during install). It came with Apache, Sendmail, Postfix. It comes with so many programs that I could set up a complete network and all the desktop terminals for a complete corporation. So the only conclusion that might be arrived at is that you A) did something grossly wrong, B) have some very exotic hardware, C) had a corrupted or outdate ISO of a Linux distro, 0r D) have an ulterior motive for posting this article. Your facts are grossly inaccurate. And, If I were to believe you I would be further baffled as to why places like "The White House", Korean Air Lines, SIAC (you know the people that run the servers and databases for the NYSE and AMEX) have all switched to Linux exclusively. There are quit a few more large Corporation that have switched to Linux (like large automobile manufacturers and oil companies) that have also have switched to Linux. I got a couple viruses in my email. I executed them for fun. I laughed as they chewed up a few cpu cycles and then fell on thier face - no .vbs to exploit. No, buffer overflows to take control. The truth be known. Most hackers use Windows. The script kiddies the run the trojans love windows. They can slip in these programs and subtly change the registy and file types in order to hide. In Wisconsin, a 13 year old hacker that brought down several networks with DDoS attacks states he relies on Windows - since he can't crack Unix systems. Unlike present Unix systems with udp, tcp, icmp, and igmp protocals. Windows systems don't allow full protocal implentations of all these types. XP will allow this - so look forward to an avalange of attacks, cracks and data theft. Look for more network latancy and failures. Code Red and Nimda will seem like a weak prelude to whats coming. I have to wonder what you quailifications for writing this article are. You seem to have a very limited ablility to say the least. This isn't an MCSE/Unix issue. Any MCSE could set up Linux in a heartbeat. And if they ran into a problem - there's a plethora of info and man pages installed by default with the distro - they would learn and have it up and running shortly. Frankly, I find this article dubious to say the least. Please, get the facts straight and try getting the right image file. Or, if you really want to see what Linux is like and have problems try buying a boxed set. Personal edition run about $30 U.S. and Pro versions (with more code then you can load on a stock system) run about $70 U.S. All with 60 - 90 days completed support (often much longer, I've heard people getting prompt answers over two years afterwards). Cheers, Curtis Rey

	Different people need different OS's (1.00 / 1) (#207)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:34:37 AM PST

	I would say that for the average end user Windows is fine, it does not require you to learn the theories behind the operation of the software so you can use it quickly. If however you need flexibility and you are willing to put up with the initial learning curve of a unix like os then that is for you. If you like to know how the "innards" work and how you can change that to suite your particular needs then I think most flavours of Unix will suit one fine. Granted most people do not need/want to do this, so then Windows or Mac is avialable. I'm not going to go into the rational behind the reviewers statements but my point is that there is not one OS to satisfy all needs. I would say Linux at this stage is good server OS but given time it could gain a place on the desktop, many use it this way already. For now I would give my users Windows desktops so because they don't need the added flexibility of Linux/Unix in general. For my servers I would use a flavour of Unix because I like the flexibility it offers. Hopefully someone will read this and agree with me. -- Why can't we all just get along?

	Geeze (0.00 / 2) (#226)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:21:49 PM PST

	As much STUPID comments are being made in here, I am beginning to think the Anonymous Cowards over on Slashdot are pure genius'es. What say we rope up the original author and burn him at the stake, just to rid this miserable planet of yet another crack addict?

	death threat noted (5.00 / 1) (#255)
	by jsm on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 11:03:05 PM PST

	and abuse@[your IP] notified. You seem to be acting under the belief that adequacy is like slashdot when it comes to ignoring death threats. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Abut the most inaccurate review ever! (1.00 / 1) (#228)
	by ian on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 12:57:01 PM PST

	If only your reviewer had spent a just little time in research he may not have posted in public giving everybody to opportunity to point out his shortcomings. "the latest and greatest version of the Linux operating system, Linux Mandrake 8.1." Nope, just the release of the next version of Linux put out by the Mandrake people. Not timed against anything of MS. It was due, had been updated, checked, beta tested, released. A full cycle of production with the next release on its way. "The Linux operating system was .. created by ... coincidentally named Linux Torvalds." How hard is it to do research and find the guy's name is Linus? Linux is a play on the words, "Linus's Unix" as he originally wrote his kernel program to be a easily accessible version of Unix. "until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance." Kidding us aren't you? In the server market Linux derivatives such as Apache and others make up a goodly majority of the server market, better than 60%. MS has less than 30% and only last week Gartner Group strongly advised companies to drop their MS Servers and move to iPlanet or Apache because of the security problems of the MS Products. Linux is also doing very well in desktops and may beat MS there within a year or so especially with free Office products out like StarOffice and OpenOffice. "Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral". OK, as you obviously don't understand it, Linux is the basic kernel, the nuts and bolts, and every distribution (distro) uses the same kernel as its base. They add in other components, configuration, utilities, graphic engines, office tools etc to make up their own distribution. The different names reflect the companies or groups that have prepared and produced the distribution. BTW, Corel is the name of the last distro that you were thinking of, not Coral <sigh> "its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers." Linux is part of some of the world's biggest companies and it is free for them too. Don't be making silly remarks to cover up your ignorance of the computing industry. "Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation." Had you read the requirements you would have read that Mandrake is a distro that has been optimised for Pentiums and above. Red Hat and FreeBSD and many other distros contain components for systems running on 386 chips and above to Athlon or Itanium and can handle up to 8 processors well, 256 with special hardware. "blatantly incorrect." The only thing incorrect and blatantly so has been the reviewer but wait more mistakes await us dear reader. "sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications." Now you have to be joking. There are many hundreds of applications available for Linux systems and in many cases they are free to be downloaded and used. SQL servers, Office suites, CAD systems, graphic design, web servers, the list is too long but wait, these are nearly all with unlimited seats so it doesn't matter how big or small your company is, the same program runs for as many seats as needed without licensing problems. Try that, free programs and unlimited licenses, sure I bet MS has dozens of programs like that. "the Internet Explorer standard". Joke. With Linux you can use Netscape, Opera, Lynx, Konquorer and other browsers depending on your needs. These by the way are standard, they comply much closer with W3C HTML standards than IE ever has. "It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux." And it may surprise the reviewer that under WINE or Win4Lin even those programs may soon be able to run under Linux though whether you would want their bloatware and hefty licensing costs is debatable. Alternatives are available and less likely to fail or bloat your system. "Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux." Another Joke? Linux is based on Unix and has, out of the box, higher security than anything that MS has to offer. And has been offering high security from the early days. Very few hacks and trojans have been written for Linux as it has had only very few vulnerabilities discovered. You see, it is tested to destruction by a large contributor and testing team. Not just in the office at Redmond but across the world on a range of machines and systems that MS can only dream about as a test bench. Linux is secure where MS is far from it. Linux has a firewall available and on by default in every distro. It doesn't need ZoneAlarm, like Windows does, because it hasn't the open doors brought about by sloppy programming like Windows does. "Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead." BUT at what cost? How much to upgrade to handle it? How much to add a decent firewall and Antivirus program? How much to add in Office XP? When all you need is a download of Linux and the supporting disks and a download of StarOffice to have pretty well the same and all it has cost you has been either the time or buying the CDs from a dealer for a few dollars? Sorry, your reviewer has no idea what he is talking about.

	Ho-Hum (1.00 / 1) (#229)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:12:07 PM PST

	1. There aren't enough virii in Linux to need AV. 2. Mandrake comes with Bastille, an ipchains-based, enterprise quality firewall. 3. Win95 in NOT a server OS. Sure it'll run on an old machine as you described. Would you run Solaris 86, NT or Novell on it? NO! Oh, also check the hardware requirements for your beloved XP. 4. Microsloth OSes come with PCs because so many people like yourself haven't the knowledge to install and maintain a network OS.

	Wrong again. (1.00 / 1) (#232)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 03:09:18 PM PST

	[...] including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) Eh, Stanford's network is called "Leland", not Sun.

	Idiot (1.00 / 1) (#259)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 12:01:35 AM PST

	Did you really have to display your ignorance to the whole world?

	Look who's talking (none / 0) (#277)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:46:34 AM PST

	Not that it reaaly matters. The clarified acronym doesn't help the article because the information is still wrong. (Actually, if the acronym is correct, the information is still exactly the same.) BSD was not based on Solaris. Solaris was based on BSD.

	A step back (2.00 / 1) (#243)
	by ghorton on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 06:54:13 PM PST

	I think this has all been very useful. The original article was, of course, poor, but that is irrelevant: from the posts, not only can one find technical accuracy (or get within spitting distance of it) but more complete answers to issues such as the character of Linux/MS advocates and thus of Linux/MS software. The truth is that any modern OS distribution (and XP is rather like a distribution of Linux in that it includes a lot of supplementary software) is teetering on the brink of "complexity", of being an incomprehensible system. The contents of Red Hat Linux 7.1 standard edition, it has been estimated, took 8000 man years of effort to create in total. It is therefore beyond the scope of any individual's comprehension. That a modern OS isn't far, far worse is necessarily the triumph of division of labour, but any "guiding vision" is impossible to implement in any detail (and when coding, detail matters). That's why Open Source is good - it just acknowledges the way things actually have to happen now and provides a mechanism for this Mongol Hordes approach to work. Linux (and I mean the whole software/cultural phenomenon), as someone pointed out, sucks, but less than the Windows equivalent. It's incredible how a (rather amorphous) thing that will make a computer do anything you want has evolved as if it has a hive mind, some strange force pushing it in certain directions at certain crucial times - now concentrating on the interface, for instance. Internal competion, amateurish and professional fiddling and massively* inefficient, often awful, often beautiful coding is sifted by a hundred distributions, by magazine cover disks and in borrowed CD burns, and over the infinity of pathways between developer/users across the internet. That's why the angry posts by understandably annoyed Linux zealots are a facet of what make Linux so good: communication, however ill-considered; quick and dirty evaluation that, multiplied a millionfold, forms the hive mind, and it's beautiful. Amusingly, after writing this, the Adequacy server (apache - open source) crashed, spoiling my post. Ho hum. * http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html

	Even a Linux Newbie Knows More Than This (1.00 / 1) (#249)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:09:29 PM PST

	I am a mere babe when it comes to Linux having only worked with in now for about a month. But I know for instance that Mandrake, Slack Ware, Redhat et.al are not release names ah la Windows Chicago an so on. These are in fact different distributions. A bit like different brands of beer. Mandrake is just one such embodiment of Linux. And it is possible to run Linux on 486 machines as well as many other types of hardware. You just have to download the correct software. I do not think Mandrake has released anything but 586 ISO image files but you could download the Mandrake source files and build Mandrake for you platform of choice. Try this with MS Windows sometime. I will grant you this is probably beyond the capabilities of this reviewer. This is no real slam... it is beyond me too at my present newbie state. The reviewer complains that Linux does not run MS Internet Explorer. Now do you think Microsoft is planing to release a versionof IE that runs in Linux? Fat Chance. This comment of course applies to the reviewers other wants MS Office, Outlook (alias the virus lure). This is not Linux's fault. It just show Microsofst bias and vertual hold on what you are likely to see in the software world. Hum, but this isn't noncompetitive behavior??? Netscape Communicator and Netscape 6.1 both run under linux and Communicator 4.78 is included with the Mandrake release that this reviewer could not run. A whole host of other browsers run as well. Anti-virus is not really necessary in Linux. It tends to protect itself by its vary nature and structure. Only the root user (system manager) can do any real damage to the system so it is relatively virus immune (at least while you are working with it on a day to day basis). Actually, I have been impressed at the amount of software available and the support that is easily found. But please be aware running Linux in all of its current flavors is much more work and requires a higher level of computer savvy than does Windows. Something that this reviewer did not come to find out since they never ran it but felt inclined to review it anyway. As to why anyone would even bother running Linux...the answer is Windows XP itself and Microsoft new pay-as-you-go philosophy. I guess the reviewer has no problem letting Microsoft charge his credit card monthly as they are soon going to want to do. I for one am drawing the line at this particular encroachment on my liberty.

	note to the editor (1.00 / 1) (#250)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:21:15 PM PST

	This article was editted by an IDIOT. The thing STILL is totally inaccurate (I'm not talking about the author's opinions). Hell the FIX the editor offered is even MORE inaccurate than the original authors. Here are some issues: 1. Linux Torvalds >> His name is LINUS not Linux. 2. References to Red Hat, Caldera, etc as being PREVIOUS version of the Linux kernel. They are names of various distros not versions. 3. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux. >> True but the BSDs are based on Unix 4.4 not SunOS. Also SUN is not a reference to Stanford. It's a reference to Sun Microsystems. 4. Linux is NOT shareware. It's more closely related to FREEWARE if you still want to make the idiotic comparison. 5. There are quite a few more screw ups on the FACTS that I will not bother wasting my time with. Let's see if the other editors can spot them.

	This is truely pathetic... (1.00 / 1) (#251)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 09:27:44 PM PST

	Are you on Microsoft's Payroll ??? I have never seen such incompetence in a review of anything. How on earth can you do an honest review of an OS you have never even tried ? It wont run on your 486 ? Did you try to install Windows 2000 Pro on your 486, and will it run with less than 64megs ? NO !!! If your going to do a review of a MODERN OS than do it, if your going to bash something, admit it from the start. You show such a childish attitude in this review that it almost wasn't worth reading and the only reason I'm replying is to help some of your followers understand how incompetent you really are. No commercial anti-virus software, how interesting, have you been to the F-Prot site lately ? They just released a new version of their software for Linux. Firewalls ? There are more than 1 on the installation CD's and you can download several others if you prefer free of charge. Can't get Office running ? Try Wine or Win4lin, you can run it with either. Linux is shareware ? This to shows you have no clue what your even talking about. And if you truely think your windows OS is so much more secure, why don't we check recent news of OS vulnerabilites. Next time you do a review of an Operating System, you should both install it and use it FIRST. CipheR

	Dear CipheR, (1.00 / 1) (#282)
	by theR on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:20:03 AM PST

	Why do you put a space between the end of your sentences and any punctuation that is not a period? Is there some purpose to doing it like this ? Why would you put a space before a question mark or an exclamation point, but not a period? Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The author of the story should say from the start if he intends to bash something in a review. He obviously was not very clear about it, because most of the commentors in this thread did not see his intentions and have been subtly fooled into thinking this was an impartial review. The rest of your points are equally as good, just like they were the first couple hundred times they were made by others in this thread. It is people like you that give techies everywhere a good name. You are appreciated. With your help, many of iat's followers hopefully now realize how incompetent he is. It's all right to cry, Crying takes the sad out of you. -- Rosey Grier

	From the adequacy.org writers guidelines... (1.00 / 1) (#262)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:37:48 AM PST

	Just checked what the rules are fro submitting stories to this site. This really makes you smile : Here are some general guidelines for new stories: Try and write something that we actually want to post. Only the html tags listed are allowed in story text. No HTML is allowed in "title" or "dept." You must preview at least once. Please read over your story carefully. Check all URLS! Check all facts! :-) ... Oh.. please do! :)))) This site is not community edited. We will post or not post the story completely on whim.

	Irresponsible and stupid (1.00 / 1) (#269)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 05:02:45 AM PST

	I caught the "oops we screwed up" line at the top of the article; you still have only about 2 facts correct: 1. There is an operating system called Linux Mandrake 8.1 2. Yes, Linux Mandrake 8.1 only runs on Pentium or higher chips. Linux runs on just about anything, and if you want to run it on your old 486 you can download Suse or Red Hat (note: they are not PREVIOUS distributions) and do that. Yes, the High End GUI's take some serious RAM, but then again, so did Windows 95 (16MB my foot, I had that on a 486 and it crawled like a slug). On the other hand, system admins of cash-strapped, mostly volunteer, organizations can take that same 486 and use it for things like firewalling (you don't need extra software you idiot, it's built in to the kernel, and besides, Mandrake comes with Bastille which it about the tightest firewall I've seen, and it's included for ADDED protection, like I said, NAT is built into the kernel). Oh, they could also use it for a web server or even a light mail-server. With whatever RAM it has; though, admittedly, you'll have to add some more for a high traffic site. Can as MS product be a server with that flexibility on a 486? Nope, don't even try. As for software. No Internet Explorer? Yup. Because MS won't port it to Linux. You blame that on Mandrake? Do you blame rape victims as well? Mandrake comes with Konqueror, built into the KDE desktop. It also has the latest Mozilla and Opera can also be used. If you're nostalgic you can use Netscape 4.x, or even text-based web browsers. Konqueror and Mozilla are tops, Opera is commericial or "ad ware". Quite frankly, if you would have actually taken the time to INSTALL the OS before reviewing it, you would have found this out. As for not being able to run MS Office in Linux, yes...you typically can't run software from OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS in any OS. However, Office 97 runs fine in Linux useing the WINE execution layer; as do many other programs. Even so, Star Office a FREE suite, can translate MS docs with varying degrees of success; and Star Office 6.0 will base their file formats on XML, makeing incompatability a thing of the past. MS is sweating this, because their monopoly depends on other people needing their formats to work. With Star Offic 6.0 you should be able to open a document in a web browser with no formatting loss for crying out loud. I call this "productive". As for virus protection, there are programs, but most times you don't need them because VIRUSES TEND TO NOT WORK IN LINUX. There have been a couple of worms, but they are easily caught, patched, and destroyed. You found flaws and shortcommings in Linux w/o even installing? And they let you publish this? Honestly, I hope your advertizing revenue drops off the scale; you won't be seeing me on this site any more. And the thing is, there ARE shortcommings to using Linux on the average desktop, printing being the most notable; but you never even get mention the actual problems. This article was crap. And I just am amazed that it got posted at all. Do us all a favor and be quiet until you use the product your are reviewing.

	Many Errors (1.00 / 1) (#271)
	by dorward on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 05:35:09 AM PST

	Just SOME of the errors in the article. [editor's note, by bc] Due to enormous user feedback, we have done our best to correct some errors in this article. Hopefully it should be 100% correct now. It isn't. a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. (1) Not a coincidence (2) His name is Linus Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. No, Linux version numbers have taken purely numerical form. The examples given are different companies efforts to package Linux with a bunch of applications. Linux is shareware No it isn't. It is published under the GPL. Shareware is commercial software that generally requires payment after a trial period expires. Linux doesn't. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Which is why its a good idea to read the product requirements FIRST. Other distributions of Linux will run on a 386, and still others on a Mac, and Amiga, and numerous other systems. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! No, to install Mandrake Linux 8.1. Other distros need smaller ammounts. I have a very happy system with 16MB of RAM and it will easily fit in to even less memory. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. Anti-virus software IS available for Linux. However Linux is not a system which is threatened by viruses due to its high level of built in security. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. IP Tables comes with Mandrake 8.1 and most other distros built on the 2.4 series of kernels. Older systems based on the 2.2 series use IP Chains. Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs No, the cost of Windows is included in the price of most PC packages - it isn't free, and none of the machines I own came with it. I bother becuase it does everything I want it to do better then windows, more securly then windows, more convientiently then windows, and cheeper then windows.

	Microsoft will never own (1.00 / 1) (#280)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 07:06:02 AM PST

	Microsoft's pure bleak idea of internet domination will never be able to happen. There is no way that is going to happen. Microsoft's many attempts to eradicate such people pirating will never be possible, what can Microsoft do to try and dominate? It never will happen. As among Linux, one of the cheapest (yet free to download) operating software has shown one of the most greatest potentials yet in the market for Microsoft to dominate. Hence the fact that Linux out there is not battling Microsoft alone, there are many other businesses out there that will want to see Microsoft fall into somewhat smaller type business. Microsoft for over the years have boasted and has stolen other people's ideas, programs, would you think that this is fair? They boasted on how good the windows operating systems are. Yet the fact is that first, the operating system costed heaps and second it wasn't powerful enough. Microsoft has tried to make it powerful and more GUI like, it has never worked out and in fact had created woes on things such as blue screen of death, pc freezing and too much stacks.. Microsoft's products were never stable, not even the Microsoft SQL server, Last year, in windows 2000 magazine I read an article about the CEO of Oracle wants to pay someone 1 million dollars for both making the oracle website and proving that Microsoft's SQL is way better than Oracle. The outcome was when in the test, they had tried to run db server, Oracle's db software worked over the tests despite the fact that something went wrong in the cluster. The same performance was done on Microsoft's SQL server, this time the SQL server had troubles over and over again. Microsoft's products show the ease of easeability for new users but for much more advanced users who wants to do more, none of the Microsoft's product will ever be able to claim that they offer ease of use. Another fine example of this is that with programming, which in overall showed better to use.. (you decide) one is Microsoft's C++ or take visual basic, go compete that with Borland's Delphi, which is better? which is easier to use? Delphi has more GUI oriented interfaces which could allow programmers to design things with ease.

	WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE INFO (1.00 / 1) (#293)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:39:15 AM PST

	User info for iat Homepage: http://www.adequacy.org Email: iat@NOSPAM.adequacy.org Bio: Hi. I was Mr Newcastle '95. Winning that title was my entree to the world of international journalism - I had a stint at Women's Own magazine from 96-8, then went to Bukkake Weekly, and now I'm a full-time editor for Adequacy. And this makes him qualified to review what? ROFL! WHAT A JOKE!

	Even though I'm not a techie (1.00 / 1) (#296)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:22:08 AM PST

	I'm a Linux user, without being a techie. In 1999 I looked for some software that ran a few old programs written in Fortran for UNIX and that ran in an old 486 I had. A friend of mine reccomended Linux and gave a copy of RedHat 6.1. There were some glitches in the install but I had an operating computer with many applications in UNIX text mode (like old DOS computers) and ran what I needed. Later on tried to upgrade my Windows PC to Win98 and found out that it was slower than a snail so I wnet out and bought new PC with win 98. I won't upgrade windows as it full of bugs and for what I need MS Office 97 is more than enough. The linux computer worked great until it gave up the ghost a couple of months ago (due to a power surge). So I decided to install Linux in my PC alongside windows, using a 2nd HDD. I decided to try a newer version of Linux, based on the kernel 2.4.xx and downloaded RedHat 7.2 and LinuxMandrake 8.0. The names are not related to the version of the OS, RedHat produced 6.xx, and now is in the 7.xx family. mandrake is in the 8.xx family using the SAME kernel as RedHat 7.xx, and many other companies are doing their own distributions. This may sound confusing to a newbie in the computer world such as the writer of the article or the editor of this forum, but it only means that the company XXXX is making that package, pretty much what happens with computers, you buy a Dell or a Gateway or an IBM but they are all based on the same processor with more or less bells and whistles. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the installation of mandrake was fast and friendly, recognized ALL my hardware and installed a lot of programs I WANTED in my PC. I had it running in less than 2 hours. I installed Star Office and since then I'm using windows less and less because I have a nice Graphical Interface highly customizable, many programs I want and an FTP, HTTP server built in with firewalls. I don't need IExplorer as Netscape, Nautilus or Opera give me better functionality. Star Office gives me everything I had in MS Office, except fr VISIO and I have compatibility between both so I can email/receive files to everyone else. I believe that the guy that wrote this article, besides being a newbie in the cmputer world is someone that doesn't even take time to read the installation instructions that were found in the web site of mandrake (I read them while downloading the product), so that he downloaded the wrong program and had problems in the install. That person certainly need to inform himself better before making such negative comments of a product that myself as a non-techie user find great. To the editor, looking for the Apache signature is not hacking or anything, it comes out when you click on no-yet built pages or broken links. I understand you're an editor only, not a techie.

	Apache running on Linux or FreeBSD (1.00 / 1) (#451)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:10:31 PM PST

	Hi, I have just checked in my squid cache what os/server this site is running, and it is Apache 1.3.20 on Linux or FreeBSD. I checked what it was running without what you call hacking. Karun

	LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (0.00 / 1) (#304)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 01:45:15 PM PST

	crying tears of laughter I think this is the funniest thread I've read in weeks!

	dear God (0.00 / 1) (#308)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 02:17:29 PM PST

	This is the stupidest discussion I have ever seen. I can't believe my eyes... Please people, be quiet, you know not what you are talking about... not even a little...

	If windows is so shit hot... (1.00 / 1) (#316)
	by lefty2446 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 05:03:56 PM PST

	If windows is so shit hot in mission-critical applications, why would advocacy.org run FreeBSD? Another UNIX variant? http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=adequacy.org&submit=Examine Operating System and Web Server for adequacy.org The site adequacy.org is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.26 on FreeBSD. Just to chect that www.adequacy.org and adequacy.org are the same computer because www.adequacy.org is not being reported due to request... adrian@firewall:~$ nslookup adequacy.org Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Name: adequacy.org Address: 63.89.124.239 adrian@firewall:~$ nslookup www.adequacy.org Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: Name: www.adequacy.org Address: 63.89.124.239 adrian@firewall:~$ And another thing, If you want to run Linux on a 486 try to pick a distribution that is not optimised for pentium class processors... I run Linux on a 386 with 4Mb ram and a 100Mb HDD. (It is the computer in the above example) There are other choices out there.. Redhat, Caldera, Debian, Peanut, Slackware. They are not "Release Names" but diffrent flavors of the same thing, They all do the same thing they just fell diffrent. Oh BTW dont forget: The NSA (National Security Agency) SE Linux (Security Enhanced). If it's secure enough for them I think you'll manage. NB. SE Linux is released as patches to existing programs not an entire start up bundle. Then there are the BSD's, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD. (These are NOT Linux but all of the same family.) Lefty2446

	Please stop "hacking" NOW. (5.00 / 1) (#325)
	by nx01 on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:57:07 PM PST

	You seem to be engaged in the illegal activity of "hacking" adequacy.org. Perhaps you have not read the thread farther down in this article. Attempting to hack adequacy is not appreciated. At all. Please stop. We don't want to see adequacy go down again. Last time this happened and "geeks" got mad at us, they launched a Dos attack took the site down for weeks. None of us users want that to happen. As a side note, it is impressive what a simple Microsoft operating system can do against a website -- I certainly haven't heard of a Linux attack! Others have already been warned not to use such tools as "telnet" "ping" and "lynx" here, and as far as I know some of the editors are considering legal action. Please don't use these "hacker" tools such as "nslookup" to try and take down 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

	Oh grow up (1.00 / 1) (#366)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:08:25 PM PST

	> Others have already been warned not to use such tools as "telnet" "ping" and "lynx" here, and as far as I know some of the editors are considering legal action. Please don't use these "hacker" tools such as "nslookup" to try and take down adequacy.< None of these are "hacking tools." You are making irresponsible and ignorant accusations, child. In fact, considering the illegality of "hacking" in many jurisdictions (that is, actually, "cracking" not "hacking" but beside the point here), your comments could be taken as libelous. Making false accusations of "hacking" out your obvious ignorance of computing is foolish. You should cease immediately. And drop the threats of "legal action" given that attempting legal action when NOTHING has happened (except in your ignorant mind) could be construed as abuse of process. If you actually have lawyers (which I doubt), you should ask them what consequences there could be for YOU should you continue to make baseless accusations against others both in public and in writing.

	Oh, touche! (5.00 / 1) (#375)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:31:54 PM PST

	You called him child! We crmuble before your incisive wit. As it happens, one of the site editors is a very successful corporate lawyer. I'm sure the other editors consulted with him before pointing out the possibility of legal action. Also, it isn't in any way illegal to make baseless accusations. If it was, then plaintiffs in criminal cases would be at risk of being taken to court themselves, if the defendant won. I can't imagine why you would think the government protects you from criticism. Finally, your claims that these are not hacking tools are unconvincing. Every hacker claims to be using security tools, but they are still hacking, and they are still using hacker tools. Mincing words doesn't change reality.

	Yeah sure (1.00 / 1) (#399)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 09:24:09 AM PST

	>You called him child! We crmuble before your incisive wit. As it happens, one of the site editors is a very successful corporate lawyer. < And the evidence we have for this is other than anonymous hearsay is...... In the same spirit, I happen to be a successful Supreme Court justice and that trumps your corporate lawyer. So there! >Also, it isn't in any way illegal to make baseless accusations. If it was, then plaintiffs in criminal cases would be at risk of being taken to court themselves, if the defendant won. I can't imagine why you would think the government protects you from criticism. < Specious analogy. The point being that you cannot obtain judgement without proving the accusation. Making a libelous statement is also nothing at all like filing a suit or charge in a court. >Finally, your claims that these are not hacking tools are unconvincing. < Unconvincing to the uniformed maybe. Tools with legitimate use are not defined by the illegitimate use(s). A box knife can be used as a weapon. That does NOT mean it IS a weapon. >Every hacker claims to be using security tools, but they are still hacking, and they are still using hacker tools. Mincing words doesn't change reality.< No it doesn't. So you and your pals should stop.

	Damn you to hell, Clarence Thomas!!! (5.00 / 1) (#402)
	by elenchos on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:01:33 AM PST

	Why can't you take the hint? You've been told a dozen times: GET OFF ADEQUACY! This is not a porn site. There will never be any of those "Lolita pix" that you are always pestering the users and admins about. There is nothing here for you. Leave us alone, you sick, creepy stalker. You'd think after they banned your last six IPs you'd have finally caught on. They don't want your kind around here, you perv. When are the editors going to realize that with Supreme Court Justices like this running loose in the world they are going to have to run a closed site. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	You are utterly wrong (5.00 / 1) (#389)
	by jsm on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:43:10 PM PST

	The Adequacy.org terms of service very clearly state that our servers may only be used by industry standard web browsers visiting our site or standard email clients carrying traffic relevant to adequacy.org. Any and all other attempts to access our servers are unauthorised accesses, ie "Hacking". ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	This mythical TOS? (1.00 / 1) (#454)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:27:26 AM PST

	That's assuming that you can find the terms of service. You aren't providing a link, neither does your home page.

	Try the meta page (5.00 / 1) (#456)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:34:22 AM PST

	And you call yourself a geek. You don't even know how to use the web properly.

	I can't believe it. (2.00 / 1) (#482)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 05:18:11 PM PST

	I stopped posting here a couple days ago because I got fed up with the rampant ignorance and childish actions that characterize this site. From 'Craig McPherson' mod'ing down every one of my posts to 1 without actually engaging in the intelligent discourse this site is suppose to cater to, to the baseless accusations of hacking made by ignorant computer users, I just about had it with this site. But I can't help but respond to this post. The tools used by lefty2446 are not hacking tools. The website www.netcraft.com is a public database used to track web server statistics. Hacker tool? I think not. Please explain how you can construe it as such. nslookup? It's not a hacker tool either. It's a program that will query a DNS server for the IP address bound to a hostname. nslookup does not query or make use of adequacy.org resources. nslookup makes a request to the users DNS server, which is hosted by the user's ISP (Internet Service Provider (ie. AOL, Road Runner, Earthlink, etc.)). Without the DNS servers in place, you would not be able to type in "www.adequacy.org" in your web browser and have this web site load up. The translation from the domain name ("adequacy.org") to the IP address (63.89.124.239) would not be possible without DNS services. nslookup is a standard tool included with both Linux and MS systems. Without it, I'd be hard pressed to do my job as tech support for the ISP I work for. Before all you ingnorant MS zealots spout off with your "stop hacking us" requests, please take the time to inform youself on the topic at hand. - chuckx - Charles K. Lee II - - chuckx@cold-sun.com - - http://www.cold-sun.com -

	I have h4x0red Adequacy.org!!! (none / 0) (#495)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:38:58 AM PST

	[haxor@finch haxor]$host adequacy.org adequacy.org. has address 63.89.124.239 [haxor@finch haxor]$telnet 63.89.124.239 && format c:\. formatting... formatting... DONE exit [haxor@finch haxor]$ adequacy.org has been h4x0red. Bow down to me!!!!!!!!

	Pathetic! (none / 0) (#506)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:48:17 PM PST

	You moron! Adequacy.org stores its information on the D drive! Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	hahahahahahahahahahahaha (0.00 / 1) (#317)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 06:35:36 PM PST

	hahahahahahahaha this is the funniest article I have read yet. Gee if people like you can get a job and not know the different between operating systems and hardware, it should be extremely easy for me to get a job. oh yeah it's LINUS Torvalds not LINUX which is the name of the operating system. Oh yes you should try Red Hat instead of Mandrake next time but then again you think it's a previous version of linux. They aren't even considered versions, they are distributions! Wow I hope people don't believe a word you write because its all trash! Thanks for the laugh! Hahahahahahahahahaha

	compare windows 95 to linux of 1995 please (none / 0) (#322)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 08:00:29 PM PST

	oh nevermind. you would not get it....

	Comparing two OSES (1.00 / 1) (#478)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 08:15:52 PM PST

	Windows 95 was not released. How about comparing windows XP to Mandrake 8.1? Also the author should actually try Mandrake 8.1 before reviewing it.

	THIS IS A POOR REVIEW (none / 0) (#515)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 08:57:52 AM PST

	THIS IS CONCERNING THIS WHOLE TOPIC AND THREAD... This site promotes miss-information and is a dissgusting satire of inteligence. When questioned about the review of mandrake, they revert to slurs that have no bearings on the arguments, and simply AVOID THE ISSUE... namely that the whole "Review" is poor. MS people should also realize this and condemn the article for its incorectness.

	Did Microsoft paied you for this article? (2.00 / 1) (#331)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:51:00 AM PST

	My God, either the person who wrote this has been on Mars for the last 10 years or his bank account has just received an impressive amount of money from a Redmond based company. This article is absolutely wrong. You cannot do anything to it to make it close to the reality, but to rewrite it. "Red Hat, Slack Ware," previous versions????? Wake up! RedHat, SlackWare and others are different DISTRIBUTIONS of Linux. Also RedHat for example runs on 85% of the Linux servers all over the world and is the most famous Linux distribution. By the way is Linus Torvalds, and Linux is a registered trademark of Linus. LINUX IS NOT SHAREWARE!!!!! The Gnu Public License (GPL) is a different thing. Linux is fully functional, without limitations and things like that. And may be before comparing GPL with shareware you should read the GPL and see what's the fuzz with it.(www.gnu.org/licenses.html). More, Linux is far less resource consuming than Windows. If you don't know, there is a project of o Linux distribution that installs on 2 floppy disks (Iâ€<sup>TM</sup>d like to see your Windows 95 try that). Try to understand the difference between a DISTRIBUTION and a version. You cannot judge the Linux OS by analyzing only one distribution that requires a Pentium compatible processor. For your information Linux runs on many processors (alpha, ia64, Also, lots of Laptops are supported under Linux, for example Compaq Armada E500 and M700 are â€oeRedHat Readyâ€. Support for Toshiba laptops exists in Linux kernel and a friend of mine just installed Linux on a Gateway 486 with no trouble. Internet Explorer is the industry standard web browser for Microsoft platform may be. Why IE is not on Linux, perhaps you should ask the Microsoft guys about this. IE was one advantage of Windows platforms, but not any more. The last release of Netscape 6.1 is far better than IE. The same situation is with Microsoft Office. My opinion is that they are afraid of porting those application to Linux, because no one would pay 200$ for a license of Windows XP anymore. They would choose a far stable and secure operating system, which is Linux. Have you ever heard about SUNâ€<sup>TM</sup>s StarOffice? It is the office suite from SUN. Itâ€<sup>TM</sup>s a complete solution for office applications and I wouldnâ€<sup>TM</sup>t consider it â€oepitifulâ€. I donâ€<sup>TM</sup>t need to say more about this subject, if you never heard about it maybe you shouldnâ€<sup>TM</sup>t write about this subject. Computer security was not overlooked by Linux developers. A very good firewall is integrated into the Linux kernel, and there are many commercial firewalls out there. Antivirus software? What for? There are no viruses for Linux!!!! Of course there are Antivirus software that work on Linux, but those give protection about Windows viruses. (i.e. you have a Linux file server for Windows machines). â€oeMicrosoft Windows comes freeâ€????????? Where did that come from? You pay for every license of Windows that you buy. Concluding, could you publish your bank account status and your IQ, so that one can see how reliable is this article? Please rewrite this article or just take it out, itâ€<sup>TM</sup>s absolutely not real.

	i cant believe this - are u a joke? (1.00 / 1) (#333)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:17:57 AM PST

	hehe - i am amazed at your lack complete lack of knowledge in this area - my mother could do better! and by the way - i dont use linux - although i have in the past - i need windows for certain tasks i do a few facts: mandrake is a company that distributes linux - like microsoft is company - redhat etc are all different companies windows xp requires at least 64 megs to run and i wouldnt even think of installing on a 486 - in fact the best thing u can do with a 486 these days is throw it in a bin or use it as a dos box IIS is terrible - i am a professional web developer and i wouldnt recommend using IIS for anything - linux makes far better servers - and much more secure - you will also find that hackers use linux as it is a much more advanced operating system - even M$ used linux apache servers for about 5 years to host their websites! mandrake has at least 1 firewall built in to it - its not a games machine its a pc users machine - IE is not on linux cos M$ havent released a version! im sure there is some anti-software available - but since you couldnt even be bothered to install it you wont find any will u? actually u will find that Netscape 6.1 and mozilla run fine on linux - although i admit i prefer IE of course windows software wont natively work on linux - they use different setups! its like saying ooh my video recorder wont play cds! to be honest i am amazed that someone with such a little amount of knowledge in this area is allowed to write a review of this nature :: babelfish ::

	Pot. Kettle. Black. (none / 0) (#343)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:13:32 AM PST

	to be honest i am amazed that someone with such a little amount of knowledge in this area is allowed to write a review of this nature And, to be honest, we're all amazed that someone with the poor command of the English language that you have demonstrated, ":: babelfish ::" was allowed to graduate from high school. It's a funny old world isn't it?

	So...So...WRONG (1.00 / 1) (#345)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:20:08 AM PST

	1.) The guy's name was LINUS Torvalds, not LINUX Torvalds. 2.) You know why Linux doesn't need virus scanning programs? Because of the way Linux is designed. As long as you don't use the root account ALL THE TIME (which nobody ever should - you should create a seperate account for your daily work) there is no way a virus can infect an entire system. File permissions will stop that (unlike Windows). Secondly - how many virii have you heard about that infect Linux computers? Very few, if any. That's right. Virii programmers want to make a splash in the news, so they program for the operating system that will give them that fame. EX: Windows 3.) Who cares if you can't run "all the programs" under Linux. First off, if there's a program for it in Windows, Linux has something similar. Secondly, Linux programs are FREE. That is correct. You won't find an owner of Linux paying 600 dollars for a program that they'll use to type up a letter to mom at home. Third, if a Linux user REALLY wants to run Microsoft programs under Linux - that's what we have Windows emulators for. 4.) You don't need 32 megs of RAM to run Linux. You need RAM to run KDE/Gnome. However, have you checked your RAM count when you are under Windows. I don't know about you, but, mine's used up almost completely. Windows ALWAYS has to dip into my "virtual memory" (the equivalent of a SWAP file in Linux). Linux, on the other hand, has to run for about 3 days before I even touch the swap file. And, if you don't need a graphical interface, then, you need almost no RAM whatsoever. 5.) What's this about Mandrake not being able to run under your 486? You think Windows XP is going to do that? HA! You need 256 MB of RAM and at least 1 Gig on your hard drive JUST FOR WINDOWS XP! (Don't tell me I don't know. I sell it.) 32 Megs pales in comparison to that. And...I have two full Linux discs installed on my computer and I am only using 800 megs. (That's applications and EVERYTHING.) 6.) "...wasting their time and money on Linux..." - What money? I didn't pay any money...Linux is free. Or did you forget that from the beginning of your article to the time that you got to the end? ...so...before you go busting on Linux's ass...you should review your facts and not be a blind reporter with a bias on something you haven't even looked at. I will say that Windows is very good in its hardware compatability, and it does have some nice programs and GREAT gaming support (which is why it is still on my system). However, Linux has power and usability that Windows will never have.

	This is a review???? (1.00 / 1) (#348)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:21:27 AM PST

	How can anyone think a review by a person who NEVER installed it and NEVER used it is relevent? And how about the website that published it? How could you respect a restaurant or movie review if the reviewer never actually went there? adequacy.org says they have corrected the errors in the original review, but I think the biggest error is publishing it at all.

	and gets worse (0.00 / 1) (#350)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 10:45:19 AM PST

	because they're using some flavor of BSD and Apache.... they're shooting themselves in the foot.

	Did you even try Linux before reviewing it? (1.00 / 1) (#351)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:11:59 AM PST

	Did you even install a version of GNU/Linux before reviewing it? Did you research it before reviewing it? I use Windows 2000 as well as GNU/Linux (on 3 machines, by the way). I'm here to tell you that you're wrong on so many levels.

	This is disgraceful (1.00 / 1) (#356)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:14:14 PM PST

	I am saddened to see that something this poorly researched and even less understood would actually be published for other people to read. I feel sorry for the people who do not know much about Linux who would read this and decide it's not worth further exploration. I read the first line and just about puked: "The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. " New rule: Anyone who writes about Linux (and thus gives the impression that he or she is knowledgable about Linux) must at least know Linus Torvalds real name. -- z

	Rebuttal (1.00 / 1) (#359)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 01:56:58 PM PST

	Ok, first of all, if you haven't been able to figure out how to eat fettucini alfredo at a particular restaurant, do you go and tell all your friends that you know it's terrible without even having to try it, just becuase you say so? Now, on to the nitpicking. First, and nearly irrelevant: It's Linus Torvald, not Linux Torvald. Second: If you couldn't get Mandrake to run on your machine, why didn't you try another distribution? I've seen Slackware running on a 386 with 8 megs of ram. Sure, it took a REALLY long time to compile, but it worked. Third: Viruses. Apparently, you're grossly uninformed about this. The only way to get a virus on a linux box is to be an idiot. You can't install anything that would even have the potential to mess up your system unless you're running as root. And, as previously stated, if you run everything as root, you're an idiot. That's what multi-user is for. There is no need for antivirus software on linux because THERE ARE NO VIRUSES for linux. Do you drink a bottle of NyQuil if you aren't sick? (Or at least Dennis Leary) Fourth: The browser. The reason there isn't an Internet Exploiter for linux is that Microsoft won't allow it. They rule their sourcecode with an iron fist, which means that none of the open-source developers can get their hands on it. Try Opera, or if you must go with something familiar from Windoze, go with Netscape. Fifth: ZoneAlarm. You don't need this. Linux only allows access to the ports that you tell it to (unless you just click your way through the installation blindly). And, if you're going to have firewall software, and you have an x86 lying around, why not make that into a firewall. It's free, doesn't take too long to set up if you've got a good head on your shoulders, and oh yeah, it's free. Sixth: Your assertion that "there simply isn't a need to replace" Windows is entirely laughable. Windows needs to be reinstalled, upgraded, etc, at least once every few months if you don't want your P4 running like that 486 you've got. Now, for my points. How long does your precious Win95 box stay up before you have to reboot? A week? Two? If so, you're an expert windows user. My linux box has been up for 115 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes. The last reboot was due to a power outage. Have you ever heard of StarOffice? It's an office-like suite that has full support of M$Office files. It's also gasp free. You don't have to pay 200 bucks to upgrade every time you turn around. It's also got a pretty spiffy email client built-in. Granted, I use pine for email, but if I were into the whole GUI-email thing, this would be more than sufficient. Finally, the bloatware issue. If you want to turn something off in Windoze, chances are, you're out of luck. In linux, it's easy as pie. And just think, this entire response was based strictly on the comments you made. I am not even going to go into the plethora of other useful things you can do in linux that you wouldn't even think possible under windows. A tip for the future: Next time you plan on bashing something, read a bit about it before you open your mouth and make a fool out of yourself.

	Several Clarifications (1.00 / 1) (#368)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:20:02 PM PST

	This article is so bad I don't know where to start. 1. BSD is NOT based on SUN's OS, SUN's OS is based on BSD. Get it right. 2. Mandrake is specifically designed to run on Pentium and up. If you wanted to run Linux on a 486, many other distros could have done it. Do your homework. 3. Of course Microsoft Office, Outlook express and Internet Explorer don't run on it. Duh. If Microsoft ported those apps to Linux, a lot more people would quit using MS Windows. 4. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is NOT trying to make Internet Explorer a standard. That is an outright lie. A really stupid one as it shows how little this author understands about the purpose of the IETF. They set standards on protocols not on which product you use. 5. The TOS of adequacy.org says trolling will not be tolerated, but this whole article is one big troll. 6. Linux is the most standards compliant OS there is. To argue otherwise just shows how little you understand standards. 7. Windows does not come 'free' with every PC. You pay for it, it is just included in the price. Get some cahones and build your own system. Then Linux is definitely the cheaper way to go. 8. The whole thread on hacking has sunk my view of the average computer use to new lows. Anyone who argues that telnetting to port 80 is hacking has.. is just ... oh god help us. As a security engineer on the Web Security Team of a major financial institution ( and one of the leaders in e-commerce) I can say that very few of the people posting claiming that wget, lynx or telnet are hacker tools could find their /proc with both hands. Here is an idea, actually know something before posting. Next thing you know, they will be claiming that doing Start->Run->telnet is accessing executables without permission. If MS had intended you to use telnet, they would have put it on a menu.

	Terrorists (5.00 / 1) (#369)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 03:52:03 PM PST

	2. Mandrake is specifically designed to run on Pentium and up. If you wanted to run Linux on a 486, many other distros could have done it. Do your homework. The reason he is using Mandrake is because Mandrake is the current version of Linux out. There is no point in reviewing obsolete version of Linux. 4. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is NOT trying to make Internet Explorer a standard. That is an outright lie. A really stupid one as it shows how little this author understands about the purpose of the IETF. They set standards on protocols not on which product you use. I don't think any of us care about what a terrorist organization's standards are. IE is what's being used and therefore whatever IE is used is standard. Even Linux programs are stealing the innovative ideas of IE. 6. Linux is the most standards compliant OS there is. To argue otherwise just shows how little you understand standards. We care not about the standards of terrorists like the IETaskForce. By the way, when Microsoft hears about this organization, I hope they sue them for copyright. As we all know, the IE name belongs to MS. Here is an idea, actually know something before posting. We know that Linux sucks. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Internet Standards (2.00 / 1) (#428)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 05:58:37 PM PST

	I don't think any of us care about what a terrorist organization's standards are. If you believe that the IETF is a terrorist organization, then you should boycott them: stop using the Internet.

	IETF's Not Universal (3.66 / 3) (#438)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:32:45 AM PST

	If you believe that the IETF is a terrorist organization, then you should boycott them: stop using the Internet. Your ignorance is showing. The majority of Internet sites are designed to be used by Internet Explorer and as anybody knows, IE doesn't follow IETF's pathetic standards. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Microsoft has grovelled to the IETF (none / 0) (#453)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:18:47 AM PST

	http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1997/May97/IETFPr.asp Search for IETF on Microsoft's site, you'll find lots of references.

	My Gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#374)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 05:24:12 PM PST

	I've seen some very ignorant people in my several years on this planet but the author of this review is one of the most ignorant authors i've ever had the misfortune to read. How do you manage to get through a complete day without help? Are you actually trusted enough with sharp objects like pencils or do they give you crayons to work with? Look at following bit of tripe from your fingertips.... "It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux." Holy Crap! Did you just step out of the Microsoft Waaay Back machine? Do the words monopoly, anti-trust, Sherman Act etc have any current meaning to you? Go ask Uncle Bill why his crappy shitware doesn't run in Linux. Heres another gem.... "Linux is shareware" Do you even know what "shareware" is or were you just discovering the Play Station 2 when you heard the term junior? Theres no need to go on. Your "review" is the obvious example of the dangers of inbreeding. Get a clue!

	Stop...it hurts too badly... (1.00 / 1) (#381)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:08:08 PM PST

	Just noticed this on the "Post a Comment" page: >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. What the <>?>< are all the "associate editors" posts other than trolls? Now...on to the main matter: Telnet is a handy tool for remotely accessing other systems over a network (intra or inter). Like all tools and knowledge it has NO ETHICAL LEANING. knowledeg and tools are NEUTRAL. A box cutter is a useful tool for opening boxes. It can also be used as a weapon, yet in fact it is the PERSON WIELDING THE BOXCUTTER that determines it use, not the tool (which is a bit of metal and plastic). Partical physics is real useful for understanding the universe, but it can be perverted by PEOPLE to be a tool for mass destrcution. Get the point??? Likewise TELNET is a neutral TOOL that is innocent when wielded by an innocent person for innocent purposes. That it was used to make you (adequacy.org) look like hypocrits is unfortunate for you,as it showed your INADEQUATE understanding of web and system security. But again...telenet is just a tool.

	Relativist dissembling (5.00 / 1) (#382)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 08:36:37 PM PST

	Do nuclear bombs have no ethical nature? Is there not a wicked power in an unfired bullet? How about an iron maiden? Is that ethically neutral? I'm sickened by people who think that scientists and engineers have no ethical responsibility. The choices they make affect the world. They need to start thinking before they build weapons and tools for illegal purposes.

	No idea (1.00 / 1) (#388)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:28:39 PM PST

	You have no idea of what you're talking about. In spanish: Ni puta idea. Please, read and study before talking. Best regards. Guillermo

	*The Man's name is Linus* Torvalds!** (1.00 / 2) (#390)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 11:49:54 PM PST

	..not Linux Torvalds as state in the first sentance.

	*SIGH* (1.00 / 1) (#394)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 03:54:14 AM PST

	Even though you post that you have revised the article so as to make it accurate, there are still so many outright falsehoods as to render it totally useless. It is obvious that no effort has been put into objectively reviewing or researching this material-- it is clearly a marketing tool. The author's of this website should be ashamed of themselves. You are well on your way to gaining a reputation similiar to 'The National Enquirer'.

	Excellent! (none / 0) (#395)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:01:48 AM PST

	Considering that the National Enquirer is renowned across the globe, wouldn't that place adequacy.org much closer to the position of world's number one source of news than, oh say, slashdot, newsforge and the register combined?

	I prefer the Weekly World News (none / 0) (#415)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:14:54 PM PST

	After all, just look at the names. The National Enquiror is strictly national in scope, whereas the Weekly World News is truly global.

	Dumb (1.00 / 1) (#397)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 04:32:37 AM PST

	I feel sorry for the author of this article. Its obvious he has the IQ of peanut.

	Sorry... (1.00 / 1) (#405)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:07:05 AM PST

	For someone who seems to be doing their research before attempting a new OS (you did read manuals before installing Linux), you surprise me by some blatently stupid comments: 1. Shareware? NO! Certainly not! Linux is free, and not only free, you can see the source code and change it if you feel inclined. Not a major advantage for the average user, but the comment that is shareware is wrong. 2. "a whopping 32MB of memory". Whopping? And then you say that you run Win95 on 32MB of memory. How many crashes do you get a day? How productive is this Win95 system? A 486/32MB RAM Win95 system is for all intents and purposes not a very productive day-to-day machine. Sure it boots up. Sure you can run stuff on. Sure it gets the job done. But the (now tiny) investment into a new machine will buy you huge amounts of productivity. Trying to test a state-of-the-art latest-version OS on a such old technology is bad practice. I want you to test Windows XP on this 486 with a whopping 32MB of RAM machine of yours. Very bad. I stopped reading after spotting these blatent signs of bad journalism. And for the record, I am a very happy Windows 2000 user. I am dabbling with installing Linux just because I may be forced to use the OS in the very near future for in my work, and so learning it now will probably not hurt. But such a bad article should not be let go. A Windows User

	say what? (5.00 / 1) (#414)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:11:34 PM PST

	1. Shareware? NO! Certainly not! Linux is free, If it's free, then why is mandrake charging $$$ for it? Paying money for something you ought to get for free is the essence of shareware. 2. "a whopping 32MB of memory". Whopping? When was the last time you priced memory? The marginal cost on ram more than 32MB is prohibitive. I stopped reading after spotting these blatent signs of bad journalism. Then you really missed an informative article that could have changed your world perspective and broadened your horizons. I pity you.

	Mellow Out (1.00 / 1) (#407)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 11:34:25 AM PST

	Unix is future

	I'm torn (4.00 / 2) (#416)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:16:23 PM PST

	Half the respondants said the article is no good, whereas the other half said it was right on target. So which is it? Should I install Mandrake8.1 or just forget about it?

	Go for it (3.00 / 2) (#442)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:48:00 PM PST

	Go to http://www.linux-mandrake.com and check out their hardware compatibility list. If your hardware is listed, then I would say go for it. I'm running Manrake 8.1 now on a home brewed system, and I'm completely satisfied.

	wtf are you smoking (5.00 / 2) (#419)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 02:44:27 PM PST

	telnet is not hacking and niether is lynx. linux is far supirior to windows and you guys use windows.

	100% correct? Hardly. (1.00 / 1) (#429)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:04:41 PM PST

	I'm an avid user and supporter of both Linux and Windows. This puts me at odds with the more militant members in both groups. I was interested in reading this article--especially since the editor's note implied that a serious effort was being made to make a fair, accurate article. I have been very dissapointed. The author clearly knows nothing about Linux--and appears to have only a dim idea on how compters work. And it's still packed full of inaccurate statements. First, the man's name is Linus not Linux. The software name (Linux) is a combination of his name and Unix. Linux is a Unix-like operating system. Second, Red Hat is not a previous version of Linux. It is a different distribution. Distributions are kind of like flavors of ice cream. You can go into an ice cream parlor and pick out the flavor that best suits your tastes. Each distribution packages the kernel (the core operating system) with a wide variety of support software and applications. Different distributions target different markets. Mandrake and Red Hat are very similar--but Mandrake tends to focus on desktop users, while Red Hat focuses more on servers. Linux does not require a pentium with 32 Megs of RAM. Those are Mandrake's requirements. There are several distributions that will run just fine on a 486. Also, unlike Windows, you can also run Linux on a wide variety of hardware--including the Mac. Linux is not shareware. Shareware is software that you can try out before paying for it. When you use shareware, you're still expected to pay. Technically Linux is Open Source. Open Source is superficially like freeware--but it goes much beyond that. In Open Source, you're allowed to look at, study, modify or reuse the actual source code of each and every program. It provides an environment of sharing, peer review and cooperation that produces very creative, high quality software. As for software, the author seems to be completely ignorant about how operating systems work. Windows and Linux are different operating systems--you cannot (and should not) expect them to run the same software. Think of it this way, if I bought a brand new Mac and then tried to run my Windows Office or Windows games, everyone would laugh at me. Of course, Microsoft has released its office software and Internet Explorer for the Mac. But, Microsoft has decided not to release its software for Linux. No surprise, really. Microsoft is strongly opposing Linux at the moment. But other companies, like Corel, have released Linux versions of their software. And Linux, being a Unix-like operating system, has inherited tons of applications from Unix. And Linux has a massive amount of its own software. There are Linux web browsers, and the people who are writing the browsers work very hard to make them fully compliant with the W3C standards (the official standards for the world wide web). There are several different word processors, spreadsheets, graphic design programs. Compairing the software is hard. Windows software tends to have a better user interface. They also tend to have more features--which can be good or bad. Linux software tends to be a collection of smaller, more powerful applications. Linux often gives you the tools to easily do things that are very difficult (or impossible) in Windows--but it usually isn't as user friendly. Some of the most powerful, and fastest, software runs from the command line, and has no graphical interface whatsoever. There are a lot of applications with graphical interfaces (or applications that act as a graphical interface for the underlying software), but the interfaces are not quite up to Windows standards yet. But it's getting better every day. If you plan to use Linux, expect to spend some time reading books and on-line documentation. There's a vary steep learning curve, but it is very rewarding. Linux has a much-more secure design than Windows. Virus prevention is focused on keeping the system secure, so viruses never gain a foothold, rather than just scanning for a list of known offenders. Furthermore, most of the viruses out there only affect Windows systems. Sir Cam, I Love You, Anna K.--These cannot affect a Linux system. Likewise, while Windows personal firewalls won't run on Linux, there are equivilant systems that can be used to protect your system. Mandrake has a few options for setting up very-secure personal firewalls. But, like Linux applications, if you really want to make your system secure, you need to spend some time and do some studying. Windows 95/98/Me is pretty secure, just because it was designed to be an isolated system. In many ways, it's too stupid to be dangerous. By limiting the ability to remotely access the computer's resoruces, you limit the damage a hacker can do (but don't be too relaxed, any software downloaded from the internet can hold codes that will give hackers access to your system). Linux is more like Windows NT or 2000. Like other versions of Unix (and Unix is the backbone of the internet), Linux allows multiple computers to connect and work together in very powerful ways. But this power comes at a cost. You need to make sure that no one is abusing the services you provide, using them to gain unauthorized access to your system. All three (Linux, WinNT/200 and other Unixes) all require a good deal of study, training and dedication to secure. But most experts agree that Linux is more secure than WinNT/2000. Anyone heard of Code Red or Nimda? These only affected Windows machines. And, the NSA (that's the National Security Agency) has released Secure Linux. Not really a full distribution, this is an add-on that can be used with Red Hat and other distributions. It's not a finished project yet--but it is the first steps in creating a system whose security is far beyond any existing systems. So, editors, if you want to print an article about Linux that would be useful to your Windows readers--please find an author who understands both worlds. And please, if you do print an article, work a bit harder to get it right. You're not at 100% yet. Maybe 40%. And that's being generous. -Rich-

	I concur wholeheartedly... almost (3.00 / 1) (#443)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:10:20 PM PST

	While I agree with you that Microsoft's decision not to provide productivity software for Linux renders that platform entirely useless on the desktop, I do not feel that its GUI's are holding it back. KDE is a reasonable substitute for the Windows GUI's, and Gnome is flat out superior to the desktop of Windows or Mac. Actually, I could even overlook the lack of reasonably well-functioning productivity suites if someone on the Linux side could come up with a decent web browser. Mozilla sucks, Nautilus sucks, Opera sucks, Netscape TOTALLY blows dogs. It's amazing that the same development community that came up with Apache and PHP can't do more to make the client side at least not excruciating. Oh well, I guess 20 more years of complete Microsoft dominance of the consumer market probably won't kill us.

	editors, one last correction (5.00 / 3) (#430)
	by johnny ambiguous on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 07:31:27 PM PST

	...one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. One last correction. You made a small error spelling the name of that energetic and generous hacker who wrote Linux. That name is properly spelt Linux Törvalds. Naturally to English speakers the lack of the diacritical goes almost unnoticed, but I happen to know that it is very important to Finns - omission, whether deliberate or accidental, is regarded as a particularly pungent personal slur. Just ask adequacy.org editor em, an expert on foriegn languages, he'll verify this for you. Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

	Linus Torvalds (0.00 / 1) (#470)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 01:14:35 PM PST

	It's Linus Torvalds actually

	Re: editors, one last correction (1.00 / 1) (#475)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 01:35:45 PM PST

	Well, the previous was not a "last correction"., since the First name still hasn an error. The name is "Linus", and not "Linux". The "x" in the operating system coms from UNIX, since Linux is a version of UNIX.

	Well that makes it all the more amusing. (5.00 / 2) (#476)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 03:28:06 PM PST

	Did he change his name to Linus because he was fed up with having the same name as his operating system ? Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to change the name of the OS ? I don't get it.

	Idiot (none / 0) (#488)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 02:45:08 PM PST

	Linus did not change his name. His name was and is Linus and he named the OS Linux.

	More on morons (none / 0) (#499)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:02:13 AM PST

	And, if you read between the lines in his autobiography, his original name was Os Törvalds.

	uhhh.. wanna do some more research? (none / 0) (#513)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:51:56 AM PST

	linus didn't actually coin the name linux himself. the operator of the ftp server he uploaded it to did, since he hadn't given it a name. originally, linus thought about calling it freax heh

	That's what I thought. (none / 0) (#503)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:51:55 PM PST

	Since he had the name so blatantly wrong can you really believe he knows what he is talking about? Did you know that Microsoft stands for My idiot computer refuses others soFTware.

	is this a parody? (none / 0) (#501)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:57:20 PM PST

	I accidentally stumbled over here from slashdot. Since I started reading this article/comments, I have been laughing my ass off. I have never seen such crappy journalism. Is this guy actually paid to write this stuff? I mean, I have never seen such lack of research or time put into a piece of writing. You are like a 10 year old doing a book report on a book he didn't read. Anyway, let's start witht he name Linus Torvalds... You got it wrong twice! It would take two seconds to go to one of the hundreds of linux sites on the net today, and get the guys name right. Damn that is bad. The thing that annoys me the most about this post is that you keep calling mandrake-linux's downfalls, linux's downfalls... They are not one in the same. Linux is a very small part of Mandrake-Linux... The majority of Mandrake-Linux is 3rd party software. Linux is basically just the kernel part of the OS. "Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not." There are SO many things wrong with this statement. For starters, your humble 486 will not "happily" run Windows 95. It would be a bit on the slow side. But let's put things in perspective here, you say that the battle will be between Linux-Mandrake 8.1 and Windows XP. This is a totally stupid comment in and of itself, but I will continue anyway. Why don't you try to run Windows XP on your humble 486 and see how far that gets you. Actually scratch that, try running Windows 2000 on your 486 and see how far you get. Linux is a lean, mean operating system! You can run linux off a floppy drive on a 386 with 2 megs of RAM (do that with your windows 95). You just can't run Mandrake-Linux that way. Linux-Mandrake isn't made to be lean, it is made to be rich in powerful software. Linux-Mandrake is leaner and meaner than any MS OS though, IMO. Linux is not only lean and mean, but versitile. I can run linux on my SUN spac classic, my old macs, my SGI indy, and my tadpole 3gx. You can't do that with windows XP/2000/NT/ME/98/95/3.11/3.1/3.0/2.0/1.0/MS-DOS, but why would you care, you don't even know what I am talking about. "why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux?" well... because us linux users use the browser that set the standards... a little proggy called mozilla (mozzila.org). Mozilla is the only browser that follows all the internet standards. I know you probably haven't heard of it, but it is the code that Netscape was based on... Mozilla has gone off on its own and has passed netscape by leaps and bounds. If aol didn't run netscape into the ground, I am sure that it would still be the #1 browser. We also have other options and great browsers like opera, netscape, and konqueror. I enjoy using mozilla, and for the record it is possible to run internet explorer under linux, just not desirable with all the other great choices. The reason why you don't see ie packaged with linux is because Micro$oft doesn't license it out to OSes that compete with windows on x86 based computers. "Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts." This is not nearly true... There are various emulators for linux that allow you to run any windows apps under linux. Let me give you a few: WINE, win4lin, and VMware. There are also good replacements for various windows software. For MS Office we have star office. It is completely free, and can be used to save/open in MS Office format. You can read and edit any of your MS Office apps under Star Office. There are various mail apps to replace Outlook... Besides, using Outlook in this day and age isn't the smartest thing anyway. It is true that the game support for linux leaves something to be desired. Currently many game developers are making a version of their games for linux. With future development on the WINE projects it will someday be possible to run all your old windows games under linux. I can't really comment on how soon this will be. A VERY large range of FREE software is available. Just checkout freshmeat.net. Loads of excellent software. I don't know how you can call them pitiful offerings, or really make any comments on them if you can't even get past the install of the OS. I think your offerings to this site are pitiful! Get a clue. "Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet." For starters, I don't want to hear a guy talking about security that can't even install Mandrake-Linux. If I were you, I wouldn't go there. I am a security expert, and windows can't touch what linux has in the way of security. Compare the number of virii under windows to the number under linux (from that perspective, linux is currently infanitely more secure than windows this is 100% fact). Compare the number of Apache worms to the number of IIS worms (again infanitely more secure). There is anti-virus software for linux, but guess what!?!?!?! we don't need it. There aren't any virii written for linux! You know why?!?!? Because, linux doesn't have the same security flaws that windows does... A conventional virus is rendered useless under linux because it doesn't get permission to do the things it does under windows, under linux. Smart right? Yippie! ZoneAlarm firewall? Give me a break... If you want a real firewall, set up a linux box between your workstation(s) and the internet running a real firewall on it. Stupid windows firewalls that run on your local box present a false sence of security. Infact, Mandrake comes with one all set up for you, and you can easily configure it from mandrake's sytem config. If you actually installed the software you are criticizing you would know that, and various other things. Well, I have exposed enough flaws in you. Let me finish up here. I have been using linux since I was 13 years old (9 years ago). I have seen how far it has come, and am impressed. I did MCSE type work in high school, and for a few years after. Guess where I ended up professionally? With linux. Why? Cause I like it better. Most MCSE style people I know end up on the linux side (if they know what is best for them j/k). =) I am not here to bash Windows and praise linux. I just wanted a somewhat true story to be told. I am sure that even you windows users can see that he is full of it. I have never been to this site, and will probably never be back again. I am not trying to convince anyone to swith OSes or anything like that. Just use what you know/like the best. If you want to try linux, there are various ditros out there besides Mandrake, and they all have specific applications. I don't feel the real battle will be between Mandrake-Linux and Windows XP. I don't know that Linux is ready for all desktops quite yet. Most of the people that use computers are as clueless as the writer of this article, and can't really handle it. If you run an office and have linux experts on staff, then you might have a shot at converting your once windows users to comfortable linux users. The bottom line is, your "average" PC user is probably not going to like linux the first time they try it. ESPECIALLY if they are one of those Windows rules everything else sucks, I can't think outside of the box, close minded fools. As far as servers go, anyone that has been to a real data center (global center, exodus, globix) and looked at servers, knows that Windows is no were near where Linux/Unix is. One of the last networks I worked on is in New Jersey's Exodus. I used 100+ linux boxes and 2 large True64 UNIX boxes for database. Number of windows boxes: 0. What was the outcome? Only one of the fastest computer networks in the world. We were the fastest system for delivering e-mail. We also served web pages faster than almost anyone. Would this have been possible using windows with IIS and exchange? Not even close. They are a NYC based company with the urls www.netcreations.com and www.postmasterdirect.com. Chances are you have recieved e-mail from one of their servers if you were ever on a mailing list. I personally feel that Mandrake-Linux is the best desktop OS I have ever used. As we speak I am rebooting from upgrading to 8.1. I would not personally use it as a server OS, because of all the fluff, but it is so easy and nice for the desktop. It comes with so much great software and configure tools. For server OSes I would check out Redhat (redhat.com) and Debian (debian.org) Linux as well as FreeBSD (freebsd.org) and NetBSD (netbsd.org). There are various other news sources where you can get better info about linux. Check out osdn.org, linux.org, kernel.org, even cnet.com. Anything would be better than this place. peace, daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p (www.secretmedia.org) spam@burnit.net <--- Flames go here please!

	You contradict yourself. (5.00 / 1) (#509)
	by dmg on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:28:18 PM PST

	Firstly you state: I accidentally stumbled over here from slashdot. And then you contradict yourself: I have never seen such crappy journalism. Normally as an editor I would delete such a logically incosistent posting, to ensure the quality of our signal/noise ratio. I will let this one stand, because of its inherant humor, but be warned daniel j, we have higher standards at adequacy than other websites so if you want to continue posting here, you had better get a grip, and watch out for those logical inconsistancies. It might help if you read our FAQ time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	you are slashdot's bitch (none / 0) (#511)
	by dotKAMbot on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 07:52:48 PM PST

	hey, say what you want about slashdot, but without it, the site you are editing on wouldn't exist. Where did all the fancy code that powers you site come from? So, point out some inconsistencies... where are they? I put more thought, time and logic into my post than the original poster. As an editor, how can you post such crap? I mean the guy didn't even install linux, and knows nothing about it. I have never seen anyone do that on slashdot. Not with books, movies, toys, food, or software. I'm waiting, but not expecting much... daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p www.secretmedia.org It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

	Are you really so fucking stupid? (none / 0) (#523)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:22:29 AM PST

	hey, say what you want about slashdot, but without it, the site you are editing on wouldn't exist. Where did all the fancy code that powers you site come from? The code comes from here. Yes, that's right motherfucker, Adequacy runs kuro5hin's "Scoop" engine, not Slashdot's "Slashcode". It's an easy mistake to make though - after all, it's not as if Adequacy put a link to scoop.kuro5hin.org at the bottom of each and every fucking page saying "Powered by Scoop". Oh shit, they do put a link on every page. You really are fucking stupid, aren't you? You can take your s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p and shove it up your s.e.c.r.e.t.f.u.c.k.i.n.g.a.s.s, Daniel "J" Wharton.

	oh yeah? (none / 0) (#524)
	by dotKAMbot on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:23:51 PM PST

	where do you think the idea for scoop came from? keep trying though, you almost got it. slashcode is where all of these knockoffs got their ideas... no disrespect to scoop or squish-e or any of the other ones. i am working on my own as we speak called dotKAMbot Kamikaze Automatic Mechanism... they are all cool and different in some way. that is the beauty of opensource... daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p www.secretmedia.org It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

	You speak such bullshit (none / 0) (#525)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:39:32 AM PST

	slashcode is where all of these knockoffs got their ideas And Slashcode got its idea from Usenet and from BBS software that has been around since the 1980s (although you're too young to remember any of this, and too indoctrinated by the open source movement's lies to believe it anyway). Although you seem to be Slashdot's greatest disciple and apologist, you'll have to take my word for it when I say that there's nothing novel about Slashcode. that is the beauty of opensource... That's bullshit, and you know it. Ultimate Bulletin Board (UBB) has the functionality of Slashcode, and predates Slashcode by several years, so by your logic I have proved that proprietary software is infinitely superior to open source. Thanks for playing.

	very weak (none / 0) (#531)
	by dotKAMbot on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 02:49:43 PM PST

	this is a very weak arguement... there are many more similarities between slashcode and scoop than there are between slashcode and BBS... for your information, I got started at a young age, and did get to go on a few BBS's in my time. Not that it matters though... I know lots about BBS's and similar things. how much actual code did slashcode borrow from BBS systems? zero... but many of the slashcode clones borrowed much of the code from slashcode... that is my point... I'm sure IF scoop even existed without slashcode, it wouldn't be anything like it is now. Not that it would be worse, just different... I don't know why you are attacking me on this... you don't know what you are talking about. to tell you the truth, I don't really care about slashdot... the only reason I have this opinion is because I have worked on slashcode and similar projects... I have posted more things to the stupid ass site than I have to slashdot... just going after anything you can get huh? low blows... you are weak daniel j. wharton s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p www.secretmedia.org It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

	Daniel, don't bother (none / 0) (#557)
	by Alfielee on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 06:36:07 PM PST

	Daniel, you are doing yourself a disservice by wasting your time with this incredibly childish prat. Firstly this person has no idea what he is talking about and secondly this person is extremely rude and childish. The fact that he has no idea about Linux, and very little understanding of Windows for that matter shows his utter ignorance of the subject matter of which he speaks.

	Spelling... (none / 0) (#534)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:09:47 AM PST

	Obviously those "higher standards at adequacy" do NOT include SPELLING... to wit: "incosistent" "inherant" "inconsistancies" It might help if you checked a dictionary! Lynn Walls

	You mean... (none / 0) (#555)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 08:54:23 AM PST

	The post has already been seen by enough people that it's easier to downplay it than to get caught revising history. By the way, I loved how this site called AMERICAN Micro Devices (AMD) a foreign chip maker. I do know they have fabrication plants in Malaysia... but guess where Intel's are as well? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but most products you enjoy are produced in a similar manner by american companies so wholesomely taking advantage of the cheap labor sweatshops produce.

	lol funny guy (none / 0) (#548)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 12:58:14 PM PST

	I c the joke now, turn it around ---> "unfortunately there is no version of ipTables available for Windows" "windows XP, aggressively timed to coincide with that of Microsoft's near death experience.." "Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95..... & crash like a ****" "Sadly, not possessing even the slightest of IQ I was able to install the simplest of Linux distros, just the first of my many complaints. " "For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Gekco / Mozilla, included with Windows?" "Computer security is also an area that intrincily seems to have be a week point by the developers of proprieitory OSes (because they're closed source, same with bugs)" etc, etc.....

	Hold your horses!?!?!! (1.00 / 1) (#434)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:53:23 AM PST

	To start, I am not a Linux expert. I have a recreational interest in alternative Operating Systems. By trade I am a systems administrator to an exclusively Microsoft network, but I just can't let such a foul heap of mis-information as this slide by. First off, isn;t it Linus Trovalds, not Linux. ------------------------------------------------- " .. . reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications" ------------------------------------------------ This is not true. StarOffice is a high quality office suite completely compatible with MSOffice. Free from Sun.com. Actually I have heard reports of Star Office being able to open corrupted Word documents that Word refuses to open. In some ways it's a better Office than MSOffice. GIMP is a proffesional free image manipulation program often compared to Adobe-photoshop Blender is a really free cool 3D-manipulation program with many advanced features that runs neck and neck with the super-expensive 3D studio Max. I'll admit there are a lot of garbage apps, but there are some really good one's as well. -------------------------------------------- "Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! " -------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact all these programs are available on windows, linux (and other OS's as well). They just one crash as often on Linux as they would in windows. I was hoping to find an informed review of the new Mandrake 8.1, this guy really needs to do more research before he goes bashing stuff. ------------------------------------------------ To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. ------------------------------------------------ Woah. And Windows is known for great security! I know from experience that a Microsoft System is about as leak-proof as swiss cheese. Plus there ARE firewalls available for Linux. As a matter of fact I believe most Distros come with a couple with the installation disks. ------------------------------------------------ I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux. ------------------------------------------------ Wait a second, 1. Remember Linux is free. 2. An unstable Windows system that crashes continuously and must be constantly patched to avoid violation is not my idea of well spent time and effort. So Adequacy is 'News for Grown Ups'? Where were they when this article was written?

	You are damn sick... (1.00 / 1) (#436)
	by LtCYX on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:12:49 AM PST

	Well, I guess anyone can tell by now that you are (at most) but a simple computer user that can't turn on the power unless it reads "POWER". First of all: the name is Linus Torvalds (with an S). And I will not even bother quoting everything, because there is not a single memorable statement in your review. Try studying some computer science before saying such bullshit. btw... Linux DOES NOT NEED antiviruses... ever heard of an antivirus for Irix? Solaris? don't think so. Ant that's exactly what Linux is: an UNIX-like os. Not the windows-mess. and Mandrake, Slackware, Redhat are not linux VERSIONS, but DISTRIBUTIONS. Anyway, you can choose not to use either, and go build linux from scratch by yourself. ...and talking about "why bother"... maybe it's just a coincidence that the biggest servers on the internet running on PCs are not NT... always Linux, FreeBSD, and alike. Coincidence? I guess not. So, the next time you get a "your program performed an llegal operation" error, remember this: TRY LINUX. But for heavens sake... go learn something about computers first, moron. []s Lt.CYX[UGA] Leonardo B. Morelli Pixxel Producoes - Computer Graphics PENGUIN POWER!

	Ignorance is bliss... (2.00 / 3) (#440)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:14:13 PM PST

	iat, You aren't too terribly bright for an author are you? You're 'article' looks like it was written in 10 minutes by someone who has never been exposed to the topic that is being written about, but picked up an article off the net written by someone who is a supporter of a competing product. You then declared yourself qualified to write an article about the product based on this article. The Internet is an amazing tool. It's too bad its soiled with content written by individuals like yourself. Oh, BTW... I happen to use several operating systems and have no axe to grind with any of them. I have Mac, Win98SE, Win2K Professional, Linux Mandrake 7.2, and Mandrake 8.0.

	A couple of corrections. (2.33 / 3) (#441)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:42:59 PM PST

	Ok. I can understand you having some problems with Linux. It is not for everyone, and I don't expect the world to convert tomorrow. However, Linux was created by Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. The "x" at the end is to reveal that it is a clone of UNIX. Also, your article makes it sound like Mandrake is the latest in a line of Linux versions. Mandrake is just one distribution of the Linux operating system. The others you mentioned (Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Slackware) are other distributions. They are all based on the Linux kernel and utilize many of the same utilities. Mandrake's distribution is optimized for Pentium class processors. This is not a shortcoming of Linux. This just happens to be the market that Mandrake is targeting. The memory requirements are also Mandrake-specific, not Linux-specific. You can run Linux with skimpier hardware (Yes, it will run on your old 486, but not Mandrake Linux.). No, Internet Explorer is not available for Linux, but since when is it the industry standard as you claim. Netscape Navigator 4.78 is included with Mandrake 8.1. Also included are Mozilla 0.94, Konqueror 2.2.1, and Galeon (version number escapes me). No, Microsoft Office is not on Linux, but there are other alternatives that are excellent for 80% of office productivity needs. KOffice is an integrated office suite that is included with KDE. Star Office is another integrated office suite from Sun Microsystems that can be freely downloaded and installed on Linux, and it can read and write MS Office file formats. No, you probably cannot go down to your local software store and buy the latest game for the Linux platform. However, Mandrake 8.1 comes with LOADS of very cool games that will keep you plenty distracted, and if you have a graphics card that is supported for 3D acceleration, there are even some very nice 3D games included. If you want more, then there is a company called Loki Software that ports games to the Linux platform. I have their version of Rune, and it rocks. You can check them out at http://www.lokigames.com. As to the issue of virus software, there are virus checkers out there for Linux, but you really do not need one. Why? Well, there are only about 8 viruses that affect the Linux platform as opposed to the over 50,000 viruses that could bite you on Windows. Now, if you're still worried about those 8, they cannot destroy your system as long as you do not browse the Internet or check e-mail as the root user. These are activities that should be done when logged into your user account. If you do get infected by a virus, the worst it can do is wipe out your /home/user directory. Just keep that backed up and you can always restore that. The important stuff is unreachable unless you are logged in as root. As for firewalls, Mandrake 8.1 does come with a firewall that you can configure. No, it's not called ZoneAlarm, but it is a working firewall. So, based on this new information, I sincerely hope that you will give Mandrake, or some other distribution of Linux, another try. I suggest you do some reading at a site that goes over the steps to install Linux. You might want to try Red Hat (http://www.redhat.com). Their distro is very good, and it should run on your 486 hardware.

	100% IN-correct (1.00 / 1) (#466)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 03:47:25 AM PST

	Let's start with the most obvious points: 1. Linux is NOT Shareware - it is Open Source / Free Software. So are most, if not all, the various Linux distributions (compilations of Linux with many tools and applications ready to install). 2. Linux can run on anything from wristwatches and PDAs, to mainframes. Linux supports dozens of different processors (486 included), and with as little as 2MB of RAM (probably even less). 3. Internet Explorer is not an IETF standard, rather it is the most outstanding example of a browser that repeatedly fails to conform to published standards (not to mention security). That browser happens to be a Microsoft product - see note 5 below why it won't run on Linux. 4. Most standards relevant to browsers are published by the W3C (WWW consotium), not by the IETF. 5. The "popular applications" that are not available on Linux are Microsoft products. Microsoft refuses to port their applications to Linux, because they know it will accelerate even further the migration from MS's Operating Systems to Linux. 6. There is anti-virus software for Linux, but there's no demand for such software because there is hardly (if any) virus that compromises Linux systems. Linux has it's origin in Unix, which is by design more secure and more robust than Windows. 7. Linux has a built-in strong Firewall, that's only rivaled by full scale products such as CheckPoint's FW-1. The "personal" firewalls available for Windows desktops are no match for the standard Linux firewall capabilities. I guess if I could force myself to read the article again I'd find plenty more statements that have nothing to do with facts. I wonder if the author did any thinking, let alone basic research, before writing the article. I don't even use Linux and I know better than him, and he's supposed to write an article... It seems the author and the editor need to learn some basics Internet Explorer an IETF standard? You can't be more wrong!) EZ

	really dumb (1.00 / 1) (#473)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:42:06 PM PST

	First you bemoan the Mandrake only installs on a Pentium, then go on to recommend that users wait for XP. 1 - XP requires a P3 and 128MB RAM, Mandrake requires a P1 and 32MB for a graphical installer - Mandrake wins that stupid argument. 2 - There are many flavours of Linux which will run on systems that even W95 chokes on. 3 - "why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux?" because it's owned by Microsoft? Are you really this stupid? Why can't you buy Pepsi in Coke machines? Damn, I am amazed that you can be this moronic. BTW, Netscape has about 50% of the browser market still "industry standard" my pink butt. 4 - "By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility. " - Both Netscape and Mozilla comply with all W3 standards, which IE does not. 5- "it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux." - show me a Linux virus that you can get onto my system. You can't, because with Linux being open sourced it means all flaws can be found and fixed immediately by thousands of expert programmers, unlike the closed and buggy MS system. I will bet your entire fortune against mine that not even 0.1% of virii out there are able to attack a Linux based system. 6- "Without even installing Linux Mandrake" enough said really. How can you review something you haven't even tried. You are a joke of a reviewer. 7-"After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs" - it does not and never has. Microsoft charge a fee for exery OEM copy that is sold, which btw entitles you to zero support from MS even tho they are the ones charging you around $75 per win98/ME and $150 per w2k. I sell PCs, so I know this for a fact. 8 - "wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux." - you are amazing. Linux is FREE, you even say so yourself. 9 - I bet you wont post this reply. 10- to the ppl who should read this. Ignore this moron's :cough:review:cough:, try Mandrake Linux for FREE, if you dont like it, then delete it.

	my time to 'rant' (none / 0) (#483)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 09:09:07 PM PST

	Good day people, The person who wrote the article has, tactfully put, numerous errors as has been pointed out in the numerous replies. This reply wont even try correct them because if the readers aren't yet convinced with the facts laid out then nothing will. This reply is a plea to all those 'evil, corrupt, and apostles-of-the-demon' linux users that have been plaguing this 'very informative and fact-filled' article (some may replace it with website but that doesnt concern me). EVIL LINUX USERS, stop leading this 'GOOD PEOPLE OF MICROSOFT' into your ways! Haven't you noticed that you are all agitating them? Have you not the common sense to feel that you are shattering what sense of normalcy these people have? This site provides an outlet for their frustrations and gives them a sense of accomplishment by publishing what is on their mind on this part of the web, no matter how twisted some may be read and interpreted. So what if you dont find this article and site informative? These people need these kind of sites. It's that plain and simple. These people have been contented with what was given to them and anything that we, yes I am a Linux user too and a Mandrake user at that, say will only be treated as heresy. This is their part of the world, no matter how twisted it may look to us. Intelligent people, from both sides of the fence, have given meaningful insights but it all boils down to a flame match. In order for an argument to have a meaningful outcome both sides should be open to the idea that they may be wrong. It does not hurt if both parties can see the other side of the argument. All generalizations are dangerous, even this one. I have encountered that saying countless of times. Most Windows users generalize Linux users as barbaric, juvenile delinquents who are burdens of modern society. Some veteran nix user view window's users as non-technical people (the extremist even think of them as idiots or immature users) who are contented with a scrap of faulty code. I am from both but what does that make me? Linux is not for all. We can advocate but we cannot force people to use something that they are not comfortable with. Three years ago I was afraid of touching anything related or similar to Unix because I was uninformed and there was no need to learn anything beyond what Microsoft has to offer. When I was employed I was amazed at what Unix has to offer but did not gobble it up in one fell swoop. As I hunger for knowledge I consumed information a little bit at a time. This is what differentiates Windows users from nix users, the passion for knowledge. I know many Windows users that have the same passion but they are just a handful. We can all rant about stability, superiority, efficiency of our favorite OS. That is called freedom of speech. We can all install whatever software we can on OUR computers. That is called freedom of choice. What am I saying? Honestly I dont know. I am gnashing my teeth at the 'inconsistencies' that was posted and the 'intentional' blindness of some posters from the facts presented. On the other hand I am grateful because some brilliant minds has surfaced and offered some information that really interests me, and I am not talking about the 'hacking' stuff that site proponents are crying wolf about because that is something that people with common sense should figure out by themselves. I think I should be preparing my conclusion now for this is becoming a long post. CONCLUSION: For Windows users, nobody is forcing you to use Linux. When the author tried to 'review' Mandrake Linux, he was posting a technical article. But he was trying to hide behind the facade that he is doing it from the average person's point of view instead of facing the fact that he is not technologically capable of rendering the review some semblance of justice. Practice what you preach, nobody in their right minds will listen to a man raving about the pros and cons of using feminine wash. You have a right to use Windows and lead a contented life of commercialism, but don't intrude on ours because you have no idea what you are talking about. For *nix users, leave these people alone. They dont want your advice and whatever knowledge you can impart. We are only succeeding on egging them on and putting them on edge. They are not yet ready for our sophisticated system. They want an operating system that will spoon-feed them. They dont have the desire to know what happens below what they can see. We can only hope that we can impart knowledge on the people that counts, the people around us, and hope that they in turn will impart it to those around them. This article may be FUD but this is their kind of truth, and until they are ready to try something different then we really are talking to a wall. Consider the following phrases that I think is applicable to this situation: "People on the desert drink sand not because of thirst. They drink them because they dont know the difference" - from the movie "The American President" "Dont teach a pig how to dance. You are only wasting your time and succeeding only in irritating the pig" - unknown By posting I know that this will be flamed and twisted to another one's purpose. I dont care. Some men refuse to talk to dead people. I simply reserve the right to refuse talking to those who decided to be brain-dead. Thank you for reading through my 'rant'. Have a nice day.

	stupidity in action (3.00 / 1) (#485)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 04:42:57 AM PST

	when I saw so many stupidity I wonder how people here can trust such a web site ... Again A web site that need to vanished in the burning hell of ignorance and stupidity. <CODE>kill -9 www.adequacy.org</CODE>

	Errors and inaccuracys in the article (none / 0) (#487)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:13:16 AM PST

	That is Linus Trovales - Linus as in the Peanut's character that is Lucy's little brother. Linus started Linux, but takes no credit for being the only creator. Thousands of programmers from around the world have contributed. Linux is also extremely popular among Internet Service Providers. The #1 internet search engine, Google, operates on Linux. Scientists at national energy and defense labs use Linux. Cash strapped students are a tiny minority of Linux users. It is true that Mandrake only runs on Pentium computers. That is its niche in the world of Linux distributions - they optimize for that type of computer. Had you chosen RedHat, SuSE, Caldera or ANY other Linux distribution you would have been able to install it on your 486 or even your 386 if you had one. For that matter Linux even runs on handheld computers like the Compaq iPaq and Palm Pilots. It is true that Microsoft has not ported its software (Office, Outlook, Internet Explorer) to run on Linux. Yet users of Linux enjoy web browsing with Netscape Navigator, Mozilla (an improved version of Navigator), Opera and other wonderful web browsers. Other software categories are also well represented under Linux. I find it amazing that your critique them as "pitiful...unfinished, unreliable." It shows that you have not used these programs that reliably provide everything that the vast majority of computer users need. Yes, there is no ZoneAlarm for Linux - because it is not needed. Linux has built in firewall software. Firewall software that has proven its worth over years of deployment. I suggest the author spend some time with Linux so that he can write a review based on experience instead of guesswork. Failing that he should consider phlagarizing reviews from publications that have spent an adequate amount of time doing research. Michael Rasmussen edit address for best results mikeraz@spamhere.patch.com

	Awful article...terrible introduction to this site (none / 0) (#489)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:59:18 AM PST

	For a site that trumpets "News for Grown-ups" I felt like I was reading a last-minute science paper by a troubled 8th grader, and I'm not even a Linux user! How about trying to screen your writing staff ahead of time to make sure they've graduated from high school before you let them near a keyboard. If you're very lucky, I might give this site another chance, although I suspect this will be both my first and last visit here.

	Will XP run on that 486... Doh! (none / 0) (#494)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:36:30 AM PST

	Try to install Windows XP on that 486! Come on, compare apples to apples. You CAN run Linux on a 486! Just not Mandrake. Debian and RedHat for example can/will run just fine with a light Window Manager... How come you didn't blast M$ for not making a 486 version of XP???

	You have got to be kidding me (none / 0) (#496)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:52:17 AM PST

	You obviously know nothing about computers at all. You attempt to use linux but then complain about how it does not support your favorite WINDOWS apps. You act as if this is the fault of linux and not MS!! Please for the love of the internet stop posting such ignorant articles.

	This has to be a joke (none / 0) (#497)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:13:50 AM PST

	1. Linux is not an OS but a kernel. There are many, many Linux based OS this is true but linux is not the OS. 2. Microsoft has not made Internet Explorer avalibe for Linux based OSs and prob will not. Tough to include something that does not exsist no? 3. Linux based OSs cannot run Win32 APIs without help from emmulators or VM products. Anybody who questions "why wont my windows programs run on another OS besies windows" should be shot on site. THIS IS NOT WINDOWS. WINDOWS APPS WONT RUN ON ANYTHING BUT WINDOWS. EOF 4. Linux Mandrake will run on your 486 just fine. It will also run with as little as 8MB of ram. If you had really read the manual (RTFM) this would be clear. Dont think that you can run a fancy GUI with this config. I am supprised that Windows 95 runs on this also. 5. There is anti virus software for Linux. Not need though as viruses are basicly a Windows only threat (very few mac and other OSs also). I challange you to show me a Linux Virus! 6. Funny that you bring up Zone Alarm. This is a very weak "firewall" product for windows. Linux has stateful firewalling built into the kernel (unlike windows where it runs as an application. This is a HUGE downfall). If you would have read the manual, you would see that there is a GUI for settup of firewalling. TRUE FIREWALLING unlike zone alarm. 5. Being you bought a Gateway, part of the price went to Microsoft for windows. It was not free by any means. Linux in itself is free but for a working OS w/books and support you will have to pay. From reading the article I see some benifit to you from support. 6. I am 100% sure that BSD is not in any shape or form related to Sun because BSD in itself does not exist! Did you mean BSDi, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc? Some research on your end before posting lies to the world would have been nice. You really should RTFM about Linux. Learn what it is and isnt before deciding to install. Sounds like you want windows and to run windows applications. This would make Linux not for you my friend.

	I hope this article is a joke. (none / 0) (#516)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 06:22:13 PM PST

	This has to be the worst article I have ever read. I seriously hope it was a joke. I wouldlist the things that are wrong with the "facts" presented in the article but I don't think I can finish within my lifetime.

	Yeah....ummmmm..... (none / 0) (#517)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 06:33:24 PM PST

	Being a writer myself, and a very big critic on other sites before, I have to commend this author on a Job well done. BRAVO! You did stir up the crowd a bit. And well, as a Linux user, If this article wasn't meant to stir up the crowd, then the journalist who wrote this doesn't know anything except Microsoft. And he certainly knows NOTHING (well almost nothing) about Linux, and its creator Linus. Other than that, I won't keep with the criticism, he's had enough of that. And hopefully will give Linux another try but this time maybe he should use an easier version to install, like Red Hat. (I say this because on my desktops/laptops it took an hour to install Mandrake and only 20 mins to install Red Hat. The hour wait is sometimes discouraging.)

	The author did no research (none / 0) (#518)
	by DFantom on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 08:34:49 AM PST

	Before I have a bunch of people saying I'm biased I use both windows 2000 (best OS M$ ever made) and I use Mandrake 8.1. I think both OS's have there merits and flaws. Linux is the under dog and still isn't friendly enough for the mass market. Windows 2000 is very nice, but has it's share of problems (biggest being cost). I have made a list of the mistakes this author made in this article in regard to Mandrake 8.1. In regard to the hardware issue: Mandrake 8.1 is designed for Pentiums and higher. The original Linux as well as many other versions of Linux (eg Red Hat) are designed for 386 and higher. In regard to the IE issue: The reason there is no IE for linux is because M$ doesn't have a version for Linux. In regard to the Office issue: I agree Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes do not work under linux but Mandrake 8.1, but Mandrake provides free alternatives, that work perfectly fine with all M$ file formats. In regard to the games issue: The top 3 online games at the moment all run on linux: Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, and Half-Life. www.lokigames.com has a wonderful listing of games for linux. In regard to the security issue: Firstly there is no virus software for Linux as there are no viruses. Secondly there is a freewall in Mandrake 8.1, it's a version of bastille fire wall called Tiny Firewall. I feel that this author should appologise for his mistakes, and possibly remove this article from this web site. As it is giving this web site a bad reputation.

	This guy is on Drugs or works for Microsoft. (none / 0) (#519)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 01:58:24 PM PST

	Hi, First of all, the guys name was Linus not linux. Second: M$ Office, Outlook and IE are Microsoft software, THEY choose not to supply them for linux because they want people to use windows not linux. Third: There is more then one linux app that will open and save in M$ office file formats, anyone with half a brain can work out how to use them as its pretty much a standard menu system. Try Star Office and Openoffice. Forth:, Mozilla is almost word for word standards compliant, IE is not. (although ie6 is close) so you lied. Fifth: You don't need a Pentium with 32MB ram to run linux, you can do it on a 386 with 8MB of ram. and boot it from a floppy (Trinix and others)you just need 32mb and a pentium to run Mandrake linux, since they rightly assume that people would rather have an OS that is optimised for the system they have, rather then one that is optimised for old hardware, you want to run linux on a 486, get Peanut or possibly Redhat. Also, try loading win2000 or XP on your 486. the versions of linux that were out when 95 came out, ran on 486's just fine, and the fact that some current versions can still run on it says alot, none of M$ recent versions will run on a 486 at all. Sixth: RedHat, Caldera and others are not past names for linux distro's they are Current other distro's. People chose the one they want. which had you read up on, you wouldn't have tried to use Mandrake on a 486. Seventh: Linux doesn't have virus software? thats probably because its nearly impossible to infect a properly linux box with a virus because of users,, you need root or admin access to do that. Windows XP home, like win98,98,98SE and ME make everyone root, so they are affected by virus's Also there are alot of linux virus scanners, like Trend Filescan, the thing is that they all search for windows virus's because there are none on linux that are a threat to anyone. Eighth: Linux doesn't need firewalls like Zone Alarm because the abiltiy is built into the OS, read ipchains and iptables, and Mandrake 8.1 has two firewalls built into it. InteractiveBastille does far more then most just by asking you a bunch of questions from a nice GUI interface. Ninth: Software, Mandrake linux has server software that it would cost over 2000AUD to achieve with Microsoft(tm) software, and you wouldn't have been effected by Code Red or Nimda if you weren't running M$ software. it also comes standard with 2 or more versions of spreadsheets, word processors presentation software, finance stuff, advanced text editors, time management software email clients, graphing software, image editing software and more, and it all comes WITH Mandrake, you don't have to buy it seperatly. Tenth: Games, what to play Quake3 on linux? go ahead, you can buy it for linux, ditto with many other titles. and with WINE, you can run a great many actual windows titles as well. Please, if you are going to review a product at least get someone who knows what they are doing to review it objectively, you don't know because you only know the microsoft way and have a closed mind to anything else. Remember windows has been around in a semi decent form since 1992 or so,, Unix, which is linux's parent has been around since the 60's... you just didn't know about it. That is not the fault of linux. I use both linux and windows, I started with an open mind and I am tipping more and more towards linux because it does everything I want, and I can have the same machine running without a reboot for months just fine (I have seen cases where it has run without reboot for well over a year.). and it didn't cost me 500 bucks to buy. Be objective when you review something, just because its not what you are used to, doesn't mean that its not better, (or conversely that its worse.) Rgds Frank Perth Australia.

	short-sighted article (none / 0) (#526)
	by signal15 on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:28:31 PM PST

	I've found several problems with your article, in fact, most of the article is simply untrue, or not relevant to linux. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Actually, Mandrake linux is the only distribution that requires a pentium class processor. All other distibutions will run on a 486, and some even on a 386. Mandrake has compiled all of their sourcecode with optimizations for Pentium processors. Some applications actually run up to 80% faster with these optimizations, but the downside is that optimized apps will not run on anything less than a pentium processor. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer does not adhere to the HTML spec. Many websites use HTML tags on their site that are specific to IE, however, this usually breaks the page or makes it appear funny to other browsers like Mozilla/Netscape, Gecko, Konqueror, and others (WebTV, Dreamcast, PS2, etc.). IE currently has about 79% of the market share in the browser market, but it has gotten there because of MS's strongarm tactics. In any case, the latest version's of Mozilla, Konqueror, and Opera work excellent under linux, and actually provide more functionality. Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. That's because these programs are specifically for MS products. There are similar offerings under linux, and contrary to what you say, many work extremely well. The latest version of StarOffice from Sun.com is an MS office replacement that runs both under Windows and under Linux, and it's free. KOffice is a Linux specific offering, and has more functionality than the average user needs, although it still doesn't have all of the features of MS Office yet. KMail is a direct replacement for Outlook Express, and I've found that it is much faster and handles large mailboxes much faster. Plus, it has advanced filtering options for people who get a lot of mail. As for games, many of the popular games wouldn't run on your 486, even in windows. However, Mandrake and TransGaming are releasing Mandrake Gaming Edition in November. It's linux, but it comes with the windows version of the Sims, and will play most other windows games through an emulation layer called WINE. WINE technically isn't an emulator, and most games actually run faster in WINE than they do in native windows. Companies like Loki and ID Software also produce games for linux (Return to Wolfenstein and the entire Quake series work excellent under linux, and they run natively without WINE). Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet. There are no virus scanners for linux because there are no virii for linux. Linux is inherently secure against virus infection because of the security architecture of the operating system. Yes, you heard me, viruses do not exist in Linux. ZoneAlarm is a windows only product. Linux comes with built in firewalling (either ipchains or iptables). Both are tedious to set up manually, so Mandrake comes with a program called firewall which does it all for you. When you install Mandrake, it asks you if you want to run it and it gets started automatically everytime your system boots. It also handles strange protocols much more gracefully than ZoneAlarm, as iptables has stateful inspection so it can figure out what you're trying to do better. The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. You didn't even install the operating system. I have shown every single one of your claims to be false. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux. I don't know how one would waste their money on linux since it's free, as you have even pointed out. Plus, Linux does not have some strange activation scheme like Windows XP, does not contact MS everytime you install a program to tell them that you have installed something else, and does not have questionable licensing schemes (MS wants to charge you a yearly fee to use their operating system and software). Right now, WinXP home edition costs $199, and XP Professional costs $300. I don't know about you, but I think free is much cheaper than the minimum $200 it's going to cost me to buy WinXP. And since Linux does everything Windows XP does, for less money, and with more stability, I think I'll stick with my Mandrake 8.1 workstation and laptop. (Note, I have Windows XP Professional build 2505, and it's just windows 2000 with a pastel colored interface, and tattle-tale's to MS when I install software on it). signal15

	I'm Speechless with your ignorance (none / 0) (#532)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 07:33:02 AM PST

	You ignorant Cunt! Including Internet Explorer in any linux distrobution would be compromising everything the linux community stand for!

	If Only I had got here earlier.... (none / 0) (#533)
	by xstech on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:56:08 PM PST

	As another MCSE I hate to bring it up to the author of this review, but Hotmail, is still run on BSD, all of Microsofts's patches and updates that come from conxion are from unix ftp servers. Yahoo, IBM, Compaq, I think Amazon also gets a few hits, well they are some form of linux. I'm sure alot of guys go to playboy, or hustler? Hmmm, Altavista, ICQ.....see a pattern here? Linux really is for development, never ment for games, but there are a few kick ass 3d games like Quake Arena, and you wonder why the graphics are smother and speed is faster well just remember movies like the matrix, tomb raider, the mummy, etc, all the special effects are done on SGI boxes, the titanic effects were done using Red Hat linux. Let's see for security, if you can't afford a Cisco Pix firewall at home($1300 base), a 386 with 8 megs of memory, a floppy drive and two nick cards running anyone of about 10 single disk free firewall solutions(ebay $20) should be faster than any dlink, or linksys dsl/cable router out there and turn on DHCP and get usb phoneline network adapters and plug your other boxes or laptops in in anyroom without rewireing. Oh and here, anyone want to mess with the author if he is stupid enough to rely on a $20 software firewall. If you use port 67 as the source port of a TCP or UDP scan, ZoneAlarm will let the packet through and will not notify the user. This means, that you can TCP or UDP port scan a ZoneAlarm protected computer as if there were no firewall there IF you use port 67 as the source port on the packets. Exploit: UDP Scan: You can use NMap to port scan the host with the following command line: nmap -g67 -P0 -p130-140 -sU 192.168.128.88 (Notice the -g67 which specifies source port). TCP Scan: You can use NMap to port scan the host with the following command line: nmap -g67 -P0 -p130-140 -sS 192.168.128.88 Also if you have a trojan or virus on your MS box already and are getting reamed by 12 yrs running free scripts, and go get zonealarm to try to fix it, here is a direct quote from Symantec: ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro can be stopped from loading by creating a memory-resident Mutex (using a call to the CreateMutex API). Uninstalling\reinstalling ZoneAlarm in a different path has no effect. The impact of this vulnerability is that a Trojan running on a victim's machine can prevent ZoneAlarm from loading, and thus leave the victim open for attack. Check out Conseal9 for a cheap real software pc firewall. Oh yea, how many people own Tivo's? It's got a hard drive but it isn't formatted Win32 or NTFS. Oh and wait till XP comes out, speaking of games, anyone try to play games on Win2k, nothing works on ME, not to mention the hardware requirements for most games to run on Windows means an upgrade every 6 months, which is about how often I have to reboot my linux servers, funny isn't it. And that's the News.....

	Linux lusers a stupid! (none / 0) (#538)
	by kwench on Sun Oct 28th, 2001 at 07:45:47 PM PST

	After I read this review of this Linux-thing, I must admit that all those people I know that try to run this Linux must be stupid! Why offer so much time and work when you can obtain the same results with Windows? Why should you use a system without an internet explorer and mail express program? Those linux people must be living back in the 80s when there was no internet... <dumb-mode off> Honestly, I'm quite amazed one the high number of posts of obvious intelligent, promising linux-hackers (I even learnd one or two things about lynx and nmap) that simply do not recognize that this article is meant to be a JOKE!!! Instead of checking other articles at www.adequacy.org they simply start their flame war. I thought that Linux (and other OSes like BeOS, AtheOS, QNX, *BSD) are still reserved form some kind of educated elite. But I seem to be mistaken. Mandrake 8.1 is so easy to install that more and more people who cannot even understand satires are running Linux...

	Extremely disturbing... (none / 0) (#539)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:01:42 AM PST

	I stumbled on to this site while looking for a review of Mandrake 8.1. Am I ever sorry I did? While the writer's ignorance of the Linux operating system and how it differs from the Microsoft Windows model is exceptional, the quality of comments that have been posted in response to the article are truly disheartening. I won't go into a critique of the article since others here seem to have highlighted its many holes, but I will say that I use both Windows (98 and 2000) and Linux (Mandrake, SuSE, and RedHat) and will comfortably state that nothing this writer states should be taken at face-value, much less as true. What worries more is the number of 4-letter words that have been posted in response. For a site that is supposed to be "News for Grown-ups", the readership obviously doesn't fit the profile of the target audience. I won't come here again. Not because of the poor journalistic standards, but because the net is littered with respectful commmunities containing helpful, kind-hearted people and this place is not one of them. Until those of you who have made these posts grow up, please stay here, at this poorly named Adequacy.org. Ambitious_Llama

	You'll note: (none / 0) (#542)
	by cp on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 09:28:23 PM PST

	Most of the comments using profanities are contributed by Anonymous Readers. As individuals who haven't taken the time to set up an account, they cannot be considered part of the Adequacy.org community and are for the most part just passing through.

	Mandrake review (none / 0) (#540)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 09:13:43 AM PST

	You have to be kidding. I have been using personal computers since MSDOS 1.x, suffered through the initial release of Windows that ran in 320x200 on an XT. Strugled with the Windows 3.1 release and it's poor support for networking. The Windows95, 98, 98se, NT, 2000, XP releases (which have finally reached some level of stability) have been monopolistic behemoths attempting to stuff as much of other people's products into an operating system while pricing it so low the competition is forced out of business. Now that they've eliminated much of the competition they start pushing the prices up. It's ironic that Microsoft itself used samples of the blue screen of death to tell the world that Windows2000 should be more stable than previous releases. One of Gates' comments about 2000 was that the previous version of WinNT had an average server uptime of approximately 5 days. FIVE DAYS, imagine that you could almost make it a week without having to take the server down and restart it. Yes that is average, some longer, some shorter. My Linux boxes only come down if I take them down for moving, prolonged power outages, hardware upgrades etc. I have not tried to run Linux on a 486 but have run it on Pentium 75, 90, 120, 266 dual pentium pro, quad pentium pro and dual PentiumII 400 machines with anything from 16 megabytes of RAM to 256MB, it supports higher. The install runs smoothly each and every time I build a server. I can build one from a bootable CDROM or via an NFS mounted or HTTP connected remote server. Somewhere, someone quoted this site as complaining that Linux doesn't come with the "industry standard" Internet Explorer. F.Y.I. Mozilla / Netscape are the industry standards. The only thing standard about IE is it is one of the highest crashing applications on Bugtoaster.com's Real Statistics Get off your high horse, spend some time really understanding what you're purporting to write about. I'll never own XP and as soon as Sierra comes out with a Linux GUI for Half-Life I'll trash my WindowsMe for Red Hat or one of the other excellent releases without a second thought.

	oh...my....god (none / 0) (#545)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 03:20:58 PM PST

	you people. i feel sorry for oracle-dba-guy (if hes still reading) for having to deal with stupidity at this level. Linux is not an evil hackers OS, its an OS with a specific use, just as windows works best as a desktop/workstation because of its ease of use, and graphical interface; linux is ideal for servers, it has (by default) no GUI, cutting down on wasted resources, much better server software, and is much better suited to running as a server. Which is why most desktops have windows and most webservers have linux/apache In fact, Open source software is much better suited to a server environment, where the ability to finely customiSe the application comes into its own. now. for the average stupid user, windows is great, you people are obviously all both ignorant and stupid, so keep using it! If however you would like the ability to customise your software at code level, then linux is the obvious choice. imho, microsoft have tried to do too much with windows... what is the point of bundling a webserver with win2k? (and i think XP too) look what happened: code red. code red was hilarious, i laughed my arse off when i discovered thousands upon thousands of hits from codered infected machines on our webserver... almost every single one of those machines were accesible (as in you could read, write, and remove data) through Internet explorer (ooooh hax0ring tool) Had IIS been open source, it would never have been released, its a stupid, stupid, stupid hole that microsoft should have fixed long ago Telnet. Telnet is not a hacking tool. it is a tool, its not for hacking. you CAN hack with it, but you can also hack with IE. Telnet is bundled with windows along with a buncha other network-type stuff that can be used for any number of network related applications. I use it(along with ssh, similar but encrypted) several times a day, in fact i probably clock up two or three hours a day, I use it for completely legitimate purposes... anything from administering websites/servers to diagnosing network problems. The only things you can see with telnet are sent specifically by the webserver. it is all information that is unencrypted, and the only reason your browser doesnt display it is because its boring, no one cares what webserver you use. Exploits will always exist both in closed and open source software; but microsofts 'security by obscurity' policies are fatally flawed, known exploits are used and abused for months before being fixed, just cos they dont want to admit to making mistakes. Open source software is infinintly more secure, fixes are posted within hours of finding exploits, you can even modify the code yourself if you need to. Just because some of the software we use would not be here if it wasnt for microsoft, consider this; if it wasnt for the porn industry we would not have VHS video, streaming media, DVD or VCD, plus newspapers wouldn't be as widespread (sales of printing presses didnt take off for years until the first printed pornographic material was produced). Now. does that make the porn industry a good thing? If you cant secure your site from someone who wouldn't be able to get this information elsewhere, then you ARE NOT FIT TO BE WEBSITE ADMINISTRATORS and it is people like you that ENCOURAGE scriddies by leaving gaping holes for them to wander in. Its like leaving your car door unlocked... if someone nicks your stereo, its illegal, but its your own stupid fault and your insurance company would (rightly) tell you to fssk off. YOU are to blame for every stupid 15yo scriddie who hacks a website and gets locked up. its YOU who are responsible for spam, by having insecure mailservers. its YOU that encourage warez/porn trading with badly-configured public ftp's and other stupid oversights and its YOU that are increasing making the internet an increasing unfulfilling place to be. Fuck you and fuck your fucking fuckwits web-fucking-site. fuckers

	ROFFLE (none / 0) (#546)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 01:18:31 AM PST

	OMG, this is the most retarded article and forum I've ever encounter in my life! I can't believe the lack of intelligence of the people at adequacy.org; you guys actually BELIEVE it's illegal to recieve HTTP headers?!? ROFFLE!!! Not only that, you guys believe that lynx and telnet is illegal! OMG OMG!! I JUST FOUND THE HTML SOURCE TO THIS PAGE!! Here I'll show everyone how to do it: If you people are stupid and run IE, go to VIEW > SOURCE And there you have it! OMG HTML CODE OH NO IM STEALING!! God what stupidity. Linux is communist ROFFLE ahahah omg you people are so misinformed. News for grown ups my ass. More like misinformation and propaganda. ~ RanmaGuy http://suteki.nu

	please learn what it is you review (none / 0) (#556)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 05:38:00 PM PST

	I only got through the first page before giving up. please if you are goting to "review" an os find out about it before placing such uninformed comments. I will not bother with this site again as its opinion is way to uninformed. BTW yes i do use linux and windows as well....

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.