Even OSS Prefers Windows XP

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 It is no longer maintained.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.

Poll

Votes: 5

Even OSS Prefers Windows XP

Author:

MessiahWWKD

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 07, 2002

Comments:

People tend to associate Linux with Open Source Software, or OSS. Last week I switched from using Linux to using Microsoft Windows XP. Although Windows XP does eclipse Linux in terms of features, performance, and usability, there are Open Source programs on Linux that I enjoyed, such as the GIMP, GPG, Mozilla, and Open Office. Luckily, these programs were ported to Windows. After eXPeriencing these programs on Windows XP Professional, I had a revelation filled with irony: Open Source Software works better on Windows XP than it does on Linux!

More diaries by MessiahWWKD

	Ask Adequacy: What's with two masks?
	Microsoft Windows XP Is Truly the Superior OS
	Atheism, Crime, and the Connection
	A Love Sonnet
	Accepting Homosexuals
	My Hard Life
	Free Escorts
	Miss Adequacy 2002
	Declaration of War Against Adequacy
	Wicca FAQ
	Native or Lying?
	Capital Punishment
	Literature and the Law
	I hate the Open Source Community
	I Miss Jin :(
	Ask Adequacy: Am I a Pedophile?
	Seatbelts - Bad Influence
	The Perfect Career
	End of Open Source

From the moment one starts Open Source Software, one can see the superiority of Windows XP. The GIMP, Mozilla, and Open Office all start much quicker than they do in Linux, even without using the quick start feature in Mozilla and Open Office that are absent in Linux. It is amusing knowing that what hackers call a slow and bloated operating system has no problem starting these programs, while Linux takes around a half-minute to start Mozilla and Open Office.

Not only do Open Source programs start quicker in Windows XP, but they even perform better than they do in Linux. Open Source programs on Windows XP have superior file dialogs and lovelier and more intuitive interfaces. Even with superior interfaces, Mozilla and Open Office perform better than they do on Linux. The only exceptions are GPG, which uses the command prompt as it does on Linux, and the GIMP, which stubbornly uses the GTK, or GTK's Terrible Kode, which also performs better on Windows XP. It is amazing that a toolkit designed for Linux is superior when running on Windows XP.

Why is it that Open Source Software performs better on Windows XP than it does on an Open Source operating system? Perhaps it is the superior threading in Windows, perhaps it is because Windows applications follow standard, while Linux applications are based on QT, GTK, Motif, and a number of other toolkits, or perhaps it is because that innovative professionals developed Windows XP, while Linux was designed by amateur hackers. Whatever the reason for OSS performing better on Windows XP, one thing is for sure: Windows XP is truly the superior operating system.

eXPerience the Truth.

	Department of Redundancy Department (1.00 / 1) (#1)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:59:58 PM PST

	My apologies for pointing this out to you, but you seem to be repeating yourself. Nobody who disagrees with you is going to buy your personal testimony, and nobody who agrees with you needs the sermon. Therefore, who are you trying to convince? A troll's true colors.

	The articles are similar, but not the same. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:00:31 AM PST

	I understand why you would feel that this entry is simply repeating what my last entry said. However, in that one, I debunked the arguments Linux users had against Windows XP. In this one, I prove to the world that Windows XP is the superior operating system, not only when it comes to commercial software, but also when it comes to Open Source software. I found ironic that Windows had better Open Source software than Linux. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Similarities (1.00 / 1) (#6)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:02:40 PM PST

	In your previous article, you attempt to prove that Windows is superior to Linux. In this article, you attempt to prove that Windows is superior to Linux. In a future article, I anticipate that you will attempt to prove that Windows is superior to Linux. Okay, so we get the point. You believe Windows to be superior to Linux. Bully for you. People who similarly believe Windows to be superior to Linux will rally behind you. People who believe Linux to be superior to Windows will blow raspberries at you. And no one will be swayed one way or another. That is my point. Your articles are redundant in their message and purpose, and achieve no result, either positive or negative. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but that's how I see it. Please understand I don't mean to target you specifically (although it's obvious that I did). The individuals advocating Linux's superiority are guilty of the same error. They're not going to convince anyone, either. Frankly, the OS holy wars are boring. A troll's true colors.

	I hear you. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 05:22:06 PM PST

	Frankly, the OS holy wars are boring. If we can somehow improve Linux until it reaches parity with XP, OS wars will indeed cease to be the constant boring lopsided Microsoft victories they are now. The first step is for one side to stop thinking that mere belief in Lunix superiority is sufficient to overcome its objective inferiority.

	I can't help but wonder here.... (1.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:28:31 AM PST

	Err, I have a slow old pentium pro, with only a smidgen of ram. GIMP doesn't take that long for me to start. Are you sure you had it set up right, because, honestly, that just doesn't seem right. Especially since my experiences with Windows XP's performance have been nothing short of abysmal so far. Vanilla XP Pro and XP home installs on an athlon 800mhz with 1 gig of ram and a 1ghz P4 with 512 mb of ram have given me nothing but headache. Even my sound drivers have been wonkey. Things are sluggish and crashy. The computers run fine using Linux and Win2k and even BeOS ( I was curious, ok? ). Isn't this what Windows is supposed to prevent?

	An insight (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:58:43 AM PST

	Comments like this show the truth of the situation. WinXP is the best of times, it is the worst of times. WinXP is both the ying and the yang. It is mind-bogglingly quick, yet impossibly slow. It is beautiful yet hideous. So, to be fair, WinXP is only worth using by Buddist monks. For the rest of us, there is reliably slow and hideous Linux. Sometimes[1], the most important thing needed is consistency. [1] Particularly when making cake icing.

	Very good point. (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 05:04:56 PM PST

	Indeed. I'd rather have a consistantly slow and stable system than a sometimes fast yet unstable system. The examples of linux performance and stability on an average scale comfort me much more than the tanget graph of winXP reliability.

	Look, Melissa. Get over this. (1.00 / 1) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:34:16 AM PST

	We're all happy for you, you found an OS you like. Terrific. Whee. Fun fun fun. It doesn't mean you need to run around gleefully making up highly subjective comparisons between operating systems, especially when you are trying to do something on linux that it is really poor at doing (graphics) and WinXP is ok at doing. These tests aren't relavent, they don't show anything other than the fact your linux box was probably set up wrong, in some way. Not that it should tarnish your fun. If WinXP waters your garden, then go for it and have fun. Just don't try to tell everyone that it's just plain old better, because there are plenty of things WinXP, even XP Pro, is just not great at doing. OSS doesn't prefer it. Your test isn't possible, the GTK+ libraries are still tweaky at best on windows, and GIMP relies heavily on them. Honestly, if I were you I'd run Win2k for performance. You can rant about XP's unimaginative interface and better-late-than-never approach to features if you like though.

	test this (1.00 / 1) (#9)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:40:49 PM PST

	If OSS runs so much better on Windows then do me a favor. Compare Apache on a Unix variant compared to that of Apache/Windows. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Yeah, but... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:10:29 PM PST

	...Apache is the festering pimple on the ass of the software world. It should get the prize for "most buggy and bloated server-side software". I mean, it is really that bad. Really. Trust me. -- Peace and much love...

	funny (1.00 / 1) (#11)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:09:16 AM PST

	That strange because in tests it did very well compared to IIS. Apache ran poorly on Windows but did rather well on BSD and Linux. iPlanet outranked IIS in many categories. Although nothing (according to the test) can compare to Zeus which only runs on Unix variants by the way. It got 5/5 across the board and was Editor's pick. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?*

	Reality comprehension. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:49:47 AM PST

	Just because Apache is an utterly humiliating piece-of-software doesn't make IIS any better. -- Peace and much love...

	Oh ye of blind faith (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:51:55 AM PST

	Why is it that every zealot who screamed bias at the mindcraft benchmarks is completely incapable of noticing the deliberate slant of the slew of pro-linux benchmarks which they insist on dragging into the conversation every single time someone mentions a webserver? If you were in possession of unbiased test results, you would know that apache is extremely unstable under high traffic, which is why high traffic sites prefer IIS. It holds up, while apache just crashes and burns.

	But then why exactly... (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:31:53 AM PST

	Why exactly is Apache used everywhere, whereas IIS is not nearly so widespread. I'm just curious, Mr Fake PhD. Not everyone is stupid and pretends to have a fake education, like you.

	Hype, mostly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:37:48 AM PST

	Free software "advocates" have succeeded in pushing their agenda to such a degree that people are accepting their fabricated statistics and deliberate half-truths as gospel. Also, I defy you to find one post in which I have claimed to have a PhD. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to bolster my faith in myself through university so-called "education", real or fake.

	So what.. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 09:39:51 AM PST

	you're a home-grown idiot, none of this university education? well, at least you can't blame your teachers.

	American pseudo-education (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:17:03 AM PST

	Institutional education obviously hasn't done much for you, state-college boy. We'll start you off with some remedial english, shall we? Sentences start with capital letters, and it's very poor form to open a sentence with the word "well". It makes you look like a teenager pretending to be an adult.

	pah (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by nathan on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:48:41 AM PST

	Universities don't even pretend to teach anything any longer. I should know - I'm working on a graduate degree. Most of my fellow grad students are very poorly read outside their own disciplines, know little of history and care less, and can't write to save their lives. There are smart people in grad school, but you have to sift mountains of dross to find them. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Regarding Apache and IIS (1.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 09:36:12 AM PST

	have you, sir, ever even used apache? you're what, a handyman? how would you know? If IIS is so good why is it NOT preferred by any of the 850 sites i am affiliated with? seriously.

	Marketshare (5.00 / 1) (#19)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 09:41:08 AM PST

	If Linux is so good, then why does it have less than 1% of the desktop market? Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	tell me (none / 0) (#24)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:37:26 PM PST

	Why is it that whenever someone wants to show how popular an OS is they always go for the desktop market? There are a number of OSes out there that are extremely popular. Many of them succeed where MS software is not as popular and only slowly gaining ground. You don't see OS/390 running on any desktops do ya? No it runs on IBM mainframes. I repeat, there are a number of OSes out there without a desktop equivalent. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	ok, I'll tell you (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 02:37:52 PM PST

	Since Lunix tries so very hard to be like Microsoft, we compare it with Microsoft. It's what Linus wants. Personally, I would be happy if Lunix captures 1% of Microsoft's server market.

	ho hum (1.00 / 1) (#30)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:36:53 PM PST

	Since Lunix tries so very hard to be like Microsoft, we compare it with Microsoft. Why are you comparing LUnix to Microsoft? Oh maybe you mean LINUX. Linux isn't a company so it's silly to compare software to a corporation. Linux in no way is trying to be like Windows. A more accurate phrase would be that Windows is trying to be like MacOS. It's what Linus wants Do yourself a favor and actually do some research. Personally, I would be happy if Lunix captures 1% of Microsoft's server market. Well LUnix won't gain 1% of the MS market share. LUnix is a UnixLite which runs on 8bit computers like the c64 and c128. Linux on the other hand already has more than 1%, much more. Check any survey from Netcraft or Microsoft's buddies at the Gatner Group. You people are so blind as not to think that Linux isn't popular or have any real market share. Then why do I find so many different items relating to MS anti-Linux campaigns and advertising? Bill Gates even goes so far as to say he is responsible for OSS (HAHA)! Seems kind of strange to go after Linux if it ain't popular. I think you should research interviews with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer regarding Linux. Why all this agressive marketing, Steve? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	You're affiliated with 850 sites? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:23:58 AM PST

	Who are you? Amazon.com? Nobody cares how many dimmwitted blogs, Ultimate Bulletin Boards and Yahoo groups you've joined. None of them are adequacy.org, so you're just another anti-social adolescent who grew up on the internet. In answer to your question, all of those sites run apache because they are either dirt-poor or dirt-poor and criminal. The fact that you are associated with them virtually proves my point.

	oh really (none / 0) (#25)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:46:21 PM PST

	In answer to your question, all of those sites run apache because they are either dirt-poor or dirt-poor and criminal. The fact that you are associated with them virtually proves my point. So what does that say about Adequacy.org? A simple visit to uptime.netcraft.com, show Adequacy.org running Apache on Free BSD. Not to mention SCOOP which only runs on Unix variants. Now unless they have done a complete overhaul since I had been there last how would you classify this site? Nobody believes that proprietary OS, running a proprietary webserver, running a proprietary weblog bullshit. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	learn the GPL, my sorry friend. (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 02:50:18 PM PST

	Adequacy runs on proprietary software because none of the changes the computer scientists at Adequacy made to the Freedom Software code base are being redistributed. Adequacy has gutted so much bit rot and variations on the bubble sort algorithm from these applications, the diffs cannot be contained in an email that will fit on Torvaldez's screen. According to the Lunix development model, all diffs must be submitted via email and their entirety must fit on Torvaldez's screen due to some obscure bug in Lunix's email protocol. A lot of positive collaboration between Adequacy and Microsoft was thus lost to Lunix's obscure bug in its email protocol queue. So while you mourn Lunix's fate as a suboptimally performing hobby OS, do not ever claim that Adequacy did not try.

	dear god (none / 0) (#29)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:13:19 PM PST

	Adequacy runs on proprietary software because none of the changes the computer scientists at Adequacy made to the Freedom Software code base are being redistributed. Nobody is buying it. None of the licenses I guess you are trying to refer to force you to redistribute code. Adequacy has gutted so much bit rot and variations on the bubble sort algorithm from these applications, the diffs cannot be contained in an email that will fit on Torvaldez's screen. Netcraft looks to adequacy.org to examine what software you're running not some e-mail list. By the way what does FreeBSD and Apache have to do with the GNU GPL? Nothing. So your argument is shit. According to the Lunix development model, all diffs must be submitted via email and their entirety must fit on Torvaldez's screen due to some obscure bug in Lunix's email protocol. A lot of positive collaboration between Adequacy and Microsoft was thus lost to Lunix's obscure bug in its email protocol queue. You are not require to submit any changes. If you want to redistribte it that's another matter. And they don't have to be e-mail to Linus Torvalds. This collaboration might explain why this site is so pro-MS and pro-Windows. But it doesn't change the fact that this site runs Apache on FreeBSD o the fact that it runs SCOOP. You can't even get your licenses correct. You're prbably another nimrod that think that FreeBSD is Linux. Pathetic. So while you mourn Lunix's fate as a suboptimally performing hobby OS, do not ever claim that Adequacy did not try. And you failed miserably. You can't even present an intelligent argument. Now shut up go home and shoot yourself in the head. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I must warn the others about your temper (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:09:49 PM PST

	You're prbably another nimrod that think that FreeBSD is Linux. Pathetic. I would have taken pains to elaborate had I known you were going to threaten my head with gunfire; I just assumed you knew enough to fill in the blanks. For the record, Debian is the communist release of Lunix. FreeBSD is the libertarian version of Lunix released by disgruntled members of the Debian.gov Politburo. The difference between the two is not in their Freedom Codes, it is in their respective licenses: FreeBSD Lunix seeks to penetrate Capitalism (it's a deception if you ask me) by allowing limited forms of economic freedom. Now shut up go home and shoot yourself in the head. Watch your temper, the FBI has an account here.

	here we go (none / 0) (#32)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:32:16 PM PST

	FreeBSD is the libertarian version of Lunix released by disgruntled members of the Debian.gov Politburo. FreeBSD is NOT Linux. It's a BSDLite based on BSDOS. It is older than Linux. FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for Intel ia32 compatible, DEC Alpha, and PC-98 architectures. It is derived from BSD UNIX, the version of UNIX developed at the University of California, Berkeley. The difference between the two is not in their Freedom Codes , it is in their respective licenses: FreeBSD Lunix seeks to penetrate Capitalism (it's a deception if you ask me) by allowing limited forms of economic freedom. I don't believe you could be that stupid. Watch your temper, the FBI has an account here. What a load of crap. Even if a member of the FBI would waste their time they wouldn't announce it. "Hi, I'm with FBI!" Now piss off Anonymous. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	you are going in circles -- straighten up! (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 05:02:04 PM PST

	FreeBSD is NOT Linux. It's a BSDLite based on BSDOS. It is older than Linux. Nope. FreeBSD Lunix is libertarian Open Source. You have to realize that Open Source is not an engineering category, it is a political category. Pay attention to hacker comparisons of operating systems. You will notice a paucity of technical comparisons in favor of phrases such as "XP may be faster, but it isnt Free as in Love" and "XP may be more secure, but it's file formats are proprietary." Love, Free, Proprietary are not engineering terms. FreeBSD is an advanced operating system for Intel ia32 compatible, DEC Alpha, and PC-98 architectures. It is derived from BSD UNIX, the version of UNIX developed at the University of California, Berkeley. And this differs from Lunix how? If you reread the post you are pretending to reply to, you will observe that I explicitly stated FreeBSD was just another example taken from the multitude of splintered Lunix versions. I don't believe you could be that stupid. I'm sorry YALL, but the FreeBSD Lunix license is, does, in fact, differ from the Lunix license in exactly the way I said. While the Debian politburo license policies vitiate any prospect for profitability, FreeBSD Lunix allows their Freedom Codes to be hidden from hackers. Hiding the Freedom Codes of Open Source is the only way to realize a profit with Lunix. This is why Microsoft is so secure. Microsoft is a billion dollar company (I suppose you have some "facts" to dispute this too) today because its codes are secure from the jealous gaze of Debian hackers. What a load of crap. Even if a member of the FBI would waste their time they wouldn't announce it. "Hi, I'm with FBI!" Please quote where I claimed I was the FBI. As per usual, your reply was a series of abject denials without supporting evidence or argument. Before you reply to this message, take a few moments to gather the odd fact and construct the occasional syllogism. I have a low tolerance for rhetoric.

	oh man (none / 0) (#34)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 06:37:09 PM PST

	If you reread the post you are pretending to reply to, you will observe that I explicitly stated FreeBSD was just another example taken from the multitude of splintered Lunix versions. That would actually make sense if FreeBSD were Linux. FreeBSD is UNIX. It does not use Linux code. I'm sorry YALL, but the FreeBSD Lunix license is, does, in fact, differ from the Lunix license in exactly the way I said. While the Debian politburo license policies vitiate any prospect for profitability, FreeBSD Lunix allows their Freedom Codes to be hidden from hackers. The BSD (not BSD Linux) license does differ from the GPL. It's a different unix variant under a different license. This is informative how? I know the difference between the BSD and GPL. However, you claim that BSD is linux. Hiding the Freedom Codes of Open Source is the only way to realize a profit with Lunix. This is why Microsoft is so secure. Microsoft is a billion dollar company (I suppose you have some "facts" to dispute this too) today because its codes are secure from the jealous gaze of Debian hackers. Obviously YOU need to read the GPL. Fully provides for a profitable business model. Debian can be sold. You can sell CDs you had burnt yourself to cover cost of media plus a small profit. Or you can modify Debian and sell it but you cannot call it Debian. Apparently you are just like any other Adequacy.org morons pulling shit out of your ass without bothering to do any real research. Also MS is popular because of superior marketing and shady licensing NOT superior product. Show me any proof of real software comparison besides one person experience. Please quote where I claimed I was the FBI. Boy are you stupid. Did I say YOU? I said that if an FBI agaent were to waste his time here in order to monitor this site he would NOT annouce it. Being as you are Anonymous you would have no way of knowing the true identity of any reader. I could claim I am with the CIA and give a false email address as well. Besides the FBI don't waste time becoming memebers of sites to watch for suspicious activity. The put sites on watch list and wait for reports. Don't believe me? Do some actually research on their website. The only time FBI will actually monitor anything is when it's a chat room and they are looking for suspicious conversations such as those involving missing persons. As per usual, your reply was a series of abject denials without supporting evidence or argument. Before you reply to this message, take a few moments to gather the odd fact and construct the occasional syllogism. I have a low tolerance for rhetoric. I believe you need ot examine your own posts. You provide nothing a incorrect information. When I mention Apache and FreeBSD you point at the GPL. So, what does the GPL have to do with Apache and FreeBSD? Absolutely NOTHING. Nobody believes the I'm gonna make stuff up and you're gonna believe because I cliam to be smart but provide no proof bullshit. And that goes for your buddy osm. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If I mentioned AIZ, HP-UX, or Tru64 you'd likely ramble on about how they are Linux distros, or open source under different licenses or the GPL. If anyone is talking bullshit it's you. Unfortunately you are just to stupid to stop rehashing the same idiotic arguments over and over again because you don't know what you are talking about. You are the reason that posts go in circles because you have nowhere else to go. Oh and FUCK THE FBI! Oooooh I'm so scared. Come and arrest me!?! Nothing. Because this piss ant little shit site that morons like you think is the greatest thing since sliced bread isn't worth their time. The only reason the traffic on this site is so high and people link to it is because THEY ARE LAUGHING AT YOU! Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	one thing (none / 0) (#35)
	by koochee girl on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 07:01:03 PM PST

	I would have to say that I totally agree. People of like to rant as if open source = linux. I'm not understanding the point he's trying to make with the whole FreeBSD linux thing. Apparently he doesn't know the difference between unix variants. I still don't get this whole LUNIX thing. I think that was started by elenchos because he was too stupid to know how it was really spelled. Also if these guys want people to take them seriously they will have to learn to spell it right, know the difference between linux and lunix, and spell Linus Torvalds correctly. Not being able to spell something and handing out worng information is retarded. Trying to compensate by using a thesaurus so that you can use big words in order to sound smarter just makes you look like a idiot. There is one thing I would like to point out NAWL. I think you meant AIX not AIZ. Understandable since the 2 keys are right next to each other. Firewall Scoreboard

	Comedy. (none / 0) (#36)
	by because it isnt on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 05:39:35 PM PST

	I still don't get this whole LUNIX thing. I think that was started by elenchos because he was too stupid to know how it was really spelled. Have you heard of this thing called comedy? Say you've got someone called Dave Smart, for instance. Wouldn't it be really funny to him Dave Fart instead? Well, no it wouldn't, but ironically enough it shows exactly the point I wanted to make. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	what communists you are. And sure enough, (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 07:12:24 PM PST

	there is no humor in the 3rd Motorized Lunix Division. Well, no it wouldn't, It most certainly would be if earnest Mr. Dave Fart went to absurd lengths to make corrections.

	communism (none / 0) (#38)
	by NAWL on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 08:02:48 PM PST

	You do know that the whole "Linux is communist" thing was started by the Microsoft anti-Linux marketing, don't you? When ask to explain what they meant Bill Gates gave a hlf-assed answer about the GPL. People laughed because he sound like you reatards. That's right he didn't actually read it either. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Bill Gates speaks the truth. (none / 0) (#39)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 08:50:31 PM PST

	You're right. It isn't because of the fact that RMS, which stands for RMS's Maliciously Socialist, likes to twist the definitions of words like freedom to fit his agenda. It isn't because RMS wrote an article stating that developers should not have the freedom to choose their own license for their product. It isn't because Linux users believe that all property should belong to the public and force their views upon those who wish to have no part in them. It's because Bill Gates speaks the truth, and Linux users can't handle it. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	prove it (2.50 / 2) (#40)
	by NAWL on Fri Jan 11th, 2002 at 01:03:39 AM PST

	<b>It isn't because of the fact that RMS, which stands for RMS's Maliciously Socialist, likes to twist the definitions of words like freedom to fit his agenda.</b> <p>And what is <i>his agenda</i>? And don't give me any of that osm story bullshit because it's so factually inaccurate it's not even funny. I think you need to check out the Free Software Foundation. Their is a place for all software whether it be commercial, proprietary, or OSS. Also it never once enter you mind the RMS is simply his initials (Richard M. Stallman)? <p><b>It isn't because RMS wrote an article stating that developers should not have the freedom to choose their own license for their product</b> <p>Did you pull this out of your ass? Did you read this on an anti-GNU website or did you bother to check out the Free Software Foundation. Developers are able to choose whatever license they wish. They can license it under the GPL then move it to whatever license they so choose. Only if you use GPL'd code does that product become GPL'd. If I use code from Microsoft it not only defaults to their license but also because their property whether I or not I have rights to use their code. <p><b>It isn't because Linux users believe that all property should belong to the public and force their views upon those who wish to have no part in them.</b> <p>Do I have to type out that question again? Maybe you should actually look at the cases involving DeCSS. It was ruled that it was illegal. That was later overturned. A later judge sided with the lesser court against it. Obviously this judge didn't bother to do his research. Nothing illegal was going on here. The movie industry was misinformed thinking it was used to break the copy protection and make illegal copies of the DVD. Maybe that why it (at one time) was rule not to be illegal. Because it was horse shit. <p>No everything doesn't belong to the public. However, if it's my CD shouldn't I be aloud to rip MP3s, or make a copy of the disc for my house and my car or in case one is damage. It amazes me how a court can say this is ok and then a <i>lesser</i> court rules it's not. I find it funny that everyone seems to jump on a decision made by a <i>lesser</i> court. <p>You so love to sight the DMCA. Remember it when you buy a CD and rip MP3s for your personal use. Have you ever scanned a picture from a book or magazine and used it as your desktop wallpaper? DMCA says this is illegal. I find it funny how you want to talk about freedoms and legality so much. Well you had better stop posting links to various articles on other sites (most of them unrelated to the topic). Many sites have a Terms of Service that prohibits you from posting links without permission. I don't see any information regarding this at the end of each diary, story or post. Yes I know. It's a silly thing to put in your TOS and the webmaster is full of crap. But if Adequacy.org expects people to follow its TOS then may its editor should have more respect for other websites. What do you think? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	It all depends. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 06:36:08 AM PST

	It all depends on how you're using Linux. If you use it "out of the box" and to perform everyday tasks, then yes Windows XP is faster. But when you compile your own linux kernel and you start using OSS-software to program in C++ or Java I'll gladly put my linux next to every windows version you want and see the windows trying to keep up.

	Tiberius Reginald Gibbons (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:23:29 PM PST

	I selected this post because it seems to be your latest. I strongly believe you need to keep your comments to yourself. You have made enough comments about Linux companies and AMD to be sued. Face the facts that when it comes to computers, you have no idea what you are talking about. Many people, including myself, have very respectable careers in the computer field and are not hackers. I have used Linux and have an AMD processor in my computer at home. Stick to home repair and leave computer topics/discussions to people that have a clue.

	Validate Your Claim (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:57:27 PM PST

	I am curios why you have offered nothing to validate your claim? Well, other than to say it takes 30 seconds to load Mozilla in Linux. Obviously there is a problem with either your setup or your computer. I run WinXP, Win2K and Linux and have Mozilla running on all three. I have found both XP and 2K to be slower on startup and consume more memory than Linx. Mozilla loads instantaneously on both my Linux machines. A peek right now shows this 2K box with 47 Megs assigned to Mozilla whereas the Linux box nearby assigning only 25 Megs. I'm not trying to promote Linux or Windows. To me, both have very good uses and once you realize that each comes from a different view of how software whould be utilitized then you can take advantage of both. In the meantime I suggest you revisit your article and try to reinforce your argument or disgard it. Right now it's nothing more than garbage.

	Ignorance is bliss... (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 07:28:09 AM PST

	I don't have enough time to read all the replies, I don't know if the article is a joke, but if it is not, then perhaps the author should RECOMPILE his kernel and replace any screws loose in his head. I have both systems and linux performs wonderfull, even though, on high memory systems, one can actually see that the Windows XP kernel has been improved a lot, if you compare it with WinME. I get better startup times on linux RH7 kernel 2.4.2. Linux code is VERY well written.

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.