Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

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 It is no longer maintained.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.
 Adequacy - Good in Galeon, broken in IE5

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 15, 2002
 Comments:
Why is this? I thought you guys liked Windows?
diaries

More diaries by gordonjcp
[GordonJCP] is an idiot.
Isn't it about time for another Linux Zealot?
The actual pages load OK but the fonts are huge and all pixelly and fuzzy. It's like looking at the screen through a warped fresnel lens.

Screw this, I'm booting back into Linux and reading it in Galeon again.

       
Tweet

don't blame the tool (none / 0) (#1)
by anti filidor on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 12:24:17 PM PST
Adequacy looks its normal self in my IE 5.

Clearly you've perpetrated some sort of configuration faux pas.


I agree (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by gzt on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 01:41:14 PM PST
Trying it on my computer, which has a kind, legal OS and browser, I also am able to render Adequacy's gentle web page.

Perhaps the shady, criminal OS has corrupted his computer. The devil spawn from the Netherlands, Lenux, has led even his virtuous MS software astray. Curse you, Lens Torvelts, and your Dutch OS disease!

When I restarted Windows it was normal again... (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by gordonjcp on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 05:32:57 PM PST
... but why should I have to restart Windows all the time to make it work? Does it really need to be so complicated?

Everybody likes to bitch... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by detikon on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 11:07:00 AM PST
about things like this happening with Linux based OSes. However, they fail to mention that shit happens with their favorite OS (Windows) just as often.

Installations fail mid-way, systems fail to reboot or start, configuration files become lost or corrupted. Sometimes services don't load properly or not they don't load at all and must be started. Patches must be applied to get the system to do what it's supposed to out of the box. Ask anyone who has gone through MCSE certification prep. It's all in the course material.

When a minor problem shows up in Linux it's a piece of shit. When problems happens to a Windows installation it's considered the norm. I've watched Windows mature (somewhat) from it's very early days or being nothing more than a DOS add-on (actually Windows up to 9x and Me can be placed into this category). I'm still waiting from Windows to be the amazingly easy to use OS that operates without a whimper.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Stop waiting (none / 0) (#13)
by Amitabh Bachan on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 02:11:32 PM PST
and switch.

Already have 2 (desktop)... (none / 0) (#19)
by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 12:30:50 AM PST
...been looking into getting an iBook too.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Innovation (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 05:34:49 AM PST
It is commonly said that the only innovation that ever came from Redmond is the... fault-tolerant user.

 
AQ.ORG (none / 0) (#2)
by because it isnt on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 01:25:11 PM PST
  • Gorgeous in Galeon
  • Irksome in IE
  • Marvellous in Mozilla
  • Overwhelming in Opera
  • Volumptuous in Voyager
  • Lovely in Lynx
  • Nice in Netscape
  • Alluring in Athena
If Charles Saatchi is reading this, I'll sell it to you for a fiver, mister.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
IE6 in Xp (none / 0) (#4)
by DG on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 03:28:35 PM PST
works fine for me.. maybe your settings are messed up, don't ever install ie over ie.. it breaks a lot of file links, just reinstall windows over it's self. seems to be one of the few things that seems to still be bugged
© 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Isn't it obvious? (none / 0) (#6)
by First Incision on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 07:56:59 PM PST
Your first mistake was installing that Communist hacker OS on your computer. Obviously, a Leninix virus invaded your Windows partition, subtly corrupting your Internet Explorer. This dastardly software impairs your ability to view quality sites such as Adequacy.

Now you have fallen into their trap. You see what you think is a Windows bug. Then you will return to the supposedly-superior Leninix. You are one step closer to becoming a slave to Commnunism.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Shut up already (1.00 / 2) (#7)
by Virtual Mage on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 08:36:27 PM PST
You know, you people really need to learn to just shut your mouth and stop treading in areas your primitive minds cannot understand. The only reason you don't like Linux is because you probably tried to install it once and got confused. I mean, if you can't understand it with your awe-inspiring intelligence, it must be crap. Also, I've heard about enough of this communist nonsense. What is so wrong about working on something for the greater good? I use Linux as my primary operating system, and I am not communist. Before you make some odd comment that basically ends up saying that I don;t know how to use windows or some other rubbish, I have Windows 2000 Server installed on one of my other computers and I am the system administrator for the Boys and Girls Club in my area. That is correct, I am 16 years old and make more money than several people twice my age.

As far as the page displaying incorrectly, I have looked at it with IE 6, Opera, Galeon, Mozilla, Netscape, Nautilus, and Konqueror and it looks fine on all of them.

If you must know.. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by First Incision on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 09:56:50 PM PST
I used Linux almost exclusively from the time you were 11 until you were 15. I grew up, maybe someday you will too.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Sure you did (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by detikon on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 11:07:42 AM PST
I'm quite sure that you used Linux exclusively since 1996-7 to 2001. What distribution? What kernel? What system configuration? What was the purpose of installing it in the first place?

It's obvious from reading your posts you know very little about Linux. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that you used the...ever? You seriously expect anyone to believe you know anything about Unix/Linux to even install a working copy?

Exclusively my ass. Try not at all.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Well, Robert P. Detikon, (none / 0) (#14)
by because it isnt on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 02:37:58 PM PST
perhaps you should learn that you can't get a good gauge of what people are really like just from their comments on web-boards.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I'm not judging his personality (none / 0) (#20)
by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 12:35:05 AM PST
For all I know he could be a really nice guy. He's just ignorant and a really bad liar.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
OK not exclusively (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by First Incision on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 05:04:40 PM PST
1997: Slackware, Redhat. They were crap and I deleted them
1998: Debian. I used it occasionally for some networking stuff unavailable on Win95 or 98
1999: Redhat about half the time
2000-01: Mandrake. I deleted Windows and used nothing but linux for 2 years.

October 2001: The release of Windows XP! My sweet Lord! This OS was amazing! It worked flawlessly with my hardware! Dual monitors set painlessly! I didn't have to recompile a CVS version of XFree! I didn't even have to touch an XF86Config file, or whatever that godless piece of text is called. I can watch TV and DVD's full screen or in a window on either screen! It was more stable than Linux, which often spontaneously rebooted while watching TV.

Make no mistake. With XP I am now the shit. I can watch a DVD, post to Adequacy, IM my mother, keep an eye on Fox News, and do homework, all at the same time. Windows XP has finally fully unlocked the potential of my vast brain. This is something Linux, the product of thousands of half-finished undergrad summer projects, could never hope to accomplish.

And most importantly, I was finally freed of the the Communistic ideology of GNU. Nor do I have use illegal software just to watch a DVD. I proudly use a software license legally and capitalistically purchased for 10 bucks in my school bookstore.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

And meanwhile... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by gordonjcp on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 06:17:13 PM PST
... those of us who run Linux and the various BSD's get some real work done.

When you move out of your parent's house and get a proper job, you'll realise that there's more to computers than swapping mp3's and wanking to Jennifer Lopez videos. I use Linux because I can do stuff I can't using Windows. What's more, the stuff I can do under Windows, I can do faster under Linux, which is great because I can knock off work earlier once everything's done and go home.

One day they'll release a version of Windows stable enough for you to have a social life, too.

What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#18)
by First Incision on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 09:42:11 PM PST
Every computer-related job I ever had I rushed to get the slowest machine possible. I was paid by the hour, so there was a big incentive for keeping a slow, steady pace. While the computer was sluggishly converting video files, or compiling, I was free to wank to my memories of last night's Jennifer Lopez videos.

Thankfully I now have a job doing something important.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Hm, never thought of that. (none / 0) (#24)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:26:02 AM PST
Thanks for the tip.

 
More to computers? (none / 0) (#22)
by gzt on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 01:02:45 AM PST
What illegal substance are you eating?

Doing "work" is no better than swapping mp3's, dude. Your "work" is largely unimportant.

You are not like mathematicians, physicists, painters, or even authors.

You are like the plumbers, electricians, and massage therapists of the world. You may be a skilled and knowledgable tradesman, but that means jack squat. You're respectable, but not special, not superior.

Pipes give us water, computers give us some convenience and mp3s, and electrical outlets give us power. For us, there is nothing more. Now go away.

Cheers,
GZ

Actually, I am a physicist. (none / 0) (#25)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:27:08 AM PST



Dammit! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by gzt on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:50:46 AM PST



 
You're not the only one (none / 0) (#23)
by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 01:24:31 AM PST
Look at the numbers: The first commercially packaged versions of Linux came to market only in 1994. According to IDC, Linux now accounts for an "amazing" 27% of the market for server operating systems, up from less than half of 1% in 1995. More than half of all Web servers sold today run Linux. Sales of entry-level servers (characterized as costing less than $100,000) running Linux grew in 2001, to 486,000 units worldwide, while sales of Windows NT and Unix servers declined in the same time period.

At the same time, industry leaders IBM, Oracle, Intel and others have committed resources--in IBM's case billions of dollars--to Linux marketing, support and development. Roughly 10% of Dell Computer's servers are sold with Linux pre-installed, according to the company.

That Linux penetrated corporate America the way it has is surprising when one considers the competition: Microsoft's Windows and Sun's Solaris. Despite its promise and its momentum, Linux will not wipe out Unix, Windows or any other well-established technology. But like others before it--minicomputers, PCs, the Internet--Linux will likely marginalize older technologies because the value proposition is too great to ignore.

Is it disruptive to the status quo? Absolutely.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Solaris is great, but... (none / 0) (#26)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:34:04 AM PST
it costs money. Windows gets the job done - mostly - but again, it costs money.

Now, the standard argument is that "Linux or xBSD is only free if your time is worth nothing." This isn't quite true though, and furthermore, it discounts the idea that it takes time to set up Windows systems.
It can take a bit longer to set up a xNIX machine, but you're not comparing like with like. Do you want a proven, stable, server platform, or do you want something that you can quickly install and play games on?

examine this (none / 0) (#29)
by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 02:27:20 PM PST
One of the biggest arguments is TCO (total cost of ownership). Part of that argument is training. Microsoft is trying (unsuccessfully) to convince corporations that MCSEs are just as knowledgable as someone with a "real" degree.

If a company is considering switching platforms it would definitely cost it quite a bit more to run a non-Windows platform if all they had are MCSEs running around. Microsoft is trying to use that to their advantage and that's where they fail. They are basing their argument on an assumption that the company only employees MCSEs and MCPs rather than a people with various knowledge and skill levels.

What you pick ultimately depends on your what you need and what you currently have. Cost of the OS and hardware is only a small precentage when figuring TCO.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

My point exactly. (none / 0) (#30)
by gordonjcp on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 04:11:33 AM PST
It's probably easier for someone with a good general knowledge of computers and software to set up and operate a Unix machine than a Windows machine, simply because the Unix machine is designed to be "understandable" rather than "easy to use". The "easy to use" bit only works up to a point, then makes any more advanced use of the computer very difficult by constantly getting in your way.

 
oook (none / 0) (#17)
by Virtual Mage on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 06:43:30 PM PST
Yeah, I can do that all on Linux. I did not have to configure anything. It worked right from my first boot after installing it. Face it, windows is just now starting to catch up with Linux.

Depends on how you look at it (none / 0) (#21)
by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 12:54:50 AM PST
I wouldn't go that far. It really depends on what you're examining.

User firendliness:
Without skinning must average users have trouble learning a new OS. It can even be hard for people moving from Windows to Mac OS. Once you learn your way around it's child's play. Even moving from one version of Windows to another can be a pain. Microsoft likes to move stuff around (ie moving configuration options from one menu to that MMC shit then back again). XP while not difficult to pick up immediately was rather annoying.

Stability:
Every OS is prone to doing funny things if you don't know what you're doing. I certainly wouldn't dare let an MCSE screw with a Unix/Linux system. Hell not even a Mac system. However, I should have to wait forever for a patch or fixed driver (Microsoft).

Support:
Purchase a RETAIL copy of Windows and you're lucky to get 30 to 90 days support. Retail Linux distros offer the same. Buy a system with an OS pre-installed and you get no support from Microsoft but support from the vendor. With linux you get vendor support plus limited support from the company which developed the distro.

Price:
Windows is expensive. Linux is cheaper in or some cases free. Free Software doesn't mean you have to give anything away. You simply must provide the source code in accordance with the license. You can't charge for the source code. However, you can make it so the only way to get the source code is by purchasing the binaries. This is just one way the Linux companies make money. Hell look at Be Inc. They gave away their product (Personal Edition) for free. They made money. They lost business due to MS licensing with OEMs.

So which is better? Depends on what you need it for.

If you don't like either and aren't willing to take the BSD plunge theirs always the multimedia BeOS (although now lags FAR behind anything today), FreeDOS, AtheOS (development seems stalled at the moment), and many more.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Ooh, ooh! Irony! Irony! (none / 0) (#10)
by gzt on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 07:48:17 AM PST
"You know, you people really need to learn to just shut your mouth and stop treading in areas your primitive minds cannot understand."

That will amuse me for *hours*. Keep up your patented style of postmodern trolling, comrade.

 
Yeah, that got it... (none / 0) (#9)
by gordonjcp on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 05:29:41 AM PST
I got rid of the hacker virus farm and now everything's sweet as a nut.

Now I've got rid of that evil capitalist crap that has infested my computer, it's all going really nicely. I might still keep a copy around, just in case I need it though. Kinda like the way that Porton Down has a few vials of smallpox virus - no-one wants them, but it's a shame to dispose of them completely.

 

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.