What will the lunix apologists make of this ?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

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 It is no longer maintained.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.

What will the lunix apologists make of this ?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

Jul 17, 2002

Comments:

Microsoft proves W2K is better than Linux

More diaries by dmg

	I just love those crazy Brits.
	My life is one long vacation
	Where to drink in London ?
	A law that is ignored is not a good law.
	So what are you saying, my Art is not good enough ?
	The Politics of Envy
	Modern Literary Masterpiece
	Rock and Roll !
	Adequacy. Can we make it even better ?
	What do you think of adequacy ?
	Liberalist morons strike again.
	I miss Linux Zealot (tm)
	The don't make 'em like they used to.
	Is this the kind of leader the USA supports ?
	What makes Australian women so hot?
	Worried about all the trolls on K5 ?
	PsychoKinesis - Spooky or what ?
	The Litigious States of America.
	The Wankometer
	Attention! Slashdot retards and K5 wankers read this now!
	British lack of self-control. Why are they so arrogant ?
	Citizen Corps and TIPS - do they go far enough ?
	America's public image
	Where are they now ?
	Which firearm are you ?
	Surprising obscure facts.
	Trolling - A thing of the past ?
	The War on Terror - is it winnable ?
	Interesting people.
	How can we take Blair seriously ?
	I am now a 31337 h4x0r !!!

As if we didn't already know it deep down, it seems Microsoft has finally gotten around to spelling it out why W2K is better than Linux. It amazes me they didn't think to do this earlier. I mean, anyone who has ever used Linux and W2K knows W2K kicks Lunix's ass into next week, but there are gullible people who still think Lynois Toverltea's OS is still a viable platform.

Fortunately we now have a URL we can refer them to instead of wasting valuable time arguing with retards.

	Righto! (none / 0) (#1)
	by HatBot on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 09:20:57 AM PST

	Good job, show those lunix chaps what for. Lets see what the no good commy wankers have to say to hard facts (no doubt more lies and propaganda from lunus trivalitor)

	No doubt n/t (none / 0) (#2)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 09:34:12 AM PST

	time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	linux you bloody fool (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:02:06 AM PST

	linux isnt a ppls platform as unix its for people who are serious about their job and have more education than your workshopped ass further more linux was created by linus torvald a man from finland who know lives outside of silicon valley

	Spell the man's name right at least, please. (none / 0) (#6)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:38:51 AM PST

	You Lunix morons. It's Lynis Toroveldees. If you cannot even get your godhead figure's name correct, how do you even hope to persuade anyone of the merits of your arguments ? time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Hrmm (none / 0) (#11)
	by HatBot on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 01:59:28 PM PST

	I believe his name is acctually Lynix Thistlebottom, though you may very well be correct. Mabye he gets his name changed every 24 hours to hide from the clever copyright lawyers at Microsoft Corp., but only time will tell.

	As an avid user of both of these products (none / 0) (#4)
	by Narcissus on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:41:51 AM PST

	I was just wondering one thing. Argumentative Writing (English 1302 at my university) taught that good persuasive essays don't simply bash the other side they show how their product beats positive points of it. This particularly biased essay constantly lists Linux's bad points with no regard for what it does bring, which is very evident if you see why both Dell and IBM vend specific systems with it installed. I fervently believe that both these systems hold there own in what they do, one for those who don't want to mess with the inner-workings but still want high-end operability, and the other for those who like messing with how things work which is how any technology is developed and improved. -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower???

	Well, you must be an apologist. (none / 0) (#5)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:36:43 AM PST

	It is a well documented fact that IBM are little better than Nazis and Dell corporation are no strangers to the courtroom. I can only conclude from this that you are a Lunix apologist patent-infringing neo-Nazi. Your comments therefore cannot be taken seriously in an adult forum such as my diary. thank you dmg time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I also use both (none / 0) (#21)
	by Virtual Mage on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 08:49:36 PM PST

	I have both Linux and Windows 2000 Server. I have been using both for some time now, and I still think that for my purposes, Linux works a great deal better amd is more stable. Yes, windows 2000 is probably the best operating system Microsoft has produced thus far, and it can at least be compared to Linux, in the roles of acting as a server of any kind, Linux out performs Windows 2000 in so many ways it's insane. I agree that Windows 2000 does have it's strong points in that it is very stable, has a functional web server and ftp server, and it does meet C2 requirements. Also, it can nearly match the security level of Linux. In the end, my personal opinion, which has been formulated from experience, is that Linux does work a great deal better in the role of a server. However, the argument of which one is better is not as easily decided when comparing the two in terms of home use. It really depends on what the home user uses the computer for. The only thing that I use windows 2000 for at home is to play games and use Kazaa, since Kazaa isn't for Linux anymore. I have found, for my uses, that Linux is far superior for playing MP3's, watching DVD's, programming, web design, graphic design, and acting as a firewall for my network. My final conclusion is that while Windows 2000 is the inferior operating system, it is still a logical choice of OS, because most home users do not need the advanced capabilities that Linux offers. Most home users could care less about having their own Qmail server, running apache from their house, programming in LISP, or playing with GIMP.

	You use both... (none / 0) (#22)
	by HatBot on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 09:00:59 PM PST

	and you are also a flagrant communist. And what's this "Playing with gimps" idea? What kind of sick gothic vampire bondage freak are you? It's people like you that give Adequacy.org a bad name, I bid you good-day sir.

	Acually ... (none / 0) (#24)
	by Narcissus on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 10:19:44 PM PST

	it's people like you that give Adequacy a bad name. Simply reading your post ALMOST made me stupider. ALMOST, because as I and probably most of the other educated readers here know is that idiotic word play like that is the first sign of a troll who can't pick anything else from a post except for the fact that it "sounds funny". And if you don't know what the Gimp is then you don't have any business - in my view - calling someone a communist, because it is the only imaging software that even competes with Photoshop which is why I can't consider Adobe as communist because they still havn't stifled competition (which is a sign of true communism). -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower???

	Wonderful Deduction, with flaws (none / 0) (#25)
	by HatBot on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:26:12 PM PST

	So, by linking to your own comment in an attempt to defame me and my true views and call me a "troll", you just prove to the rest of us you have no valid arguement, who is the troll here, and the Gimp is also a reference to shady porno figures, you know the guys in leather crotchless underwear, with the zipper mask, you know, the guys you hide in you closet from your mom, whose house you live in, at an age of 46.

	Sorry to everyone else but I have to respond. (none / 0) (#33)
	by Narcissus on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 12:06:35 PM PST

	Ok first off the link to my comment was a mistake ... I've done that numerous times by accident, I really should proof-read my comments first to make sure they are right. Nextly, yes I do live with my folks because I am too poor to live on campus. But I am 20 not 46 like your Grandpa (ok that's a low blow to your folks but I don't care). And lastly you need to learn context clues. The previous poster obviously did not mean some sick perversion. With this point you very easily proved my theory that you are no more than a troll. -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower???

	Apologizing in your title makes you a genius (none / 0) (#34)
	by HatBot on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 04:43:50 PM PST

	"Ok first off the link to my comment was a mistake ... I've done that numerous times by accident, I really should proof-read my comments first to make sure they are right." If you have done it so many times, why do you continue to do it? You obviously don't learn from your mistakes. What if you were in a seat of power? you would likely repeat history. You would become yonder Fuehrer and commit mass genocide like so many Nazi's before you. "Nextly, yes I do live with my folks because I am too poor to live on campus. But I am 20 not 46 like your Grandpa (ok that's a low blow to your folks but I don't care)." If you are going to insult me, atleast do a good job, you might as well have said "Your Mom" in place of Grandpa. Bravo on that zinger! "And lastly you need to learn context clues. The previous poster obviously did not mean some sick perversion. With this point you very easily proved my theory that you are no more than a troll." What i said was well in context. Mabye he was rambling on about his awkward pleasure methods, or mabye he was refering to a pornographic video game staring a bondage freak, which happened to run best on lunix. In conclusion, get a job, get a life, get away from the finest web site on the great InterWeb. I change my previous statement, It's idiots like YOU who give Adequacy.Org a bad name.

	Hey! AQ Copyright Enforcement Dudes! (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 05:30:54 PM PST

	Check out the PBPR / blatant copyright enfringement in the parent comment.

	gimp (none / 0) (#36)
	by Virtual Mage on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 08:48:04 PM PST

	GIMP stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a computer graphics program for Linux. It's web page is www.gimp.org. It has nothing to do with sadomasochism, bondage, or sex.

	A likely story (none / 0) (#37)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 03:34:35 AM PST

	They could have called it 'GNU Lame Adobe Knockoff' or GLAK for short. This which would have been a perfectly accurate description without the accidently on purpose sadomasochism, bondage and sex references. By calling it Gimp the authors make clear that its real purpose is for lunix using criminals to make fake pornographic pictures of Holywood actresses, children and goats.

	I thought you guys hated communism (none / 0) (#39)
	by Virtual Mage on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 05:58:18 AM PST

	Ok, in a communist society, there is no competition between businesses and products. All of it is stomped out so everyone has to use the same stuff. However, several people on this site seem to think that GIMP is an Adobe knockoff. They are similar because they are products which are made for the same purpose. Without GIMP, Adobe Photoshop would have no competition. No competition = communism. If you think about it, that means that what microsoft wants is communism, because it intentionally makes it's products incompatible with open source operatiing systems, while supporting Macintosh. If anything, Linux is the anti-communist because there is competition between distributions (no one dominates) and it is a competitor in the operating sysem market. If Linux were not around, Microsoft could charge prices higher than it already does. In that event a lot of people would probably start using Mac, which could do the same thing. Linux is sort of like the balancing force, and the force for people who have little money, as it is high quality (well, most distros are) and costs practically nothing as it can be downloaded for free or purchased for under $10.00 if you look hard enough.

	You are possibly the biggest... (none / 0) (#42)
	by HatBot on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 12:15:37 PM PST

	retard i have ever met. Learn what things mean before you make posts about how we hate them. com·mu·nism n. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. where does this state that there is competition at all? everything is owned by everyone, the thing you are probably thinking of is socialism, in which the government controls business, in which your analysis is still blatantly wrong. going by your definition, the American Oil market was briefly communist because there was a monopoly in the early 1900's...Hey, there's the word you're looking for, MONOPOLY. And what Microsoft wants is to distribute a high quality product to the computer users of the world, if they wanted communism (the antithesis to capitalism) they would give their company to every one.

	You need reading comprehension practice (none / 0) (#50)
	by Virtual Mage on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 01:43:44 PM PST

	I know exactly what communism is, and for it to occur, all economic competition has to be eliminated. It would not be possible for the common ownership of everything to occur if there is competition between multiple entities. Therefore, communism neccesitates that there be only one entity. Therefore, companies like Microsoft are pro-communism, as they are trying to eliminate all competition, and thus creating an environment in which communism can take hold.

	You need to learn alot. (none / 0) (#53)
	by HatBot on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 02:08:29 PM PST

	Microsoft has to be the most capitalist company there is, if they wanted communism, thus a state of shared wealth they would earn their money, then distribute it equally among the people. Microsoft tries to eliminate competition so no one can move in on their "territory", but in the communist sense of eliminating competition, everyone is working together for a common good, so no one is competing. You really need a history(or government) and economics lesson, i suggest you march down to your local community college and say "Hi, i am a global retard, please explain to me how the world works", they should fix you up nicely.

	really. (none / 0) (#58)
	by nathan on Mon Jul 22nd, 2002 at 07:45:05 AM PST

	companies like Microsoft are pro-communism. The same way that Standard Oil was communist? There's more to Communism that that, comrade. The dialectics of history are subtle and confusing. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Correct (none / 0) (#40)
	by walwyn on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 06:06:34 AM PST

	The GNU lot have a history of using S&M references in their program names - bash for example.

	Perhaps in the case of bash (none / 0) (#41)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 06:54:37 AM PST

	they were following Microsoft's example: command.exe sounds very dominant.

	What will the lunix apologists make of this ? (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:47:09 AM PST

	Probably nothing. There is not much you can do with some bullshit.

	Linux is on the decline (none / 0) (#8)
	by KingAzzy on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 12:06:30 PM PST

	Linux had its big chance during the dot-com bubble. But the Linux community failed to keep the ball and lost their golden opportunity to really make their dream come true. Efforts to create a product that has uniform and polished usage and appeals to a mass market have failed. Did they even try? That is an interesting question. I don't think they did. The Linux developer community was so full of themselves and their narrow world-view that they utterly ignored the mass market. I'm sure Linux will live on as a niche OS. Similar to the Amiga, it has earned its place in computing history but not its future.

	Copyright Violation. (none / 0) (#10)
	by because it isnt on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 01:45:27 PM PST

	Please do not steal "Lunix is dying" comments off Slashdot and try to pass them off as your own work here -- you will be caught. Please be more original when trying to bait Linux advocates in future. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Felonious Libel. (none / 0) (#12)
	by KingAzzy on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:07:07 PM PST

	A) That was original work and I reserve all rights in the matter. B) FOAD C) I rool /. D) ESAD E) Ye are just jealous.-AnalOnE

	Who says Gilbert T. Sullivan is dead? (none / 0) (#13)
	by because it isnt on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:22:53 PM PST

	Not me.-AnaLFacE adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	FaceOfAnaL (none / 0) (#16)
	by KingAzzy on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 04:50:07 PM PST

	Illogical and irrelevant. Fallicitous regardless.-ButTwipE

	In other matters, (none / 0) (#17)
	by because it isnt on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 05:08:40 PM PST

	Scott Porter isn't dead yet. Please see to this greivous matter.-ButTPluG adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Good call because it isn't (none / 0) (#15)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 04:29:23 PM PST

	KingAzzy, for future reference these original ideas are always welcome at Adequacy: Spell it Lunix (or leenix) Call it the communist operation system (or an illegal hacker operating system) Mention colonels somewhere

	Really. (none / 0) (#18)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 05:22:16 PM PST

	http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/17/0717casestudy.html

	Umm, yeah. (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 01:31:21 PM PST

	Getting objective comparisons from Microsoft about competitive products is like getting balance war coverage from CNN.

	Well... (none / 0) (#14)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:23:36 PM PST

	Ballmer confesses to lying about Windows/Linux TCO comparison so they had to replace the original comparison with something less unbelievable. (See also here.) However, the comparison has more holes than a Swiss cheese. The functions the so-much-touted AD offers are available from Linux (and other unixoids in general) as well, often better. As added value, without the undocumented MS extensions and odd behaviour. Regarding standard compliance, to which standard Microsoft systems belong? To the one Microsoft creates (or, more likely, acquires and "extends")? Problems with Linux clustering? If you need file replication, rsync is a friend. There are also replicating filesystems available. ASP issues? Who needs ASP when there's PHP? JFS issues? We use ETX3 and ReiserFS and they appear reliable within scope of couple dozens of machines and almost an year. No kernel mode protection? Kernel patch. The so often quoted requirements to "build a functionality" often translate to a handful of shell script lines that can be written in few minutes on-fly. RAID controllers are an issue. However, when you are going to deploy a RAID, you usually are going to decide what controller you will use, and will select a supported one. Drivers are a pain. However, when the vendors supply the documentation for the hardware, they usually aren't too problematic. It's when the hardware has to be reverse-engineered before when the development is slow and the results unstable. Add-on vs integrated: it's far better to have a modular system than a system where everything and a kitchen sink is integrated together. I personally like the replaceability of individual components, and the possibility to trim off what isn't necessary, thus limiting the system's complexity. Security holes in Windovs vs RedHat distro: the 28 bugs found was a count for the whole distribution, including tools that aren't present in Windows themselves. The fair comparison, if we'd take in account only the systems present in both, favors Red Hat. Straigtforward licencing? "All your base are belong to us", where "us" is Microsoft. Enough for you? Finally, one good advice: never trust a system without its source code.

	was it worth? (none / 0) (#20)
	by detikon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 07:44:10 PM PST

	Every article about this new form of FUD has picked apart the comparison from MS as well. I wonder how long it will be before we hear from Ballmer again to confess their "still full of shit" this time. <p><a href= http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/07/15/0715linux.html>Apparently no one is buying it this time around either.</a> Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	actually (none / 0) (#19)
	by foon on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 05:42:09 PM PST

	As it says: Posted: March 13, 2002 They did, in fact, think to do this earlier, 4 months earlier to be somewhat exact. Microsoft didn't become the world's foremost developer of software solutions by being slow to respond to potential competition. Now, of course, responsible administrators should already be planning their upgrade to Windows .NET Server, which "integrates a powerful application environment to develop innovative XML Web services and business solutions that dramatically improve process efficiency". Based on all of the planned features, I think microsoft would be doing us a disservice to even attempt to compare such a revolutionary IT solution to an obsolete, bug-ridden, pro-terrorist program such as Lunix.

	Responsible administrators... (none / 0) (#27)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 05:36:47 AM PST

	...are not giving a damn about dot-nyet, but are rather looking for ways to get out of Microsoft's deadly grip. Planned features? Microsoft always promises heaven and delivers hell. Why it should be different this time? Pro-terrorist OS? Keep in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also, what's wrong on Microsoft's own approach - any tactics that leads to victory is fair?

	Riiight. (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 09:38:03 PM PST

	It's nice to see that Microsoft now sees linux as enough of a threat to advertise AGAINST them. I see that page as quality reading for anyone. And guess what: it's also out of date. The next Linux distro has Samba either integrated into the kernel, or as an optional module, both auto-installed in your distro. FTP, HTTP, etc were built into Linux YEARS before microsoft had them. Have you ever tried to program an FTP client in windows? Not an easy thing, I'll tell you. Neither is Winsock. Scalable? Ever played with Beowulf clusters? Not only scalable storage, network distribution, and resource access, but scalable PROCESSOR TIME. Gee, I wonder why supercomputers don't run on windows? Could it be.... SATAN?? Single login?? You've got to be kidding me. Sure you can log in at any location with one password. How secure is that? Just so you know, I've already rooted my work machine, without bothering with actually having logged in. You want secure, you want reliable, you want secure, and you want scalable. You, as such, want Linux.

	Wrong. (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 02:50:20 AM PST

	FTP, HTTP, etc were built into Linux YEARS before microsoft had them. Have you ever tried to program an FTP client in windows? Not an easy thing, I'll tell you. Neither is Winsock. The first stable release of Linux was in 1994. The first release of Windows to incorporate an ftp client appeared in 1995, which is not "years" after the first stable Linux release. If you want to pretend that unstable Linux releases are fair basis for comparison, then you will have to accept free, downloadable Windows ftp clients for comparison, as well. The next Linux distro has Samba either integrated into the kernel What, exactly, do you mean by the "next Linux distro?" Do you have inside knowledge of the release schedules of Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, etc? It's nice to see that Microsoft now sees linux as enough of a threat to advertise AGAINST them. I see that page as quality reading for anyone. People were proseletizing against Microsoft a decade before Redmond ever acknowledged Linux. By your weird reverse-logic, then, Microsoft's credibility was cemented years before Linus wrote the first line of OS code. Single login?? You've got to be kidding me. Sure you can log in at any location with one password. How secure is that? Well, It's at least as secure as NIS, or any cobbled-together nfs or perl-script distributed /etc/passwd weirdness, isn't it? Did it occur to you that maybe these things were invented because people wanted to be able to "log in at any location with one password?" Just so you know, I've already rooted my work machine, without bothering with actually having logged in. Oooooh, you extra-leet super-hacksor, you. Look. Any workstation with a floppy drive can be rooted by any seven-year-old with physical access to the machine, no matter what fucking OS it's running. Get over it. Gee, I wonder why supercomputers don't run on windows? For the same reason they don't run on Linux: wrong tool for the job. You can, of course, do distributed processing and clustering on NT, and everyone who isn't a total drooling Linux idiot-apologist knows it.

	Wrong? Wrong. (none / 0) (#28)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 05:53:01 AM PST

	What, exactly, do you mean by the "next Linux distro?" Do you have inside knowledge of the release schedules of Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, etc? According to my experiences, the smbfs module was part of the kernel in version 2.2 already. Well, It's at least as secure as NIS, or any cobbled-together nfs or perl-script distributed /etc/passwd weirdness, isn't it? Kerberos, anyone? (The original, unadulterated version, without Billy Boy's "extensions".) Any workstation with a floppy drive can be rooted by any seven-year-old with physical access to the machine, no matter what fucking OS it's running. Maybe a description of how he got in would shed some light at the matter. I somehow suppose he got in through LAN, instead of physical access - otherwise ti wouldn't be worth of bragging with. For the same reason they don't run on Linux: wrong tool for the job. Supercomputers don't run Linux? Surprise surprise...

	Unstable releases? (none / 0) (#29)
	by gordonjcp on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 06:26:00 AM PST

	When's Microsoft going to put out a stable release of Windows? This seems to be a development version I'm using. It doesn't come with an ftp client, it can't do NFS, there's loads of stuff missing. There isn't even a compiler!

	actually (none / 0) (#31)
	by detikon on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 09:37:53 AM PST

	If you want FTP you have to use the command prompt. Be sure not to use it in front of elenchos. He thinks that the CLI should be illegal and that is evil and and and stuff. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	It doesn't have a .ZIP extractor (none / 0) (#32)
	by gordonjcp on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 10:34:33 AM PST

	... but you're right, I'd forgotten about that command-line client. It's a bit pish but it works.

	WHAT!?! (none / 0) (#30)
	by detikon on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 09:37:11 AM PST

	The first stable release of Linux was in 1994. Nope, that's when the first commercial Linux distribution was released. What, exactly, do you mean by the "next Linux distro?" Do you have inside knowledge of the release schedules of Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, etc? Since when were Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian considered the almighty of kernel development? Try linux-kernel.org before you type. Of course you're probably one of those guys that ran around the internet when rumors were floating around that AOL was going to buyout Red Hat and wrote that "AOL would make it so linux isn't GPLed anymore". As if Red Hat owned linux or something. People were proseletizing against Microsoft a decade before Redmond ever acknowledged Linux. By your weird reverse-logic, then, Microsoft's credibility was cemented years before Linus wrote the first line of OS code. No one is talking about Microsoft's credibility as a whole. However, the above post is wrong. Even before this new wave of FUD Microsoft claimed Linux was not a threat, even though they bad-mouthed it every chance they got. For the same reason they don't run on Linux: wrong tool for the job. Worng. Linux does run on supercomputers. In fact Hewlett-Packard recently built a brand new one. Yes I am fully aware that HP can't deliver a hugely successful desktop. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Idiot. (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 04:18:00 AM PST

	The first stable version of the Linux kernel was version 1.0, which was released in 1994. If you don't know what stable means, ask your favorite kernel developer. Since when were Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian considered the almighty of kernel development? Since never. Look, shithead. The previous poster clearly and explicitly referred to the next linux distro, not the next linux kernel. Try to stay on topic, ritalin-boy. Even before this new wave of FUD Christ, you're so fucking stupid, it hurts. Do you have any clue as to what the point I was making might have been? In short: If Microsoft bashing linux is a tribute to linux, then linux zealots bashing Microsoft are a tribute to Microsoft. Linux does run on supercomputers. Can you name a true supercomputer that runs linux? I can think of lots and lots of distributed processing clusters that run linux (or freebsd or windows, for that matter), but I can't seem to recall a single true supercomputer that runs linux. Is it one of the Cray models, perchance? Or maybe something from IBM, or Fujitsu?

	oh gee (none / 0) (#45)
	by detikon on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 10:53:14 PM PST

	The first stable version of the Linux kernel was version 1.0, which was released in 1994. Just because it's 1.0 doesn't mean it's the first stable release. Any pre-1.0 release may also be considered stable. Unstable releases are usually release solely for testing and review. Since never. Look, shithead. The previous poster clearly and explicitly referred to the next linux distro, not the next linux kernel. You just don't get it. Seeing as how these items are already integrated into the kernel or have remained modular means that they WILL be in the next distro because they are already in the kernel. Now let's talk supercomputers. How about the .5 million dollar 1500 processor supercomputer to be used by the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). It's the newest in HP's line of superdome supersomputers running linux. IBM has the two most powerful supercomputers on the list--the classified ASCI White at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and the unclassified NERSC machine; as well as the most powerful Linux-based supercomputers--1024-processor systems at Shell and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Both companies have also built clustered systems designed to run as supercomputers running linux. Note: All information regarding these supercomputers are from the HP and IBM websites. While the names of classified machines are listed full tech specs are not. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Again, in smaller words. (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 03:09:25 AM PST

	So, the .03 version of Linux was "stable?" I see you haven't bothered to discuss the meaning of "stable" with any Linux kernel developers. "Stable" does not mean "it doesn't crash every day." If that's the sort of yardstick you're using, then Win2k is more stable than Linux 2.4. No matter how much you might hate the fact, the first stable linux kernel was numbered 1.0 There's another aspect of "stability" to take into account, one that you probably don't appreciate (or even understand). Have you ever heard of a stable interface? Linux 1.0 was the first stable version of Linux. Go ahead and commision a survey or study, if you don't believe me. It's the truth. Linux prior to version 1.0 was unstable, and the core Linux developers were rather adamant about it. Who doesn't get it, detikon? Is it you that doesn't understand the difference between a distro and a kernel, or me? Hint: what version of the kernel does the current stable version of Debian run, and why? Supercomputers? You haven't mentioned a single true supercomputer yet. Distributed processing clusters? Sure. And Windows can (and does) implement those as well, you know. These clusters can achieve somewhat impressive scores on a few carefully selected benchmarks, but they are not true supercomputers, and companies that need true supercomputers are still buying systems that do not run Linux when they go shopping for hardware to address their most challenging computing needs. Look, I like linux, and freebsd, and other open unix-like systems. But when freakish zealots insist on running amok and claiming things that no reasonable Linux VAR would promise, the whole community suffers. When you make outrageous claims about Linux "supercomputing" or "stability," you are doing a serious disservice to those who are making an honest attempt to deploy open systems in the workplace. If you want to have a career working with open systems, then you need to stop with the wild exaggerations of their capabilities. There is ground to be gained in small, incremental, repeatable results, but your absurd claims of Total Linux Superiority are more likely to dissuade decision-makers than persuade them. Please grow up. It would be quite helpful to those of us trying to convince clients that Linux is a reasonable and cost-eefective choice for a rather limited but nonetheless necessary range of computing needs.

	Supercomputers and stability (none / 0) (#49)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 04:35:08 AM PST

	(skipping the historical discussions for lack of interest) Supercomputers? What's your definition of a "true" supercomputer and why you so heavily insist on putting clusters to another category? Windows-based distributed clusters? Yes, they exist, and they are - understandably - few and far between. Guess why? Outrageous claims about supercomputing or stability? If you don't insist on excluding clusters as a class of supercomputers, the claims aren't outrageous anymore. Also, the stability beats Windows with a baseball bat. Who claims total Linux superiority? We claim just a relative Linux superiority over Windows - though a huge one. (I have a fresh Windows 2000 horror story just from yesterday.) My company has consistent and repeatable excellent results with Linux on servers, and consistent and decent repeatable results on a couple of desktops (KDE3/OpenOffice), with full switch-over planned. Bye bye Billy, we don't want you anymore.

	stable doesn't =1.0 (none / 0) (#54)
	by detikon on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 10:37:28 PM PST

	Let me go over this again. 1.0 doesn't = stability nor does it mean that just because it's stable it's 1.0. Look at Mozilla. Milestone releases (ie 0.9.9) were stable. They also offered builds which had not fully been tested. To put it simply for you, 1.0 is basically a major release where all planned features (at that time) have been integrated and turned on. Let's look at Windows 1.0 too. Not that great for a 1.0 don't ya think? It was nothing more that a DOS add-on and ran like shit and crashed and burned all too often. Might explain why it wasn't too popular. Hell let's look at Win 3.1 and 3.11. Oh no that means it's not stable because it's not 3.0 or 4.0. Releases such as 1.0 simply mean: A release of higher quality than any delivered so far, on whose quality their reputation is at stake precisely because 1.0 is such a coveted and feared version number. A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Consider if each package had 3 stages (unstable, frozen, stable) and that there is some sort of procedure or policy (to be determined) for a package to move from on state to the next. Say, only a frozen package that is bug free may proceed to stable. New features may only be added to unstable. But in general leave it up the maintainer to promote a package. A stable release would be a snap-shot of all the stable packages. Do you get it? Do I need to use smaller words? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	Thank you. (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 03:42:36 AM PST

	From your post, we learn two things: You have not consulted Linux kernel developers as to the meaning of "stable," and you see no reason to do so, and: You are utterly oblivious to the definition or consequences of a stable interface Thank you, again, for confirming your inability to discuss or debate any matter of subtlety or ethical complexity in the fields you seek to subjegate to your narrow moral stance.

	funny (none / 0) (#56)
	by detikon on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 04:31:12 AM PST

	Most of the information was taken directly from linux-kernel.org, kde.org, and Mozilla.org. All of them include information concerning the definition of stable. You haven't been able to prove anything besides ranting that only 1.0 (or subsequent major releases) can be considered stable. Thank you come again. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	So you agree. (none / 0) (#57)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 02:27:12 PM PST

	If your "information" is taken from kernel.org, then why not link to the part that claims pre-1.0 was stable? Because it isn't there, that's why. Your pathetic appeal to authority carries no weight here. Go find a Linux kernel developer who claims pre-1.0 was stable, and come back when you've got the sort "proof" that you are so fond of demanding from others when your fanciful claims are shredded. Leave Mozilla and Windows out of this. This is about Linux stability, which did not occur until version 1.0. I see you're still pretending to be utterly oblivious to the significance of a stable interface. Perhaps this is due to the fact that acknowledging the crucial interface requirement would destroy your claim that pre-1.0 Linux was "stable?" You, and other zealots like you, are doing more harm to Linux than any imagined Microsoft PR conspiracy could ever do. Why can't you go advocate ham radio, or model railroads, or something? Why do you insist on doing Microsoft's dirty work for them?

	stable and 1.0 (none / 0) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 02:26:58 PM PST

	So how do explain the numerous software releases labeled as 1.0 that are far from stable? I believe someone mentioned Windows 1.0. You can't can can you. One could joke that Microsoft products are often mis labeled as beta and stable. Pre-1.0 doesn't mean that the release is not stable. Your argument is flawed because you're attempting to argue in regards to releases which have been labeled as alpha and beta. Microsoft releases betas and calls them 1.0. 1.0 is really nothing more than a promise. It's a release or build considered to be the most stable with all items you planned to be in the "major release". A promise to maintain compatibility between all 1.x releases through various APIs, interfaces, etc. At least until the next major release. In fact 1.0 release are no longer considered to be stable. They are considered to be 'mature'. Stable simply means deliverables are complete and useable by the intended audience. Your product may have a development stage that is "beta", "stable" or "mature" that fits this description. Perhaps you're picky. That's good. This can also include a "project" that is at the 0.6.2 stage, but has a working version. Your entire argument is flawed because you believe everything pre-1.0 is not stable while everything after 1.0 from then on out is. So what do you consider 1.1? That's right they're stable releases leading up to the next 'major' release. Finally I'm just wondering "what's your damage"? Your title of your post is "so you agree". The guy has done everything but call you a fucking idiot and you think for even a second he agrees with you? All this time you have attempted to argue the "user" definition of stable to the software developement community. To the user a "stable" release is a shrink wrapped CD and the higher the version number the better it is. Anything pre-1.0 must not be done yet. The fact is you can have a stable release in an on-going project. Why do you think that Microsoft stopped using version numers? It was because of the user definition of stable. 3.0 sure wasn't so they had to shell out more money for 3.1. Most Microsoft software can be considered on-going projects. Now since you want to talk about linux here's one for you to chew on. Another user definition of stable is a software release with no problems or bugs. So what would you call Windows?

	why? (none / 0) (#60)
	by detikon on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 08:51:07 PM PST

	<i>Your pathetic appeal to authority carries no weight here.</i> <p>What authority? You mean the utterly misinformed rejects who insist on arguing points that are consiered complete bullshit that can't be proven? <p><i>Go find a Linux kernel developer who claims pre-1.0 was stable, and come back when you've got the sort "proof" that you are so fond of demanding from others when your fanciful claims are shredded. </i> <p>I have chosen rather than provide proof to simply state things as if they are established fact. This apparently makes you an intellectual. Anytime I have offered proof it's been passed off (no matter what the source) as anti-Microsoft blah blah blah. <p>It's the same thing over and over again. Just like with RobotSlave. That's why he's lost every argument because he insists on arguing the same point over and over and over again without bothering to offer a single shred of proof or at least something to back up his claims. Later he choses to post more dribble with a title along the lines of "I win" or "so you agree with me". <p>So please "oh wise one" show me where my arguments have been completely shredded. You have failed just like RobotSlave before you. Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	At least.. (none / 0) (#43)
	by DG on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 09:11:31 PM PST

	It's not comparing linux to Xp.. Xp would be beat by linux. If it wasn't for the fact that I like to game, windows would be gone. I just had Xp keel over today. had to reformat it. So all you windows apologists can flame me.. seems thats all you guys can do, I really wish the recovery worked becuse it took forever to find the cd. © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	You sir (none / 0) (#44)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 10:43:06 PM PST

	Are a copmlete fool. Do use your communist operations system. Fool -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

	Well, Martina, (none / 0) (#47)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 12:47:32 AM PST

	I heard that your moonbase operation centre was running Windows ME. All I had to do to blow it up was switch the normal tape for a special 'hacking' tape developed by the boys back in Finland. Had you run Linux, your moonbase would have been unstoppable, however it is now a pile of rubble. Ha ha. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Sir, (none / 0) (#51)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 01:49:00 PM PST

	My moonbase centre is running a custom version of Microsoft Windows Xtra Performance operations system. As it turns out, many of Microsofts high performance hard disk drivers needed to be re-written for the low gravity found on the surface of the moon. You see sir, the reason I am so strong and all mighty is not because I am rich or beautiful, but because I am smart. I refuse to run operations systems which require you to spend hours reading lines of "C" source code to understand how to use my operating system. I would rather spend my time on the moon beach, sipping dry martini's surrounded by mhy female typists. You sir, with your shoddy two bit earth orbiting centre, are a fool to run your Apple version 8.2 operations system. But I suspose people like you like to point and drool with your one click, single button navigational mouse, your non-protected referance memory and IO intensive ethernet interface card. You, and your cohorts will never amount to anything in this technology dominated world. Good day to you sir, -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

	OK, lets have a hands on comparison (none / 0) (#52)
	by Virtual Mage on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 01:50:27 PM PST

	Next saturday, I will be running a wargame in which a computer with Windows 2000 Server installed, with only minor security upgrades and tweaks (fixing the obvious problems) will be used. Two weeks after that, I will run the wargame again, but will install Linux Mandrake 8.1, with the same sort of minor security tweaks. We shall see which operating is more secure practically out of the box. Anyone who wishes to particpate in this may. For more details see the General forum of www.blackcode.com.

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.