[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Linux is SHIT

From: Barak Zalstein
Subject: Re: Linux is SHIT
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:13:30 +0300

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message
> Well, check that before.  You had the same problem whenever Windows
> changed (from 3.1 to 95, from 95 to 98 in some degree, from 95 to NT,
> from NT to whatever), yet people did not stop computing because of
> that, but got themselves different hardware or catered in other ways.
This is different.
In the Windows world there is quite enough hardware backward compatibility
to keep your
hardware slower but functional (unless your hardware driver vendor has gone
out of business).
So basically you face the choice of having the same machine with less
functionality once you "upgrade" to Linux.

> > Those who enjoy hacking as a hobby, or are being paid to create a
> > better distro, may want to fix those things.
> Where do you see Windows programmers fixing Internet Explorer?
There are automatic "security updates" all the time.
Maybe not applicable directly to explorer, but indicates that someone is
fixing something.
If linux was popular enough, Linux viruses would start to emerge with
similar success. (once you let the
home user become root, Linux attachments are just as bad).
In the other side, Linux kernel patches don't apply themselves, you know.

> That's not a licence.  That's insanity.  Have you actually read
> through that abomination from the beginning to the end?
It doesn't matter (forgive my temporary luxury of ignorance)
People vote for whatever is comfortable for them at the moment (see sw
patents in Europe).
In addition, programmers tend to avoid responsibility for something
as complex as current state of computing, hence the GNU "absolutely no

> > it still makes more sense as a computing experience.
> Beg to differ.  Windows sucks even disregarding its licence and
> closed source nature.
Sure, you will reach this conclusion only _after_ you spent enough time
the productivity advantages of Unix programming tradition versus the
annoyance of windows
(you can't reuse your crontabs and shell scripts, nor automate and customize
many tasks, multitasking
is a bad joke etc.).
You will not reach this conclusion if Windows is running perfectly on your
machine and
90% of your Linux experience is install, learn new tools and interfaces,
troubleshoot, repeat.

> That's why there is demand for MCSEs all over the map trying to fix
> stuff.  That's why a typical fulltime system administrator can either
> cater for about 15 Windows boxen or for about 200 heterogenous
> Unix/Linux systems.
This is slippery: Either an appropriate "get the facts" article will be
found to
confirm that the MCSE approach is cheaper, or a new Windows update will
be developed and make enough MCSEs redundant (probably turning the pc into
a dumb terminal).
The point is that "technically superior" is in the eye of the beholder.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]