- The truth about Linux and why it is defective.
- Posted by Peggy Wanka on June 23rd, 2003
Surely you have heard of Linux by now and maybe you are curious as to
what Linux is and if Linux can replace Windows on your systems.
If nothing else, the economic appeal of Linux is great and who can
really argue with something that claims to be free.
But is Linux really free?
Is your time free?
Are you willing to sacrifice applications and hardware?
Are you willing to use older, proven hardware rather than the latest
versions?
Are you willing to avoid multimedia based web sites, especially Flash
based ones?
Are you willing to give up certain applications for which Linux has no
usable equivalent?
Are you willing to steal fonts from Microsoft in order to make Linux
look decent?
Are you willing to use reverse engineered CODEC's in order to make
Linux almost function as good as Windows media players do?
If you answered YES to many of the above than maybe Linux is for you!
So what exactly IS Linux?
That depends upon to whom you pose the question and in what type of
flame discussion you are involved in.
Lino-kooks like to claim how Linux comes with 100's of applications,
which is true, but they also like to somehow forget that fact when the
end user brings up the fact that a particular Linux application isn't
very stable, which is true for many of them.
In this case the Lino-kook will claim "Linux is the Kernel" which is
also true.
Confused?
So are the Linux-kooks.
Why does Linux suck so much?
Linux is targeted toward techno-geeks who like to understand and
control every single bit and byte of their systems and use 50
different applications to do it with.
While this DOES give you the ability to install/configure and use a
variety of different applications it also tends to cloud the main
reason for using a computer, and that is to get work done.
Do you really need 15 different editors?
twenty five different Window Managers, all of which are trying so hard
to be Like Windows, but none actually accomplishing that feat.
How much is your time worth?
Linux is like a friend giving you an entire house for free, but the
catch is the house comes as a kit and will take 500 man hours to
construct and in the end is worth $75,000 dollars.
Unfortunately you make $1000 per hour as a consultant so you would be
losing $425,000 dollars should you decide to take the Linux house and
build it yourself.
That's Linux.
Short on cost-------->>>>>>>>>Long on time...........Real LONNNNNNNG!
If you use Linux you will soon discover that web sites don't work,
multimedia files will not play correctly and you will not be able to
view email correctly.
This is normal for Linux because it is about 5 years behind Windows in
features that normal folk want to use.
No AOL for Linux.
No Quicken for Linux.
No Exchange for Linux (the Linux version does not work locally).
Shit multimedia support.
No Flash development software for Linux.
Browser plugin support for Linux is miserable.
Compatibility with MS office documents, especially tables is terrible.
Cut and paste between programs is another excercise in frustration.
Sometimes middle key.
Sometimes menu,.
Sometimes right click.
Sometimes a combination of the above.
Sometimes it doesn't even work at all.
FIX IT ALREADY LINUX!
Are you willing to lose a client because he can't read the document
you sent him?
I'm not.
The list of Linux faults goes on for pages but I will leave it to the
reader to investigate for himself.
I could go on for hours, but the truth is Linux is a mess.
Try it for yourself and see.
Peggy Wanker
Don't bother to thank her.
- Posted by Peter Köhlmann on June 23rd, 2003
<html><input type crash></html>
begin Peggy Wanka wrote:
< snip typical bottom feeder stuff >
Hi flatfish
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
- Posted by Peter Köhlmann on June 23rd, 2003
flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
At least you don't deny being this idiotic crossposter
Would be of no value, since you were found out earlier
Remains the question: Are you really that incredible stupid, or are you
just the typical windows user, that is, stupid, obnoxious and stealing
whatever comes along?
--
A NT server can be run by idiots and usually is
- Posted by Peter Köhlmann on June 23rd, 2003
<html><input type crash></html>
begin flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
Idiot
BTW, how is your stolen XP doing?
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
- Posted by Jerry Nash on June 23rd, 2003
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:41:33 GMT, flatfish@linuxmail.org <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
Flatty is a racist on top of being an idiot.
- Posted by Rick on June 23rd, 2003
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:17:23 -0700, Peggy Wanka wrote:
eat?
running OmniPage under WINE yet.
email and/or PDF, banking and Internet stuff.
Linux and Unix. Drop micro$oft.
need a bigger one.
--
Rick
- Posted by Rick on June 23rd, 2003
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:41:33 +0000, flatfis wrote:
--
Rick
- Posted by Peter Köhlmann on June 23rd, 2003
<html><input type crash></html>
begin flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
I did not snip groups.
That were *you* and I just reintroduced those groups *you* were snipping
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
- Posted by Andy H on June 24th, 2003
Thank god your not in the IT field. You're not making the Microsoft
people look good at all.
How do I know you don't work in IT?
Statements like: "web browsers can't handle highly popular sites that IE
can easily handle"
Can a site be "highly popular" - that means there could be "lowly
popular sites. Which sites are "highly popular" BTW? Do you work for
website monitoring company? Which sites can't render anyway? I have IE
running on a Solaris 2.5.1 box - does this count as bad or good? You're
probably right - I don't go to "highly popular" sites enough and if I did
they would be inverted and I would just get mad anyway.
How many email formats are there now? If you are refering to using a
"Cartoon" font instead of Sans Serif I can understand it might not look
right on my Linux box. Maybe there's a new secret email format that your
working with that hasn't been release to the public yet. Some Outlook
Express-PGP hybrid x.600 with 8048bit encryption that my Kmail won't
read. Once again your probably right.
The flaw in this statement is to assume MS Office is the stand at which
all office applications run and look by. Why can't I complain that MS
Office doesn't make my OpenOffice files look right? What's with your
adjectives again? "Simple MS Office documents" ? Are there complex
ones. I know for a fact I can open that Duck using the hammer on the
computer graphic.
Who's complaining? How many people do you see/hear proclaim that they
are a "prisoner of Linux" and just can't get it off their system? If you
don't like it don't use it.
An individual like yourself that only deals with winzip and "complex
Office files" should probably stick with Microsoft products. I'd hate to
see you anymore confused and stupid that you already are.
I knew it ... I knew it... you work for Nielsen or some other type of
polling and rating company. You and these scientific figures all over the
place. 1 percent of the earth uses Linux and are trapped by it and
complain a lot about standards and email formats.
Have you seen that latest MacOS X? Have you heard of yellow dog?
Probably not. Go surf for it with your "highly popular sites" capable
web browser.
I just hate to see one person make the MS people look bad.
Anything else we didn't cover corky?
If you have any more questions consult Microsoft Clippy first. God knows
you got him minimized right now.
- Posted by SGS on June 24th, 2003
Bigger? A twat is always smaller than a brain and its brain is smaller
than a pea.
Rick wrote:
- Posted by Sinister Midget on June 24th, 2003
<html><input type crash></html>
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:51:12 +0100, asif@thisisreal.co blathered and smoked:
begin doltbait.vbs.txt
This one.
end
Any more questions?
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous.
- Posted by Rick on June 24th, 2003
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:26:00 +0000, flatfis wrote:
--
Rick
- Posted by LiamSlider on June 24th, 2003
flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
<snip>
Actually for much of history it was considered a high art form. These
days though it is mostly practiced by politicians, however they've
perfected it to the point of saying absolutely nothing while using a
great number of words. Microsoft has (of course) borrowed this idea...
--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume
- Posted by jlb on June 24th, 2003
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:55:37 +0000, flatfis wrote:
The IETF (of which MS is a member, btw) standards provide developpers with
a common, public reference setting. If browsers conform to the IETF RFCs,
then it's a simple matter for web designers to know how to make pages that
will be displayed correctly.
If you introduce platform-specific code in your page, not only do you
deprive yourself of visitors who don't use that platform, but you also
risk that sometime in the not-too-far future if support for that
platform-specific code disappears in new versions of the platform people
won't be able to see your page anymore.
There are obviously cases where that doesn't really matter, but in other
cases it might end up costing you a lot of money.
If you're happy with IE and sincerely think it's the best browser, well,
please, do feel free to go on using it. It's your life. Please enjoy it! 
There are others, however, who do not agree with you, for reasonnable
reasons.
I am, for one, uneasy about IE's use of ActiveX, and immensely annoyed by
its lack of tabbed browsing and inability to natively block popups.
If you must call me names because of this, I doubt it will increase your
credibility.
Oh, and by the way: estimates for non-MS browser users run from 5 to 14%
depending on how you count them.
- Posted by Rick on June 24th, 2003
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:35:29 +0000, flatfis wrote:
--
Rick
- Posted by Andy H on June 24th, 2003
Sorry FattyFish
Can't your windows speech plugin cache so much text?
It's okay fatfish. You should just learn to think about things before
your write them down.
Now you and clippy go play on the Xbox
flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote in
news:126ffv41h0qhsoukngu4dngfem3tm4gii9@4ax.com:
- Posted by GreyCloud on June 24th, 2003
Peggy Wanka wrote:
- Posted by Peter Köhlmann on June 24th, 2003
flatfish@linuxmail.org wrote:
So you admit that *you* snipped and yet acused me of doing it?
You are really a sewer dwelling turd loving asshole
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
- Posted by Kelsey Bjarnason on June 24th, 2003
[snips]
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:35:29 +0000, flatfis wrote:
And here you lose it.
Standards do mean something; they mean something very, very important.
Let's take a look at, say, C, which has an internationally accepted
standard.
Time was, if you were a DOS or Windows coder, you knew, with quiet
certainty, that a char was 8 bits, a short was 16, an int was 16 and a
long was 32. Reams of code was written with such knowledge built in; code
that would break if those values ever changed.
Along comes win32 and extended DOS and the like and all of a sudden an int
is 32 bits, not 16. Code breaks right left and center. In many cases, it
was simpler to rewrite the offending code rather than fix it.
What did the C standard say about the size of an int in bits? Not a
damned thing. It said that sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <=
sizeof(long) and it gave minimum acceptable ranges for each type... but
never prevented an int from being 16, 32, or 256 bits.
By ignoring the standard, the coders produced code which was limited to a
small handful of implementations... implementations which are, for the
most part, as dead as the dodo - as is the code relying on those sizes.
Coders who paid attention to the standard, though, produced code that
worked regardless of the size of the int. 32 bits? Fine; compile and go.
64 bits? Same deal.
The standard offered the developers a way to reduce effort, save money,
produce code that would continue to work despite changes in
implementations. Without such a standard, or choosing to ignore it, the
developers were limited to the particulars of a given implementation, and
if the implementation ever changed, they were screwed.
This is true of standards in general. For example, if you develop a
website that only works reliably with IE because it uses IE's
implementation of, say, CSS[1] in a non-standard manner, you face two
problems; first, you lose out any viewers not using IE and second, you
lose out any customers who _do_ use IE... but the newer versions that fix
their CSS implementation.
By sticking to the standards, not only do you support anyone with a
conforming browser, you are also essentially immune to changes in the
browsers you're currently supporting.
You can look at this in terms of a popularity contest, if you want: "90%
of browsers are IE, so why use anything else?" or you can look at it in
terms of marketing: "100% of browsers understand HTML, so by doing things
right in the first place, I instantly increase my market by at least 10%
and I don't have to redo it just because some non-standard feature I'm
using changes, or risk losing even more of the market."
If an advertiser came to you and told you he could increase your exposure
by even 10%, for free, most people would jump at the chance. Well, here's
the chance.
[1] Just an example; their CSS may be fine.
--
http://rkc.silversapphire.com
Managed Migration from Windows to Linux
- Posted by Donald Link on June 25th, 2003
Duh! So you do not like Linux. Mickey Mouse is not so great either and you
pay thru the nose for software and service with ding a lings on support
lines.
"Peggy Wanka" <peggy_wanka@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cdd75892.0306231317.77caf0b3@posting.google.c om...
