[Aman]

It's not that Linux is so much better, it's because M$ is so much worse.

Yes, you CAN play CS:S in Linux, and in my case I got better FPS rates in Linux (this was a windows bug though running on a 64-bit processor with 32bit emulation).

Yes, there ARE faults in every operating system - but you'd think that since they are spending millions/billions a year on developing their crap that it'd actually be not half-assed. For what people spend, and for what they spend, and for what they claim to be, you'd at least think that their design wouldn't be incredibly flawed, and you wouldn't think that all these pesky bugs get left in the final product, with bad explainations - even worse is that their expansion software fixes four or five major ones causes even more that didn't exist before. It's pathetic! Internet Explorer is DIRECTLY HARDLINED to the kernel for christ-sake!

OSX WOULD be perfect if it were able to actually run well on their lower-end machines. My laptop, for example, is a G4 800mhz notebook, and it struggles to run OSX at times.

It's scalable to a degree and powerful, but their GUI is really, REALLY troublesome.

You guys must realize that the concept of open source is SO much better. Apple gets close, but IBM is the only true supporter of open source software, as they pay and donate large sums of money to all sorts of major developers, including Red Hat, Slackware, Gentoo, and Debian.

 

[radicaltothemax]

Wooo....that site is verbose!
I've only managed to read the first section.

Personally, I don't have a beef with Microsoft, and Windows is an "okay" OS. If you know what your doing, you dont have to deal with viruses and malware, but I find some of the administrative things kind of clunky compared to OSX

My main computer and laptop both run OSX and as an OS it does, almost everything I need. Theres a few rough edges, but overall its very nice.

Now I also want to try to learn Linux on of these days. In fact I have a PII 450 with ubuntu on it right beside me. However, its really too effing slow to be used on a daily basis, and the only way I'm going to learn is if I make it my main rig. So I continue looking for a faster computer for linux, it looks like fun.

Well, back to reading the page.

 

[mjg]

Windows XP, when done right is fine. There is nothing wrong with windows, most of the hateful people who constantly ramble about how evil microsoft is, need to be unconventional for the sake of showing off and being different. Alot of the software in linux is just plain ghetto, i can't rely on GNU for everything. It's not really a great platform for desktop yet, and won't be for awhile since it gets no real industry support.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjg Windows XP, when done right is fine. There is nothing wrong with windows, most of the hateful people who constantly ramble about how evil microsoft is, need to be unconventional for the sake of showing off and being different. Alot of the software in linux is just plain ghetto, i can't rely on GNU for everything. It's not really a great platform for desktop yet, and won't be for awhile since it gets no real industry support.

Why should it?

We are simple open source developers, not being put on any sort of payroll. This is good for a few reasons:

Payrolls with 100k+ salaries every year lead to poor quality -- if you have a passion in what you do, you end up making off better

If I had to work hours, I wouldn't be programming

You get REAL innovation


In addition, GNU is a perfectly fine desktop operating system, and much better than OSX and Windows -- you just have to know how to use it. I am MUCH more productive and efficient in Linux than in Windows. Why? Because window managing environments are SO much better than any other out there.

I don't think it will ever reach the point where it will be dominant - but do you guys know how many part-time nerds still don't use Linux that should? It's sort of like an audio system - the average fellas, the grandmas, will buy a Bose (sort of like Apple

sorry!) or a Sony -- the mid and lower high-end ranges will get Linux, some sort of speaker in the 600-1000 dollar range like an Omega or a Vandersteen, and the ultimate would go for FreeBSD or OS/2, something analogous to Gallo Refernce 3s or something like that

 

[10068]

That site is much too verbose. (Browsed quickly through some other sections) He's definitely full of himself on a creepy level. He should chill the f__k out and go have some pootang or something

Besides the fact that he just repeats what other people say most of the time. How amazing

I wish I could be so clever.

Microsoft's Windows has problems, but yknow what, it works. If you're gonna bitch, at least bitch about something more worthy than Microsoft. There's other much shadier, and much less useful companies out there doing much dirtier things with crappier products than Microsoft. QED.

 

[mjg]

Aman, salary and money (big business) may not always be indictivative of quality, yet consider when people develope for nothing, the incentive they recieve for providing mandatory support, and comitted service of quality. There is none. I won't go down the exception argument, certainly some open source developers are brilliant and enthusiastic over what it is.

Bigtime software development usually requires large teams, lots of money, and lots of motivation. The current best working (and dominating) solution isn't open source, and if you want to argue it is, you will have a rough time.

Computing is taken far more seriously now-a-days, and it's not all about satisfying these "nerds" who post on slashdot when it's coming down to "good enough" development, vs industry standard requirements, produced by a development team that paids well to be consistant and dependable. Not always perfect, but this is the world we live in.

 

[Aman]

Strange.. double post - sorry about that

Check out this link

http://www.scorpioncity.com/mscrash.shtml

 

[Aman]

Have you ever USED open office before?

How about XMMS?

People WOULD NOT be developing open source software unless they REALLY wanted to. Would you be listening to headphones and post on this site unless you REALLY wanted to? I doubt it!

I'm sure there ARE wierdos out there that make open source software and don't really want to, but the majority of coders DO, and that's why all of our software is better.

X.ORG, XMMS, Open Office, GTK, GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment, emerge (a program I personally work on), mplayer, FIREFOX! - These are ALL programs where the use is very pleasant the bugs are close to non-existent. And they are all non-paid developers - they code because of the hobby and the want for more and more people to experience open source - not because they're in for any sort of money.

The reason people get PAID to develop anything for a Windows machine is because the code sets are so damn specific and if you want to accomplish ANYTHING differently than Microsoft's own ways, you're out of luck. So people must work around tiny little creeks and cracks in the codesets to be able to accomplish anything!! Surprise, surprise -- the programs become increasingly unstable.

The only reason one could argue that the BEST software out there isn't open source would be because of the technicalities of your preference.

Which open source software provides the absolute most efficient task management and the most powerful interface? Well, by far, the Linux Kernel.

How about Office? What does Open Office do that makes it fail anywhere? It NEVER crashes compared to Office XP, supports many more filetypes, and it has more features. The OO suite does everything the Office XP suite does but with more features, (such as saving presentation files directly to video.. just a minor example).

Don't even get me started on user interfaces. GNOME kicks Windows XP Explorer's ASS in all levels of functionality.

I really don't see where you could think the best software in the world isn't open source. The fact it's open source ALONE makes it obvious that it will support more and have better features, but also since there's nothing to dodge the programs are more powerful.

Sbuidek: He doesn't seem too full of himself. He seems to give a very good reason why he hates microsoft, and that's all the site is about.

 

[wallijonn]

Sduibek,

You may want to watch your language a little. It's either that or maybe we need the filter to add a word or two to it's search and destroy database.

Aman,

I don't really think that Linux needs defending. Those that are comfortable using Windows should continue to do so. If they wish to spend money upgrading their software on a yearly schedule that is up to them. I would think that most people who start with Windows will try free and shareware software before they spend good money on a package of their choice. I remember when MS childed Apple for their closed GUI calls and then years later, after they secured their market dominance, created Active-X, Direct-X and kernel calls. So in effect they did the same thing. It may just be that they saw the wisdom in creating a standard which secured stability. Unfortunately the standards they created cause havoc with the rest of the computing world.

I just don't know if this would be the right forum to discuss Open Software standards. I'm just thankful that MS didn't create html. They have their hands full trying to get xml and Inet in place. Those of us who use and support Linux really don't want Windows people coming in, and, because they can't cope with the way Linux does things, want to change Linux into a Windows clone.

To each their own. But I bet you that they were using winamp before they moved over to foobar and DEX. How long was it before Windows installed an .mp3 player in their OS? Would they have done so if Apple hadn't "invented" iTunes? I remember paying $25 for my first .mp3 decoder - sight unseen because the demo was useless. Now I can sample all sort of free goodies in Linux.

By the same token, many people who switch over to Linux look for Windows media player codecs and DVD player codecs. One wonders what would have happened if Decrypter and DVDShrink were not "free" in the Windows world and if they had to pay $75 per program (until they found one that worked correctly). So, while technically they are not "free", such programs give credence to your contention that Open Software and Free Software are good for the market, that they spur innovation and keep software prices down.

For me, when I found that MS would no longer support MSOutlook2000 and that I would have to pay $100 for MSOutlook2003, I just moved over to Evolution. There was just no way that I was about to spend $400 for MSOfficeXP. Those people who are not spending that kind of money on their MS OS and apps. and are using illegal copies really have no right defending MS (there are bound to be a few).

Linux has always appealed to gear heads and I wouldn't have it any other way. btw, I also feel that GNOME rocks.

 

[mjg]

Open Office, yea i've used it, as well as star office. In fact, i've been forced to use it for the last 6 months. Yea xmms too.


I've been using linux about 1994, my opinions aren't unfounded, but your notion open source is the final statement in software is pretty ridiculous. I never said there weren't any useful or good open source applications, i do alot of my development in eclipse, i happen to like debian it makes a pretty good web server, and mail box, and i don't mind occasionally dabbling with other linux environments when it's good for me.

Also, kindly ellaborate on all of these statements:

"The reason people get PAID to develop anything for a Windows machine is because the code sets are so damn specific and if you want to accomplish ANYTHING differently than Microsoft's own ways, you're out of luck. So people must work around tiny little creeks and cracks in the codesets to be able to accomplish anything!! Surprise, surprise -- the programs become increasingly unstable."

Can you be more specifec, i have no idea what your talking about, and it seems as if you do not either. Highly specifec codesets? This is the motivation and reason make money developing for windows boxes? What are these tiny little creeks and cracks? People get paid to develope in windows is because over 90% of the legitimate industry is running it, and software is a genuine and real industry. In this fairyland where people always ran linux, perhaps things would be different.

"The only reason one could argue that the BEST software out there isn't open source would be because of the technicalities of your preference."

Well duh, open source isn't a framework that could apply to everything in reality, that's why it isn't the best software out there. If it was, why would people NOT be using it, is this some rather large conspiracy? Since when was industry not about making money? What are developers going to get paid in, celery? It's a credit to our profession that you get paid for development, and that everythiing isn't always open source. Would you want an attorney that made no money defending you if you were wrongly accused? Or a doctor that worked for free doing open heart surgery on you?

"Which open source software provides the absolute most efficient task management and the most powerful interface? Well, by far, the Linux Kernel."

Man, you have got to be kidding me, just because linux is free, it is by no means the most efficent and best interface, and task management? To complete my understanding, just give me a few examples. It's easier to criticize windows because they are this "big evil" monopoly, i'm by no means a microsoft fan boy, but to propose everything they make is bad is pretty harsh and ignorant.

 

[wallijonn]

"ignorant" may be too harsh an assessment. Perhaps "zealous" may be a better descriptor.

 

[mjg]

you are right, sorry i took this argument defensively, i'm sure he's a really talented and great programmer, but he went throwing around his strong opinions, sometimes it sets you owe to be criticized in your own right, i just want to make it a point that OPEN SOURCE is an ideal, and it has great applications, very good ones, and maybe it is possible there could be the most amazing open source application. Yet, to feel it has surpassed all commercial applications, or that the insitution of it eventually will is a pretty far cry.

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek (...) There's other much shadier, and much less useful companies out there doing much dirtier things with crappier products than Microsoft. QED.

I wouldn't call QED much shadier and much less useful than MS - actually, they seem to do quite a fair job in audio accessories.

Grinnings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

 

[Stephonovich]

My final argument for Linux is always uptime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Register ...The average uptime of the Windows web servers that run Microsoft's own web site (www.microsoft.com) is roughly 59 days. The maximum uptime for Windows Server 2003 at the same site is 111 days, and the minimum is 5 days. Compare this to www.linux.com (a sample site that runs on Linux), which has had both an average and maximum uptime of 348 days.

 

[uzziah]

there is only one real problem with microsoft in my opinion, and it is not their problem: public ignorance (i hate to clarify but in case i'm not understood - i.e. you don't say DAP or even mp3 player, you say "is that an IPOD?". in the same, windows is not questioned by the ignorant public)

ps: **** it; brevity is beautiful, but i want to say more

the quintessential truth of data is "information wants to be free" ponder that, just ponder