Linux does NOT suck

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Kadaitcha Ma » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:00:33



It's true. Linux does not suck. <--- obvious cut point for linuxfux to take
this post out of context <--- It *ing well stinks. Linux is a *ing big
stinker. A stinking piece of shit.

For the last two days I have had Mandrake linux 8.2 on my system. I may as
well have been taking a bath in somebody else's dirty bath water. That's
what it felt like.

Konqueror and Nautilus crash. LISa does not freaking work. In fact, LISa has
got to be the *ing biggest piece of shit in linux, apart from the kernel,
of course.

Linux is one huge collection of kludges supported by half-arsed *wits who
drop everything the very instant it looks like they might get a life and get
laid. Almost every freaking package is supported by some silly*who
wanted to get famous and wrote a damned single line of c# or perl script.
The internet is full of tech support questions being responded to with
"sorry, I'll get to it when I have more time."

Even the supposed GUIs, like KDE and GNOME et al, are using 15-year old
screen scraping technology. If you run a shell and cause an error, there is
a major delay between the error appearing on the screen and a sound popping
out of the speakers. It is blatantly obvious that the shell and GUI are
trying to communicate and that the delay is caused by the sound request
being passed from one process to another as they each disown it in turn and
pass it up the stack of processes. Really, what a heap of *ing shit linux
is.

Applications are labelled "STABLE" if you can run them up and they don't
crash as long as you leave them there to do * all for a week or two.

And what about all my top of the line Intel chips? Completely *ing
ignored by linux, that's what.

And don't *ing well get me started on RPM and dependencies. What a
*ing mess linux is. It's "free." You get what you pay for.

What a *ing * it is, too. Every freaking linux webpage has got a
"please donate" or "please support us" message. During my research to get
this piece of shit to function, I even came across some utter, utter *
posts that said, in effect, "I download the free distro then order the CD
just to support them." *ing hell. Really.

And whilst looking for solutions to get the piece of shit to behave like a
real OS, I find the linux groups are full of of posts about how linux will
overtake windows by 2005. BWAHAHAHAH!!! Big *ing joke, that.

I tell you, I'm lucky I had a couple of spare machines here running windows.
I'd have been freaking stuck. Linux is not for the average consumer.

So, besides being free, what _does_ linux have? Half a dozen kludged
interfaces that offer half a dozen different ways to * up the same
configuration file, that's what. Oh, and of course it's supported by IBM.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! The only *ing reason IBM support it is because OS/2
died a horrible death decades ago, and IBM were left with the source code
for Windows 2.0! What else were they going to do? Port OS/390, VM/ESA,
VSE/ESA, MVS/XA, VSAM files and CICS transaction processing to the PC?
*ing hell, yeah.

So, what is linux good for besides taking up space on a hard disk? It has
great file serving capabilities, but then, that's file serving in the
strictest sense. File serving, and in turn linux, is a one way street ...
unless you have boundless time on your hands, it is NOT a serious contender
to any MS OS after XP for at least the next ten years. Eight if you're
lucky.

--
Kadaitcha Man
Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by rapska » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:31:58


Error log for Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:00:33 +1000, segfault in module
"Kadaitcha Man": dump details are as follows...

Quote:> For the last two days I have had Mandrake linux 8.2 on my system

Two days?!?  A WHOLE 48 HOURS!?  WOW!!!

You are practically a Linux Guru by now!  You probably know everything
there is to know about it with all of that experience under your belt,
huh?

I hope you don't mind me bugging you with my newbie ignorance.  I've only
been using it for 13 months, and I still feel like I've only just scraped
the loose snow off of the tip of the iceberg.

Obviously my meager and pitiful experience is absolutely nothing compared
to the HOURS of time and effort that you have dedicated to the platform. I
humbly bow to your vastly superior knowledge.

After TWO WHOLE DAYS of experience, we must truly accept your opinions as
being accurate.  So if you say it sucks, then it must truly suck despite
what Major Fortune 500 Companies, Learning Institutions, Hollywood,
Governments, and Research Facilities are doing with it.

Thank you for blessing us with your pearls of wisdom after such a gnat's
lifetime of dedication and hard work.  We all in the community truly
appreciate your sacrifice.

--
rapskat -   3:22am  up 3 days, 10:54,  2 users,  load average: 0.22, 0.40, 0.42
88 processes: 82 sleeping, 6 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states:  0.7% user,  0.3% system,  0.3% nice,  0.7% idle

Sir, it's very possible this asteroid is not stable.
                -- C3P0

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by mm » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:36:31



> It's true. Linux does not suck. <--- obvious cut point for linuxfux to take
> this post out of context <--- It *ing well stinks. Linux is a *ing big
> stinker. A stinking piece of shit.

Car             OS      Attributes
___________________________________

Formula 1 Car   Linux   Can be difficult to configure, but if you take
                        the time to learn it will produce excellent performance
                        However do not use this if you start crying
                        when it asks you do do something like check a
                        log.  Theres no place for this type of person
                        i.e. _you_ in the computing industry.  

A Ford Car      MS XP   Looks nice, My Gran can drive/use it so it makes
                        her happy. Good if you have low
                       intelligence/ambition/motivation as it requires
                       none to use.

Quote:> --
> Kadaitcha Man

> Bill Gates Batty Boy and Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp

--
Mark Marsella
Lismark.org
 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Kadaitcha Ma » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:42:00



Quote:> We all in the community truly
> appreciate your sacrifice.

Thank you. I'll review linux again in about 5 years. Keep an eye out for it.

--
Kadaitcha Man
Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Kadaitcha Ma » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:01:34



Quote:> --
> Mark Marsella
> Bismark.org

--
Kadaitcha Man
Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp
 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by rapska » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:21:40


Error log for Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:42:00 +1000, segfault in module
"Kadaitcha Man": dump details are as follows...



>> We all in the community truly
>> appreciate your sacrifice.

> Thank you. I'll review linux again in about 5 years. Keep an eye out for
> it.

I'm afraid you won't be around that long.  LGX will, but you probably
won't.

Not after you use the last vestiges of your cash resources to be able to
buy a system that will support the requirements of Windows FU.  Between
the monthly subscription fees to run your software, and the loan payments
that you will have after having to take one out in order to pay for the
software itself, and the broadband subscription that will be mandatory to
run WinFU, you will be too broke to support yourself and will summarily
wither away and perish.

Or maybe you will smarten up by then and stop using expensive restrictive
betaware, though I doubt it.

Remember, you get what you pay for  (or should that be you pay for what
you get?)

--
rapskat -   4:12am  up 3 days, 11:44,  2 users,  load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.33
88 processes: 80 sleeping, 8 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states:  0.8% user,  0.3% system,  0.3% nice,  0.1% idle

Between grand theft and a legal fee, there only stands a law degree.

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by d2002x » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:05:08


**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****


Quote:> It's true. Linux does not suck. <--- obvious cut point for linuxfux
> to take this post out of context <--- It *ing well stinks. Linux
> is a *ing big stinker. A stinking piece of shit.

But I think the problem is in your brain, since most people here work
fine with linux.

Quote:

> For the last two days I have had Mandrake linux 8.2 on my system. I
> may as well have been taking a bath in somebody else's dirty bath
> water. That's what it felt like.

> Konqueror and Nautilus crash.

mc never crashes, opera 6.1 crashes only when using xft.

But windows... daily-crash....

Quote:> LISa does not freaking work. In fact, LISa has got to be the *ing
> biggest piece of shit in linux, apart from the kernel, of course.

What's LISa???

Quote:

> Linux is one huge collection of kludges supported by half-arsed
> *wits who drop everything the very instant it looks like they
> might get a life and get laid. Almost every freaking package is
> supported by some silly*who wanted to get famous and wrote a
> damned single line of c# or perl script.

                        |
                     [Now it's sure that there must be something wrong
                     in his brain.]

Quote:>  The internet is full of tech support questions being responded to
> with "sorry, I'll get to it when I have more time."

Hmmm... Aren't you a programming expert? Why not solve by yourself?

Quote:

> Even the supposed GUIs, like KDE and GNOME et al, are using 15-year
> old screen scraping technology.

openbox works fine.

Quote:> If you run a shell and cause an error, there is a major delay
> between the error appearing on the screen and a sound popping out of
> the speakers. It is blatantly obvious that the shell and GUI are
> trying to communicate and that the delay is caused by the sound
> request being passed from one process to another as they each disown
> it in turn and pass it up the stack of processes. Really, what a
> heap of *ing shit linux is.

?????

Quote:

> Applications are labelled "STABLE" if you can run them up and they
> don't crash as long as you leave them there to do * all for a
> week or two.

In windows, apps are lsbelled "STABLE" if they don't crash daily.

Quote:

> And what about all my top of the line Intel chips? Completely
> *ing ignored by linux, that's what.

But windows ignore all other kinds of CPUs, it seems that you don't
have other choice.

Quote:

> And don't *ing well get me started on RPM and dependencies. What a
> *ing mess linux is. It's "free." You get what you pay for.

??????

Quote:

> What a *ing * it is, too. Every freaking linux webpage has got
> a "please donate" or "please support us" message. During my research
> to get this piece of shit to function, I even came across some
> utter, utter * posts that said, in effect, "I download the free
> distro then order the CD just to support them." *ing
> hell. Really.

But it's not compelled.

Quote:

> And whilst looking for solutions to get the piece of shit to behave
> like a real OS, I find the linux groups are full of of posts about
> how linux will overtake windows by 2005. BWAHAHAHAH!!! Big *ing
> joke, that.

Yeah, it's just a joke. You know, there are too many idiots existing
in the world.

Quote:

> I tell you, I'm lucky I had a couple of spare machines here running
> windows.

Then you're one of those idiots.

Quote:> I'd have been freaking stuck. Linux is not for the average consumer.

You eat linux???

Quote:

> So, besides being free, what _does_ linux have? Half a dozen kludged
> interfaces that offer half a dozen different ways to * up the
> same configuration file, that's what.

Yeah, that's the feature. Only brainless guys want to use single
style because it's their limitation.

Quote:> Oh, and of course it's supported by IBM.  BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! The only
> *ing reason IBM support it is because OS/2 died a horrible death
> decades ago,

OS/2 never actually exists.

Quote:> and IBM were left with the source code for Windows 2.0!  What else
> were they going to do? Port OS/390, VM/ESA, VSE/ESA, MVS/XA, VSAM
> files and CICS transaction processing to the PC?  *ing hell,

It's too tired I guess.

Quote:> yeah.

> So, what is linux good for besides taking up space on a hard disk? It has
> great file serving capabilities, but then, that's file serving in the
> strictest sense. File serving, and in turn linux, is a one way street ...
> unless you have boundless time on your hands, it is NOT a serious contender
> to any MS OS after XP for at least the next ten years. Eight if you're
> lucky.

Whatr file serving???

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.veryComputer.com/
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by David Oxlad » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:06:08


Trying to stir up more trouble eh?  Keep your opinions to yourself.
This is a newsgroup.  Your opinions have already been well voiced!
 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:20:02



> For the last two days I have had Mandrake linux 8.2 on my system. I may as
> well have been taking a bath in somebody else's dirty bath water. That's
> what it felt like.

Two days, hmm?  Just FMI, the first time you ever used Windows, how long
was it before you got the hang of it?  That's, among other things,
installing and configuring your software.  Oh, and that's after *finding*
it in the first place.

Quote:> Konqueror and Nautilus crash.

Occasionally; so does Windows.  Depending on _which_ Windows, considerably
more than occasionally.  One difference, though, is that if Konq or
Nautilus crash, it's virtually guaranteed that the rest of the system is
merrily chugging along and you can simply kill the process and get back to
whatever else you were doing.

Quote:> Linux is one huge collection of kludges

Perhaps, but for the vast majority of cases, those "kludges" provide
better stability, better reliability and better security than the presumed
non-kludge alternatives.

Quote:> Even the supposed GUIs, like KDE and GNOME et al, are using 15-year old
> screen scraping technology.

They are?  News to me.

Quote:> If you run a shell and cause an error, there is
> a major delay between the error appearing on the screen and a sound popping
> out of the speakers. It is blatantly obvious that the shell and GUI are
> trying to communicate and that the delay is caused by the sound request
> being passed from one process to another as they each disown it in turn and
> pass it up the stack of processes.

Perhaps that's true - but that doesn't support the notion that
screen-scraping is involved.

Quote:> Applications are labelled "STABLE" if you can run them up and they don't
> crash as long as you leave them there to do * all for a week or two.

Or if you use them to do serious heavy-duty work for a year or three.

Quote:> And what about all my top of the line Intel chips? Completely *ing
> ignored by linux, that's what.

Such as?  Last I checked, the latest releases of gcc could optimize for
the later Intel chips.

Quote:> And don't *ing well get me started on RPM and dependencies. What a
> *ing mess linux is. It's "free." You get what you pay for.

You seem to be confusing "Mandrake" with "Linux".  While I am currently
running Mandrake, I ran Debian for some time, precisely because I didn't
like RPM, not one tiny little bit, and wanted nothing to do with it.  I
should note that Mandrake 9 seems a little saner about this, from my
experience with it so far.

Quote:> What a *ing * it is, too. Every freaking linux webpage has got a
> "please donate" or "please support us" message.

Why not?  Most of those pages are providing either software or useful
information, generally for free.  What's wrong with suggesting that if
something is, indeed, useful, that you drop a couple bucks on it?

Quote:> During my research to get
> this piece of shit to function, I even came across some utter, utter *
> posts that said, in effect, "I download the free distro then order the CD
> just to support them." *ing hell. Really.

Really.  You know, like, say, deciding you really do like SuperDistro, so
to help ensure that they make newer and better and more impressive
releases, you drop 'em a few bucks.

Quote:> And whilst looking for solutions to get the piece of shit to behave like a
> real OS, I find the linux groups are full of of posts about how linux will
> overtake windows by 2005. BWAHAHAHAH!!! Big *ing joke, that.

Don't see why.  Consider: Linux may be a tad hairier to administer,
especially for a novice, but once you've got the hang of it, not a prob.
For that matter, the more "Windowized" versions, such as Mandrake, relieve
the user having to cope with most of that stuff.

Once it's up and running, of course, it's considerably more stable and
secure than Windows, offers a lot more software for a given budget and
requires virtually no ongoing maintenance.  And no virus scanners.  And no
worries that just looking at your e-mail is going to turn your machine
into some demonic tool of the spammers.

Quote:> So, besides being free, what _does_ linux have?

Thousands upon thousands of applications, most free, most of anywhere from
good to stupedously excellent quality.  Plus stability, security,
reliability, and the ability to tune things to particular requirements -
even to modifying the code if need be.

Quote:> So, what is linux good for besides taking up space on a hard disk?

Running many enterprise-level web servers.  Handling most of the e-mail on
the internet.  Rendering entire movies.  Developing software.  Distributed
computing.  Word processing.  E-mailing.  Chatting.  Any of the 19,003
uses you can think of for a computer and more.
 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Peter T. Breue » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:13:21



Quote:> It's true. Linux does not suck. <--- obvious cut point for linuxfux to take
> this post out of context <--- It *ing well stinks. Linux is a *ing big
> Kadaitcha Man
> --
> Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp

funneeee!

(I love the idea of a moderated alt group!)

Oh well, another person who doesn't compute. Probably a joke post.

Peter

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Rob » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:21:41


Oh it's one of those is it

I wonder 'Kadaitcha Man Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp' how many posts like
this do you get in your XP group?

I bet you wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that just about everyone in
this news group, and nearly every linux user, plus nearly everyone who had
to learn UNIX, has also been through a period like yours. Something you want
doesn't work and it's so big and complex that you just can't see a way of
making it work the way you want it to.

But 5 million of us stuck with it or came back to it after trying to go back
to other OS's. The question is 'why?'. Are we all just tinkerers, treat
linux as just another computer game, get it working and you get a pretty
screen saying 'well done'. Possibly many start that way, but computer games
are always short lived, such minds need new stimulus so would of moved on by
now. Would an un-crashable kernel be enough, afterall a restart only takes
five minutes, hardly worth avoiding if what your replaceing it with takes
more time to learn. The range of software maybe? What could it be, they must
be something else to linux that attracts us and then keeps us here.

Well as an IT/Programmer since about 1979 (on the Cray II / Genisco's) I can
easily make the case for servers and PC's in the work place. I have been
mostly UNIX/Linux but also Novell and some NT.

IT people are notoriously lazy, we wouldn't stick with a server OS that is
'trouble' we go for those that are the least bother to our daily work. But
are still fully functional in all the ways that a server can be used. In
that, linux wins easily. Saying a thing is so isn't proof of it of cause.

NT IT people talk of the shutdowns they have to do, the reason being NT has
always had a resouce locking problem right from it's early days. On a
none-busy server this is a small problem, just a gradual loss of memory
resource untill the system slows down too much and you do a restart to free
it. If you don't stay on top of this the system will crash, it's not a case
of 'If' it's a case of 'When'. On a busy server that happens much quicker,
so depending on the work load you get a couple of months or less than a week
before you have to restart the server. This isn't just an MS bashing
paragraph, it's absolutely true. As programmer I have to 'spy' on resources
to make sure my own programs aren't leaking, so I've had the tools to hand
to watch this gradual buildup of locked memory in normal running NT.

That same bug is still in MS Word by the way, You can see it for yourself if
you make a note of free memory (be accurate), open word, close it, then look
again. Do this several times and you start to see that the amount of memory
it takes each time is about the same. Now do it differently, this time open
a document, save it, then close it. Now you will see the leak is larger, not
by much, but over time this locked memory builds up until you have to
restart or crash. The same experiment with a graphic document eats those
resources much more quickly.

Novel. I worked with 2.x and 4.x. They were very good, unfortunately Novel
priced too high so companies were reluctant to go that way however
convincing the IT person could be. Plus at the time of 4.x height a major
hacker trick was interferering with chain boot systems, which novel was
then.

UNIX/Linux, are simply trouble free. The only time any of my 2xHPUX, 3xMDK
Linux and 1xSuse go down, is when I take them down. For hardware changes.
Zombies used to be a major problem on busy UNIX, but not these days. Crashed
processes, we have those of cause, but none have ever taken the system down
too. Linux can be cluttered if you want everything onboard, but you can also
strip them right down to pure functional. They become workhorses, just
plowing away with seemingly no effort.

What of the users though. Well I agree with you that linux isn't an
'out-of-the-box' cure all. But, it has power. You touched on a point about
linux not using your PC's chip set, which implies you believe MS does. Lets
sort that part out.

They was a time as we went through intel processors 8086/88 to 286/386/486,
that MS really did try to compile for the processor. But the changes between
each stage in Intels processors were so great it was very beneficial for the
OS to take advantage of them. But also as we got higher up the tree towards
the pentium, MS were starting to cut back on such things. How long were we
in the 32 bit world while some of the main OS dll's were still 16 bit, do
you remember? I know it was a long time, because programmers were struggled
for years tossing their code between 16 bit and 32 bit calls. Then the same
slow move to 64bit.

Video, MS narrowed it down to functions/capability lists. Partly because
when video resources could be requested from the system, then locked, MS's
OS had lost control of it so were getting blamed for crashes in other
software that weren't under it's control. At first what MS did seemed like a
very good idea, your program could request video information, a list of
fixed capabilities came back telling you what the hardware could and
couldn't do, and some that the OS would do by interpretation for you.
Brilliant, the programmer need not worry at all which video card is in the
machine anymore. But, that list was static. If a new card came out that did
more than was on the list, lets say a Sun system card that does full pattern
search onboard, then the OS was no longer a path to any video card, it was
now a barrier. Because a request to grab the card and work directly was no
longer available.

Linux doesn't work like that at all. In lunux you use the driver of a card.
But then you might say 'Isn't that a step backwards, programmers have to go
back to writting a module per video card range'. No they don't. They is a
level of OS graphic functionality, in libs, that the programmer can use and
assume common. The various xwindow shells also have libs that the programmer
can use within their shell, much as with the MS Win shell. But he/she is
also free to make use of a cards special functions directly.

They would be little point having power if you didn't weild it, linux gives
back to the programmer the true power of the machine on which it sits. Some
of the xwindow shells reduce that, by effectively putting in another layer,
but we have to be able to please the users that simply want to 'get on with
the job' as well as those that are willing to dig deeper get 'get that job
done faster or better'.

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by tom » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:18:08


I'm sorry group.

Troll bait tempted me too much by this note.

I can only reply, with 3 things;

A/.  Linux is not for everybody, especially you,

B/.  You get out of Linux what you put into it,

C/.  Well, what else can be said about LINUX, or
     any form of UNIX?  I think other people can
     say it better than me.

The problems, as you mentioned for Linux, are also
all documented here by other people, but for WINDOWS
XP;

[ This does not include the 500+ messages per day MS
  gets on newsgroup microsoft.public.update          ]

http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/,3973,559092,00.asp

And why would I permit a trojan program to run on my
machine?

http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/

One country has decided to drop MS software altogether
because of price, and the ability it provides to criminals
attempting to destroy their infrastructure.

This country; PERU,

http://www.veryComputer.com/

And lets not forget those MS new licensing factors as well;

http://www.veryComputer.com/,3959,428293,00.asp

---

Kadaitcha are men of knowledge.

However, by your post, you've demonstrated that
you lack any knowledge of any type whatsoever.

I'm quite convinced that you could not find your
privates if you stood * infront of a 6 ft
full length mirror.

So, do us all a favour and

Go away, usenet weenie...


> It's true. Linux does not suck. <--- obvious cut point for linuxfux to take
> this post out of context <--- It *ing well stinks. Linux is a *ing big
> stinker. A stinking piece of shit.

> For the last two days I have had Mandrake linux 8.2 on my system. I may as
> well have been taking a bath in somebody else's dirty bath water. That's
> what it felt like.

> Konqueror and Nautilus crash. LISa does not freaking work. In fact, LISa has
> got to be the *ing biggest piece of shit in linux, apart from the kernel,
> of course.

> Linux is one huge collection of kludges supported by half-arsed *wits who
> drop everything the very instant it looks like they might get a life and get
> laid. Almost every freaking package is supported by some silly*who
> wanted to get famous and wrote a damned single line of c# or perl script.
> The internet is full of tech support questions being responded to with
> "sorry, I'll get to it when I have more time."

> Even the supposed GUIs, like KDE and GNOME et al, are using 15-year old
> screen scraping technology. If you run a shell and cause an error, there is
> a major delay between the error appearing on the screen and a sound popping
> out of the speakers. It is blatantly obvious that the shell and GUI are
> trying to communicate and that the delay is caused by the sound request
> being passed from one process to another as they each disown it in turn and
> pass it up the stack of processes. Really, what a heap of *ing shit linux
> is.

> Applications are labelled "STABLE" if you can run them up and they don't
> crash as long as you leave them there to do * all for a week or two.

> And what about all my top of the line Intel chips? Completely *ing
> ignored by linux, that's what.

> And don't *ing well get me started on RPM and dependencies. What a
> *ing mess linux is. It's "free." You get what you pay for.

> What a *ing * it is, too. Every freaking linux webpage has got a
> "please donate" or "please support us" message. During my research to get
> this piece of shit to function, I even came across some utter, utter *
> posts that said, in effect, "I download the free distro then order the CD
> just to support them." *ing hell. Really.

> And whilst looking for solutions to get the piece of shit to behave like a
> real OS, I find the linux groups are full of of posts about how linux will
> overtake windows by 2005. BWAHAHAHAH!!! Big *ing joke, that.

> I tell you, I'm lucky I had a couple of spare machines here running windows.
> I'd have been freaking stuck. Linux is not for the average consumer.

> So, besides being free, what _does_ linux have? Half a dozen kludged
> interfaces that offer half a dozen different ways to * up the same
> configuration file, that's what. Oh, and of course it's supported by IBM.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! The only *ing reason IBM support it is because OS/2
> died a horrible death decades ago, and IBM were left with the source code
> for Windows 2.0! What else were they going to do? Port OS/390, VM/ESA,
> VSE/ESA, MVS/XA, VSAM files and CICS transaction processing to the PC?
> *ing hell, yeah.

> So, what is linux good for besides taking up space on a hard disk? It has
> great file serving capabilities, but then, that's file serving in the
> strictest sense. File serving, and in turn linux, is a one way street ...
> unless you have boundless time on your hands, it is NOT a serious contender
> to any MS OS after XP for at least the next ten years. Eight if you're
> lucky.

> --
> Kadaitcha Man
> Moderator: alt.os.windows-xp

---tm---

Some of the easiest distro's for newbies to try:

http://www.veryComputer.com/
http://www.veryComputer.com/

Linux Registration Number : 184093, http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

Linux does NOT suck

Post by Spiceru » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:17:58


On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:00:33 +1000, Kadaitcha Man revealed:

<absolutely nothing>

As predicted, this 3rd rate Wintroll is trying to do another transparent
'I tried Linux so I'm credible' angle to his M$ FUD....A common tactic for
Wintrolls.  Where his FUD break downs is that you can say the exact same
thing or worse about Windows after using it for 48 hours (assuming Windows
stays up that long).  Of course, these Wintrolls never mention that it
takes 14+ hours to fully install a Windows System (typical time for a
typical system that Windows can never install on properly...which for some
reason is a lot of systems).

I wonder if this 'try the out the Enemy and discredit before the data
comes in' tactic is one Gates thought up, or if it came from the mind of
Allchin or Ballmer <all legends in their own minds>?

As far as this 3rd rate Wintroll, just ignore him...he'll go away when he
gets tired of talking baby talk once he grows up.

 
 
 

1. X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

I am very pissed off.  I like Linux and Unix.  I have been studying the
works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
modification of the minix system.  The author of Minix actual argues
that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
powerful.  Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool.  What is
it missing, a GUI that is worthy something.  And, I have been trying x-
windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
is and a waste of my time.  I would rather have more fun writing an
alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
Because X-windows is just too bothersome.  Does anybody else agree?

Berlin Brown

This guy agrees with me.
http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

--
"...yes darling, computers are people too..."
bama.ua.edu/~brown084

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

2. finger who and w are showing users who were logged in before the reboot

3. Why Linux sucks and will always suck.

4. SEGFAULT on Tru64

5. Linux Sucks... well not really

6. os2 and Linux

7. Linux suck! (NOT!)

8. Goldstar 8x CD-ROM

9. LINUX does NOT suck...

10. HELP: Connectivity between DOS/DOS and DOS/Linux

11. Suck and pnews on RedAss 4.2...anyone been there, done that?

12. How do you boot DOS not typing dos?

13. Mount DOS on DOS machine from LINUX on LINUX machine