Monday, September 29, 2008

Mini-Rant

And then there was another.


I was going to wait for the next Rants and Laughs, but this one is too good. Jonathan Blow, a developer of the Braid game, starts out by asking for some solutions to problems he's running into doing a Linux port of the game.

The freetard brigade arrives, and hilarity ensues, causing Jonathan to give up, and then finish up with a comment worthy of an article here.

And since this is a mini-post, I'll leave you with a quick thought:

If you upgrade your version of Windows and an application breaks, it's Microsoft's fault. If you upgrade your version of OS X and your application breaks, it's the ISV's fault. If you upgrade your version of Linux and your application breaks, well, that's your own damn fault.

346 flames:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 346   Newer›   Newest»
antifundies said...

"If you upgrade your version of Windows and an application breaks, it's Microsoft's fault. If you upgrade your version of OS X and your application breaks, it's the ISV's fault. If you upgrade your version of Linux and your application breaks, well, that's your own damn fault."

So true LOL

Cav said...

god damm! keep it up LinuxHaters!

Anonymous said...

Is there any reason for the continued existence of Linux?
Is there an area where it doesn't suck?
It's suck a pathetic movement.
God bless them for their entertainment value..

renato said...

Look what that freetard sad:

Time to put on your humility hat, not your ridiculing asshole hat. You need us, we don’t need you.

That´s why Linux desktop usage has reached only 0.24% yet.

Linux development is a total nightmare. There´s tons of libraries and none of them do the job they are intended. The delopment tools are the crappiest.

I think they were inteded for the developer of the stone age.

That´s why Google always launch its programs first for Windows and just only after a looooong time of development and paining they launch the same for linux. It´s really very hard job to develop a good program for Linux.

That´s why we will never see a native versions of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, iTunes, Autocad,SoundForge, games and many other good applications for Linux.

Julian67 -- Now with more cock in the mouth! said...

This guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. All of the best games are produced on Linux then ported to Windows.

Blargh said...

I think he makes one amazing point, that couldn't be more true: the Linux development toolchain has been in stagnation for like 15 years. People still use that same old gcc, gdp, make, etc they've been using back in 1992. The Windows world has made so many incredible leaps since that, the comparison isn't even funny anymore.

Anonymous said...

This particular quote from J.B. on his blog is particularly striking:

I don’t want *more* functionality. I want *less* functionality, but that works better and allows me to do what I need at a high level of quality.

Direct link:
http://braid-game.com/news/?p=364#comment-3349

Quality over quantity is a view the Linux 'commune'ity hasn't seemed to wrap their collective head around, and most likely never will.

Anonymous said...

I'm kinda confused about the development tools.

Doesn't Java, C# (Mono), Python, Ruby, Perl, PHP, etc. exist on *nix too?

Why do some people assume they must develop *nix applications with C or C++ using GCC, Vi, makefiles, and other aging tools then release in binary form?

Shit... using an interpreted or JIT compiled language like Java, C# Mono or Python makes far more sense on *nix because then applications are virtually guaranteed to work across the broad spectrum of distribution configurations. The only requirement is the language run-time environment be installed--something likely found in the distribution repository.

I'm just switched to PC-BSD from Fedora thanks to some incite from LH. The binary incompatibility mess doesn't exist here but I still endorse virtual machine and interpreted languages to avoid having to port individual applications.

Anonymous said...

because game development is done in c++...

scrotum said...

@anon

"Quality over quantity is a view the Linux 'commune'ity hasn't seemed to wrap their collective head around, and most likely never will."

Your lame play on words aside, one aspect of open source you haven't wrapped your head around is that anyone can crank up their own project, and that once out there, code stays out there, so there will always be more, and more, and more, and more. (get the pattern)

Just because there's nowhere to hide the bad shit doesn't mean there isn't any good shit, its just harder to find.

PenguinRage said...

OMFG! This is the kind of post I have been waiting for. EPIC!

http://braid-game.com/news/?p=364#comment-3530

To Braid developers:
Loved your game on x360. Dont bother a linux port. port it to OSX. Millions of mac users cant be wrong.

Let the lusers use the wine thing and they are more than happy to play a game with some cross-api bugs. That is of course after hours or maybe days of tweaking it.

Anonymous said...

because game development is done in c++...

There is no technical reason though. In fact, performance is arguably not even an issue with near-native performant VM/JIT platforms like Java and Mono.

The developer seems disgruntled about SDL but didn't mention trying OpenAL, which would probably be the best choice for him.

The OpenGL 3.0 spec was a huge disappointment because the API wasn't changed as promised with object based APIs. Worse, OpenGL is the only Direct X competitor for all other platforms besides Windows. Even Mac OS X is stuck with it.

As far as the game is concerned. Forget the Linux port and just be helpful to the Wine developers.

Ed said...

In fact, performance is arguably not even an issue with near-native performant VM/JIT platforms like Java and Mono.

It's not quite that simple. Performance is pretty good in Mono (I am a .NET/Mono programmer don't use Java, so I won't speak to it), but almost invariably you're stuck using wrappers on native libraries. This is usually okay, and you can often get away with stuff (compatibility is easier, because you can just have libfoo.dll and libfoo.so in your release and Mono/.NET do the right thing when you import the native library), but it does result in some gnarly, problematic issues with packaged native libraries sometimes, among other things.

It's also still fairly slow at certain tasks. You almost have to treat it like Python, in a way, writing perf-intensive stuff in C/C++ anyway. (Lots of matrix operations, for example, would be bonecrushingly slow in .NET.)

It's an excellent start, and I wish it were used more, but it's no magic bullet.

Anonymous said...

Heres the chance for the Mesa3D team to deliver where OpenGL has failed.

Mesa is already compatible with the OpenGL 2.x specification and 3.0 is just the same with a deprecation feature and a few new ARB extensions.

There could be a separate Mesa3D branch that is incompatible but focuses on an object model, geometry shaders, etc.

.net jerkface said...


Shit... using an interpreted or JIT compiled language like Java, C# Mono or Python makes far more sense on *nix because then applications are virtually guaranteed to work across the broad spectrum of distribution configurations.

There is no guarantee or claim of anything by anyone; the situation is a much bigger mess than you could possibly imagine. The only cross-platform solution today is the web, and that of course only works for some applications.

Java in sum is a bunch of overhyped bullshit. It works best when the platform is locked down and the apps are small, hence its dominance in cell phone games. You can thank Sun for making Java so half-assed.

C# and .net are great but not designed for nix. Even if you get your program working in mono you still have the kde vs gnome and rpm vs deb problem. That means a lot of coding and testing for a very small demographic, one that is cheap and doesn't like to pay for software. There is also no opengl/mono tie-in like you have with d3d and .net, so games are out.

As for python....yea PyGTK is an option, but so are the other gtk kits which still have the targeting problem that you have with mono. You may even end up using gtkmm (C++) which would bring you back to square one and make you hate Sun even more for wasting everyone's time.

There is really only the web when it comes to cross-platform programming. Doing anything else in linuxland is a huge pain in the ass, unless of course you are writing an open-source console program that no one cares about. Now you know why there are hundreds of nix console text editors and usenet sifters.

Ed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ed said...

There is also no opengl/mono tie-in like you have with d3d and .net, so games are out.

Not true. There's SDL.NET, which is good but a bit warty in the design area (very easily crossplatform, though). SFML.NET is also supposed to be in the works.

There's also stuff like Axiom, which is a port of Ogre3D, and which supposedly works quite well (I am something of a moron when it comes to graphics, so I can't really work with a 3D engine effectively, but I've got friends who swear by it).

Anonymous said...

Java in sum is a bunch of overhyped bullshit. It works best when the platform is locked down and the apps are small, hence its dominance in cell phone games. You can thank Sun for making Java so half-assed.

Please enlighten me. All I get from this response is bias without an objective perspective.

C# and .net are great but not designed for nix. Even if you get your program working in mono you still have the kde vs gnome and rpm vs deb problem. That means a lot of coding and testing for a very small demographic, one that is cheap and doesn't like to pay for software. There is also no opengl/mono tie-in like you have with d3d and .net, so games are out.

KDE versus Gnome?

Choose Gtk# (GTK+ 2 bindings), Qyoto (QT4 bindings) or Winforms.

I assume the problem you were entailing to is application integration within the desktop environments?

If so... check out QGtkStyle, which permits QT 4 (KDE) applications to integrate well within the Gnome environment

There is also the GTK-Qt theme engine that provides the exact opposite.

BTW, .NET/Mono binding for OpenGL, SDL and various other libraries can be found here:

http://www.taoframework.com/

Two standard package formats (RPM and DEB) are a nuisance for ISVs unless they simply choose an automated installer solution.

InstallJammer is such a solution and enables developers to design cross-platform GUI installation wizards much like InstallShield.

PC-BSD has the PBI package system, which is quite similar.

.net jerkface said...


Please enlighten me. All I get from this response is bias without an objective perspective.

So someone named .net jerkface in the linux hater’s blog tells you that java is overhyped bullshit and you ask for objectivity?

But anyways I will help you find your path to enlightenment. Have a look at the most popular cross-platform apps like skype and itunes. What were they written in? Not Java.
Now take out your pink Motorola flip phone with the hello kitty sticker on it. Have a look at the games in it, what were they written in? Mostly Java.
Why are so many companies avoiding java on the desktop but not on the cell phone? Perhaps they know something that you don’t?
But whatever I’m not going to take the time to explain why java is lousy for desktop apps but good for phones anymore than I am going to explain why taking a cock up your ass without lube might hurt. Questioning of my opinion only furthers my belief that you need to learn the hard way.

I assume the problem you were entailing to is application integration within the desktop environments?

And I’m assuming you don’t realize that those hacks you provided in no way deal with one of the major problems of linux development: testing. Two desktop environments means two testing environments which might as well be two different builds since you have multiple distros anyways. Multiple distros, multiple desktops. That is the problem.

Two standard package formats (RPM and DEB) are a nuisance for ISVs unless they simply choose an automated installer solution.

There is no automated installer that is fully integrated in an ide and fully compatible with all or even a few major distros. The major distros can’t even agree on where simple things like program icons should be stored. Hacks like installjammer only partially hide the problem.
Because there are so many differences between distros it really comes down to choosing which ones to support since they are effectively separate operating systems. Thus developing for linux becomes even more financially precocious because those combined operating systems as a group don’t even have the market share of windows 2000. Thus you can see why it is rare for commercial software to get to linux.
You must be new here because we’ve already gone over the numerous problems involved with porting commercial software to linux. Have a look at some of LH’s older articles.

PC-BSD has the PBI package system, which is quite similar.

No one uses pc-bsd because everyone in linuxland is too busy convincing themselves that their piss can be used for lemonade since it is yellow and a liquid. But if you had replied to my post with “screw linux, use pc-bsd” I would have given your response greater precedence since a massive switch to pc-bsd would solve a lot of linux's shortcomings.
That massive switch though is highly unlikely which is probably why you should just install vista and enjoy the 100% flash support that linux users can only dream of.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Heres the chance for the Mesa3D team to deliver where OpenGL has failed.

Mesa is already compatible with the OpenGL 2.x specification and 3.0 is just the same with a deprecation feature and a few new ARB extensions.

There could be a separate Mesa3D branch that is incompatible but focuses on an object model, geometry shaders, etc."


Mesa is just a software implementation (with hardware acceleration through DRI device drivers) of the OpenGL specification. The OpenGL spec itself is delivered by the Khronos group and is inspired by people writing extensions from the several graphics company around like NVIDIA, AMD/ATI, Intel and Tungsten Graphics which is the company behind Mesa.

So NO, Mesa is not meant to be a new 3D abstraction API but it's meant to implement the OpenGL spec, following its evolution.

Improvements could be added in Mesa through the use of extensions, but extensions are not meant to break the OpenGL API, just extend. So the addition of an object model is just not possible
through a new extension.

Mesa is tight to the OpenGL spec, and since people writing OpenGL 3 didn't manage to deliver what the OpenGL community was waiting for for years, the Mesa project is not going to save anything.

I would also add that game developers are just not going to bother porting games to that platform:
- because OpenGL 3 is a huge deception
- because audio on Linux is a mess
- because of the lack of modern tools
- because the binary compatibility through distributions suck
- because distributing software is a mess
- because OSS zealots will keep harassing companies to release source code

What will kill Linux is just its community of arrogant assholes.

.net jerkface said...


Not true. There's SDL.NET, which is good but a bit warty in the design area (very easily crossplatform, though). SFML.NET is also supposed to be in the works.


I'm sorry but pointing to some project that is sometimes worked on by some guy is not a fair comparison to a commercially developed 3d programming suite.

This is not like suggesting openoffice as an alternative to msword. It is more like suggesting vi as an alternative. Look at that! It also has spellcheck! Pretty much the same then.

Would it be too hard to admit there is no equivalent to xna in linuxland? That maybe game devs are better off staying in windows?

Anonymous said...

And if you people actually read the thread, the guy already tried SDL and didn't find it suited him. SDL with bindings to whatever language you mention is still not going to suit his purposes.

To the crazy kid who said write in C#/Python/Java, you have got to be utterly insane.

Anonymous said...

Since when is openOffice a compareable alternative to MS-Office? It was sprinkled with anti-suck dust?

At theory, it may compete with Office 97, with 100 times the memory and CPU requirements, in practice, it's a piece of shit.

Say no to developers! said...

Interesting quote indeed:

"Time to put on your humility hat, not your ridiculing asshole hat. You need us, we don’t need you."

Linux has moved on from not needing users to not needing application developers. Awesome. What's next? Not needing kernel developers?

Anonymous said...

Not needing anybody at all! Somebody please photoshop a crying _TuX_, the lone emo friendless penguin.

Anonymous said...

one aspect of open source you haven't wrapped your head around is that anyone can crank up their own project, and that once out there, code stays out there, so there will always be more, and more, and more, and more. (get the pattern)

You just brought up another real statistic that open-source proponents overlook: The vast majority of users aren't programmers. They don't care about looking at source code. They don't want 1000 text editors, media players, and web browsers. They just want one that works and one that works well.

More is not always better.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, why not using a PlayStation/XBox/... for gaming and a Linux PC for work?

What happens, when you try to build a system, which does everything, but nothing correct, can be seen on the Windows platforms...

Anonymous said...

But anyways I will help you find your path to enlightenment. Have a look at the most popular cross-platform apps like skype and itunes. What were they written in? Not Java.

Limewire is written in Java and is one of the most popular P2P clients.

Now take out your pink Motorola flip phone with the hello kitty sticker on it. Have a look at the games in it, what were they written in? Mostly Java.

I don't think my phone supports Java. My phone is a cheap Motorola V262 from 2005--absolute garbage.

And I’m assuming you don’t realize that those hacks you provided in no way deal with one of the major problems of linux development: testing. Two desktop environments means two testing environments which might as well be two different builds since you have multiple distros anyways. Multiple distros, multiple desktops. That is the problem.

Well I understand the testing aspect as far as binary compatibility goes on non-LSB compliant distributions. However, all KDE or Gnome applications will work on any desktop environment with the proper QT/KDE and GTK/Gnome libraries, respectively.

There is no automated installer that is fully integrated in an ide and fully compatible with all or even a few major distros.

Then I suggest you actually look at the InstallJammer install builder. The installers are self-contained applications.

No one uses pc-bsd because everyone in linuxland is too busy convincing themselves that their piss can be used for lemonade since it is yellow and a liquid. But if you had replied to my post with “screw linux, use pc-bsd” I would have given your response greater precedence since a massive switch to pc-bsd would solve a lot of linux's shortcomings.

I switched from Fedora to PC-BSD a few days ago on my desktop. My notebook is soon to follow.

There was nothing really wrong with Fedora as everything was working but I figured it was about time to try something else.

That massive switch though is highly unlikely which is probably why you should just install vista and enjoy the 100% flash support that linux users can only dream of.

I dual-boot between PC-BSD and Vista Business on my desktop.

FreeBSD has somewhat decent flash support with the bleeding-edge versions of Swfdec. Gnash is garbage but is an option as well.

Win32 Firefox and Flashplayer 9 plug-in work fantastic in Wine as well. I found most PC-BSD users adopt this method. In addition the Linux Flashplayer plug-in may work much better in FreeBSD 8, when the Linux kernel compatibility layer is upgraded to 2.6.16.

My outstanding problem with PC-BSD now is of course video drivers. I have an ATI Radeon 9600XT. The reversed engineered r300 DRI drivers are terrible garbage but the only option on BSD due to ATI's lack of support for the platform.

Not that I blame AMD/ATI at all; sadly FreeBSD has exactly 0% desktop marketshare.

At least AMD/ATI recently released hardware documentation to aid FOSS developers; therefore FreeBSD will eventually benefit from decent Xorg ATI drivers. However, we both know that developing decent video drivers is a slow and painful task at best even with documentation.

Anonymous said...

in case you don't read that far:

"Have you ever seen PIX? Have you seen D3D’s debug modes? Have you seen someone step into a vertex shader in Visual Studio? These things stomp on the Linux environment’s face, with steel-toed boots, that are covered in spikes everywhere, where those spikes are made of depleted uranium."

gold!

Anonymous said...

Hey Zealots, here's some news on how Lenovo has dropped Linux for good:

from desktoplinux.com

Sep. 09, 2008

[Updated Sep. 10] -- A day after it denied ditching pre-installed desktop Linux, PC giant Lenovo has confirmed to Stephen Vaughan-Nichols of Practical Technology that "customers will no longer be able to order Lenovo ThinkPads and ThinkCentres with pre-installed Linux via the lenovo.com website."

No explanation for the decision was given, according to Vaughan-Nichols. Presumably, after years of shouldering the unwanted burden of supporting Microsoft operating systems, the vendor was loathe to increase the burden on its support staff even further. It pulled pre-installed Linux systems from its virtual store after less than a year of availability, Vaughan-Nichols observes, adding, "This is a major disappointment to desktop Linux users. ThinkPads have long been popular with Linux users. Indeed, there's long been an excellent site just for ThinkPad Linux users."

On the upside, "corporate and government customers" will still be able to order Linux pre-installed, and Vaughan-Nichols quotes Gorman as saying that Lenovo plans server and IdeaPad S9 netbook launches in the next two months. The S9 will not see distribution in the U.S., however.

Formerly the senior editor of DesktopLinux and Linux-Watch, Vaughan-Nichols has covered the desktop and enterprise Unix markets since the mid 80s. His informative news post, complete with lots of relevant contextual links, can be found here.

Meanwhile, a more informal op-ed piece, also by Vaughan-Nichols, can be found here. Longtime ThinkPad users ourselves, over here at DesktopLinux we feel your pain, SJVN!


WOOT! The Year 'O the Linux Desktop!

Anonymous said...

Well if Mesa cannot or will not take the initiative to branch out a new competitive graphics library then someone else should just start from scratch and later collaborate with ATI, Nvidia, and Intel for driver support.

This sounds horribly simplistic for a job that would effectively be astronomically complex. But it just might have to be done unless OpenGL showcases an amazing recovery with the upcoming 3.1 specification. Otherwise there is little hope left of modernizing the aging API.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

Seriously, why not using a PlayStation/XBox/... for gaming and a Linux PC for work?

Typical Linux zealot response. Your inferior platform can't perform, so you claim games are not meant to be played on a computer.

Why stop there? Why not say "Use a calculator for calculating, pen and paper for writing, photo album for storing photos, etc, etc."

Reductio ad absurdum.

-derChef

Anonymous said...

@anonymous:

The same way, you would never use a Windows system for mission-critical high performance / high availability applications, you wouldn't also choose Linux as gaming platform.

It's the same, as in the real world. Hardly anyone for example buys a washing-machine/dryer combination. Why? Because two distinct machines work much better, can do more at the same time and when one of them breaks, the other one is still usable.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

Nice try, but your analogies are flawed.

The only way your point would make sense would be if there were no precedent in place for computer-based gaming. Sorry, it's been around for decades, and it's being done quite well, except on Linux.

Ed said...

Would it be too hard to admit there is no equivalent to xna in linuxland?

Of course there's no equivalent. This is, naturally, a pretty big problem, although XNA itself makes me want to beat my head against a wall when I use it. `I work with Mono mostly to get clients' applications running, I'm not exactly a freetard, here. :P

(Axiom, however, looks to be pretty nice for 3D stuff, and it's based more or less directly on Ogre3D, which has professional exposure.)

Anonymous said...

If your buying a computer to just play games your a fucking retard.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

If your buying a computer to just play games your a fucking retard.

Really? As opposed to "if you're...

I suggest you purchase Hooked on Phonics for your computer.

Anonymous said...

Typical Linux zealot response. Your inferior platform can't perform, so you claim games are not meant to be played on a computer.

For years, the bums have been pushing the idea of a more restrictive computer (that is more in tune with the abilities of their pet OS): a cheap PC that you can use to browse the web, send email, or write a document. The world has been throwing it back in their face. Walmart said "this is not what our customers are really looking for."

Linux tasted a little sucess on netbooks (though the success has less to do with Linux and more to do with the netbooks' portability), but it started losing out after XP entered the fray. For all the BS about 'fundamental freedom' and everything else you hear from the Linux bums, Microsoft Windows gives the user a more flexible platform that affords greater freedom.

The bums suck at software development.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, why not using a PlayStation/XBox/... for gaming and a Linux PC for work?

Because Linux also sucks for work. Big time. But I guess that's the freetards' motto: if it doesn't work, then you don't need it. Pathetic.

Davidoff said...

This guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. All of the best games are produced on Linux then ported to Windows.

Yeah, right. Another freetard that just has no clue. Julian67, please tell me how the best games (which supposedly run with DirectX which is not supported with Linux) get developed in a crappy OS with no sane development tools? FYI: Windows is the main development platform for games out there, not only PC games but also console titles.

Anonymous said...

Probably because freetards seem to forget that not only are people completely oblivious to what is going on in the IT world but they also actively try to remain that way.

Freetards also seem to forget that people don't like to screw around making things work. Making things work and making things work better are two different things. Linux is the prior. Windows is the latter.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, right. Another freetard that just has no clue. Julian67, please tell me how the best games (which supposedly run with DirectX which is not supported with Linux) get developed in a crappy OS with no sane development tools? FYI: Windows is the main development platform for games out there, not only PC games but also console titles.

Dude, I think your sarcasm detector needs some repairs... and yoy missed the title of the comment too.

kerensky said...

"Seriously, why not using a PlayStation/XBox/... for gaming and a Linux PC for work?

What happens, when you try to build a system, which does everything, but nothing correct, can be seen on the Windows platforms..."

I'm coming around to this philosophy. If only consoles were 100% reliable...

.net jerkface said...


Limewire is written in Java and is one of the most popular P2P clients.


I'm not saying that cross-platform java apps don't exist, I'm just pointing out that c++ is still the language of choice for cross-platform programming. This is significant since java was designed with cross-platform programming in mind. It was supposed to be the "write once, run anywhere" platform. Overhyped bullshit.

Well I understand the testing aspect as far as binary compatibility goes on non-LSB compliant distributions.

Once of the most popular distros (the one with the worst name) isn’t LSB compliant. The LSB is at least pushing standards but that doesn’t matter if a very large distro chooses to ignore them. Something like the lsb would also work a lot better if there was only one desktop. I vote kde.

However, all KDE or Gnome applications will work on any desktop environment with the proper QT/KDE and GTK/Gnome libraries, respectively.

You can't simply build a program for both and expect 100% compatibility. There are too many weird issues between them and since you have to test for both you might as well have two different builds. Make that 3 since a certain gnome distro doesn’t follow the lsb. But anyways if everything worked even half as well as you describe it the skype linux download page wouldn't look like this:
http://www.skype.com/download/skype/linux/choose/

Then I suggest you actually look at the InstallJammer install builder. The installers are self-contained applications.

The installers are only self-contained once they are built. You are glossing over pita process of getting your program into install files for the 3 builds that we have gone over. There is no “Build Install File>> Select Distros” option in an ide like eclipse. You have to manually setup and test 3 different install files for each build, each one taking far longer than it takes to create an single install file in visual studio that will work with xp and vista. All this for a market share that still has not hit 1%.

I switched from Fedora to PC-BSD a few days ago on my desktop. My notebook is soon to follow.

I think pc-bsd is impressive for the team size but I think it would be a bad idea to put any unix os on a notebook because of likely acpi and driver issues. An old desktop perhaps but not a notebook. Is it that big of a deal to run windows?
But whatever, I hate the clusterfuck called linux and thus support any effort that may undermine it including pc-bsd.

.net jerkface said...


No explanation for the decision was given, according to Vaughan-Nichols


Vaughan-Nichols would sit under the desk of Linus and swallow his load daily if he could. He would claim in an article that Linus' sperm actually whitens his teeth and freshens his breath. He would also declare that every blowjob brought linux one step closer to world domination.

Steven Vaughan-Nichols, the biggest linux whore in the tech press, hands down.
Hey Vaughn the 60's are over, now go find a corner and jerk it to your collectivist fantasies while listening to the beatles. The revolution is not coming and even if it were you probably wouldn't be able to watch it due to a missing codec.

Anonymous said...

@net jerkface:

You should check out the download page for Opera.

Opera

Linux is f*cked up beyond belief.

Anonymous said...

The Zealots will think that the Opera download page for Linux looks perfectly normal: 105 different options for what to install.

Wow. I'm almost envious of all the freedom from all that choice.

Anonymous said...

"The revolution is not coming and even if it were you probably wouldn't be able to watch it due to a missing codec."

Gold! Five Internets for you!

Tr0n said...


This is significant since java was designed with cross-platform programming in mind. It was supposed to be the "write once, run anywhere" platform. Overhyped bullshit.

Core java is still OK (I think.. its been a while). But the GUI libraries are hell. I remember a couple of years ago my ex employer was trying to ship some multiplatform dev tools that used the AWT_SWT bridge. I fixed so many freaking issues on Linux and it didnt even work on OSX. Partly due to Apple's faggotry of being insanely controlling of their platform.


Whats particularly funny is the original bug that was filed was closed by some freetard developer as 'WORKSFORME'.

Anonymous said...

The freetard brigade arrives, and hilarity ensues, causing Jonathan to give up, and then finish up wiht(sic) a comment worthy of an article here.

Hey jackass, he gave up because of the sound issue not because of the comments on the blog.

This is significant since java was designed with cross-platform programming in mind. It was supposed to be the "write once, run anywhere" platform.

Yeah right, and I have some ocean front property in Wyoming for sale, dirt cheap with plenty of sub-prime mortgages on it, care to purchase some?

John Carmack of iD software had the bright idea to write Quake 3: Arena in java because of the hyped idea of java being cross platform, he wisely abandoned it for C.

Anonymous said...

For all of you who think that Mesa3D is going to redesign the OpenGL spec, in a way that it will fulfil our wishes, either you're don't know what you're talking about, or naive.

It's quite simple actualy:
There is a pattern in DirectX releases. When 7 was out, it was quite an underdog to OpenGL, 8 improved it quite a lot, but still not enough, 9 accomplished the mission, while 10 continued to improve further.
While for OpenGL it was all downhill as they released new specs.

You don't have to be a genious to know why this happened...
MS, talked with major graphics developers, and asked them for feedbacks. MS improved on the feedbacks, and the rest is history.
While with OpenGL, there was a perception: "We don't need feedback, we know what we do".
And the rest is history...

Mesa3D, even if they decide to make a redesign, will do the same.
All this, because they can't and won't accept any kind of criticsm towards their software, so they won't ask for it in the first place.

This was the unfortunate storry of OpenGL...

Anonymous said...

Yeah I don't think closed source software works so well on Linux. That's the nature of the platform, it's hostile to closed source development.

It's an open source platform, and because of this it's up to the distros themselves who provide the software available to the end users. This requires both free distribution at the minimum, and and the availability of source code realistically. Two traits that modern commercial development lack. Very different model then how stuff works on Windows.

I don't really have a need for any closed source software anymore. I can browse the net, listen to my music, check e-mail, develop software, work with my digital camera, instant message, etc. without any of it. That's pretty much 99% of my computer use.

Shrink wrapped / proprietary software is a thing spawned in the 1980s, and there has been no recent major players in this game, just small companies (many more have died). It's sad but true - proprietary software development is a dead industry.

Eventually pretty much no one, including Microsoft with it's billions, will be able to compete with free of charge and free distribution.

Anonymous said...

It's sad but true - proprietary software development is a dead industry.

Yeah, it's sad to see Intuit, Oracle and Adobe doing so badly.

Freetard luser.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's sad to see Intuit, Oracle and Adobe doing so badly.

I think you provided my point. Those companies are all from the 1980s.

Anonymous said...

Those companies are all from the 1980s.

So fucking what? They're companies making shitloads of money; the entire Linux economy would barely be a division at any of these firms. When they started doesn't matter: WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY MAKE SHITLOADS OF MONEY, belying your point about proprietary software being dead. Guess what, fuckwad: the VAST majority of the software in the world is proprietary. Hell, technically the Linux Google uses to power its servers is proprietary.

And with 0.93% market share, Linux ain't displaced anything -- not even Windows fucking 98.

Anonymous said...


Eventually pretty much no one, including Microsoft with it's billions, will be able to compete with free of charge and free distribution.

oss business model is a total failure. all oss currently can do is copy proprietary software.


the only things in ossland that are funded are when corporations can leech off open source. namely the kernel and browsers and the gnu toolchain..


you wont ever see novel/redhat fund gimp or w/e the way they do for the kernel and enterprise software.

I think we should setup a paypal donation thing for stallman's mental treatments..

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous

Shrink wrapped / proprietary software is a thing spawned in the 1980s, and there has been no recent major players in this game, just small companies (many more have died). It's sad but true - proprietary software development is a dead industry.

So, some companies failing is your barometer of how well a platform is doing?

So, how do we interpret the thousands of abandoned open source projects on SourceForge then?

Reductio ad absurdum. You've been Zeno'd!

Vektuz said...

Linux is not for games, duh.
I like how eventually the consensus in the thread is to just make it work sorta okay with WINE.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. Just another case of Linux Zealot hypocrisy and contradiction.

On one hand they act like they are above playing games, and they tell you to buy a console. (Which is funny, seeing as though they never buy anything!)

Then they turn around, - keep in mind they berate you for playing games- , and try to duct tape some code together to play WINDOWS games via Wine, Cedega, etc.

thecodewitch said...

I think now is a good time to resurrect a pertinent piece of the insane mental patient mutterings of the one and only open source fundie in chief, Richard Motherfucking Stallman!!!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070403114157109

Quote:

Q: One final question. We're seeing more and more devices, and I'm thinking specifically of games consoles -- I know that my kids have one in the house -- where there is no --

Richard Stallman: I wouldn't. You have to learn how to say no to your kids.

Q: That's true, that's true, I wouldn't deny it. Now, there is no free software at all for devices like this [correction: Yellow Dog supports some console(s)].

Richard Stallman: That's why there is no possible ethical way you could use one, and so you shouldn't have it.

Q: All right, I think I'll take the kids out on the bike more often.

Richard Stallman: That would be much better for them.


You'll play your damned TuxRacer, and you'll fucking like it, or Stallman will grind the flesh off your bones with that steel wool covered face of his.

Anonymous said...

Stallman's ethics only go so far as to not make his life completely inconvenient hence the reason why he wouldn't buy a game console because it is proprietary yet owns a microwave. They both use proprietary software but he knows that he'll never be able to obtain an open source microwave but he'll sacrifice his ethics for convenience in this case. Stallman, I hope all the proprietary goods that you are forced to purchase kill you.

WiiRules said...

Linux has moved on from not needing users to not needing application developers. Awesome. What's next? Not needing kernel developers?

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2170549/open-source-grows-asia

Open source code is now used by over 70 per cent of software developers in Asia, according to a new report.

The number of developers using open source in the region has surged more than 40 per cent in just three years, Evans Data Corporation revealed in a recent survey of software engineers.
...
Alarmed by licensing fees and the high cost of some proprietary software, numerous countries in Asia have made at least some effort to foster open source development.


Wonder what happens if they start making games? I suspect it won't be long before gaming is the last remaining reason left to need Windows.

Note that I said need Windows, you may want it, but once the need is gone, prices plummet for all, good for all, not so great for MS

Anonymous said...

"That massive switch though is highly unlikely which is probably why you should just install vista and enjoy the 100% flash support that linux users can only dream of"

I don't think that will convince anyone to switch to a virus like vista.

Anonymous said...

"The number of developers using open source in the region has surged more than 40 per cent in just three years, Evans Data Corporation revealed in a recent survey of software engineers. "

No wonder quality of life in Asia is in the shitter.

Anonymous said...

updated marketshare figure:
Linux's share is now 0.91%.
Mac share is up 0.42% to to 8.28%.
Yep, that's about half of Linux's marketshare in one month.

I guess people prefer what works to what is free.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Mac

Anonymous said...

It's an open source platform, and because of this it's up to the distros themselves who provide the software available to the end users.

It's an open chaos, and the distribution model where a hundred monkeys waste their time packaging the same thing over and over again is just pure insanity.

Wonder what happens if they start making games?

I know that! A billion clones of TuxRacer and Pingus.

And that's the problem with you, freetards. You've never been close to a complex software engineering project in your whole fuckin life. You think all software development is as easy and trivial as writing yet another text editor.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous


On one hand they act like they are above playing games, and they tell you to buy a console. (Which is funny, seeing as though they never buy anything!)

With comments like that, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

Just to wake you up from your dreams, I do play games on a console and I do use Linux for work. No Windows anywhere around. I just don't need it at all.


Then they turn around, - keep in mind they berate you for playing games- , and try to duct tape some code together to play WINDOWS games via Wine, Cedega, etc.


That's the reason, why a console for gaming is definitly the better idea.

Linux as a networking multiuser multitasking system is completely contrary to the demands of a game, which requires exclusive usage of all software and hardware resources.

Windows offers that. But on the other hand, Windows is not suitable for true multiuser/networking usage.

No one is to blame here, you just have to choose the best matching tool for your needs.

Anonymous said...

Windows offers that. But on the other hand, Windows is not suitable for true multiuser/networking usage.

Right. Because I don't have multiple accounts on my Windows machine, and I had to resort to a Linux partition to respond to your nonsense. Nah, wait... I wiped all my Linux partitions a long time ago.

Anonymous said...


Windows offers that. But on the other hand, Windows is not suitable for true multiuser/networking usage.

Windows servers dominate data centers, corporate servers, and more. They also hold a substantial market share w.r.t the web stack.

Windows = win, linux = fail.

OSS business model for anything other than enterprise services is a mega failure.


Try playing a mouse+kb game on a console. OTOH I can connect a gamepad on my vista rig and play any game out there. Also my 9800GX2 can beat the crap out of any console video card..

Anonymous said...

Right. Because I don't have multiple accounts on my Windows machine, and I had to resort to a Linux partition to respond to your nonsense. Nah, wait... I wiped all my Linux partitions a long time ago.

If you really see "having multiple accounts" as true multiuser working, you'll have to learn a lot...

How many users are working simultaneously on your machine? How many programs run remotely on your machine , export their output to another display and get their input from there?

Anonymous said...

Why the fuck my desktop needs to serve multiple users at once?

You really don't know the difference between desktop/ workstation and server, don't you?
That's explain why you can't see the importance of running games, professional software, consumer hardware, media, web contents, etc.

You're a Linux user, so we'll excuse you - nobody expect you to have any grasp at reality.

Anonymous said...

@LH

riddle me this:
MSI Wind
with M$ costs as much as with Linsux, but you get double the battery and ram. So far for the microsoft tax

Linux isn't free,it's worthless

Anonymous said...

Evans Data Corporation

Evans Data is known for sucking the cock of its largest client, Red Hat, to give pro-Linux research. Noted Linix apologist Nick Petreley was once employed there as an analyst to provide his "expert" voice.

Not to be trusted.

Anonymous said...

How many users are working simultaneously on your machine?

One. The same as yours, dickwad.

Anonymous said...

Is there any reason for the continued existence of Linux?
Is there an area where it doesn't suck?


It doesn't suck at sucking, that means there's a good reason for Linux to exist: It puts things into perspective, and reminds us of bus for spoiled we, who use systems more focused on functionality than politics and rhetoric are.


This is insane, though (and unfortunately, not unexpected) The man is willing to put in the effort to port to Linux, and is attacked and insulted?

I can understand about the two guys from Loki Games arguing in favour of SDL, They ported games to Linux for a living, SDL is their baby, and it exists because they understand how horribly shitty the native Linux APIs are.

But the rest? Come one, the guy is doing a service and these ingrates have the audacity to insult his intelligence and put him in the place of a retard? Some choice passages:

"Even beyond the basic gcc/gdb/make stuff, we can start talking about performance and rendering-oriented debugging. Have you ever seen PIX? Have you seen D3D’s debug modes? Have you seen someone step into a vertex shader in Visual Studio? These things stomp on the Linux environment’s face, with steel-toed boots, that are covered in spikes everywhere, where those spikes are made of depleted uranium."

Pwned. Best quote ever. And he hits the nail on the head with this one:

"Almost all of the apps you see developed on modern Linux systems are pretty simple compared to high-end games, and that might be part of the problem. Maybe you guys just have a fundamentally different level of expectation. Like, if you think those programs are really complicated and thus it’s okay if they are just at the edge of what your development tools can accomplish, then that’s why things are the way they are now. When in fact maybe it’s the converse: those programs *seem* really complicated *because* they are just at the edge of what your development tools can accomplish?"

And it's true. We see it a lot here, people convinced that the ugly hack of an ugly hack of a filesystem ext3 is "a wonder of modern engineering" Why, because they took a shitty filesystem (ext2) and managed to tack on a feature (journaling) that JFS and XFS have had for the last 18 years?

Crap about emacs being the greatest thing since sliced bread, it's a fucking text editor, a text editor than runs on it's own Lisp interpreter (because nobody other than RMS still uses Lisp). That's your crown jewels?

And this whole Firefox worship thing. You'd think it's like the flagship of FOSS, but guys, wake up. What the hell is wrong with you? It's a web browser for fuck's sake. All it does is display HTML. There's very little that's remarkable about it. Amarok gets a lot of love, too, and all it is is a something that doesn't really provide anything that Winamp doesn't at the added expense of the overhead of depending on an entire extra framework and the overhead of implementing a full-fledged SQL-based playlist system. It plays back fucking music.

You can see the lowered expectations in full swing when there's talk of these as remarkable feats of engineering wile entities like Sun are pimping out Solaris which scales so high that it supports hundreds of LOCAL (as in not clustered, as in one one board)
processors, and had hardware level security and debugging features! Or Microsoft is pimping out .NET and VS. (omg omg emacs/gcc/gdb/make!) And Native Instruments is pimping out the music Industry's first true superinstrument in Kore 3 (but but omg omg audacity!) and a framework to visually piece together and build one's own software instruments (Reaktor 5). I'd wager 90% of the Linux community hasn't even heard of LinuxSampler, which is just a really, really bad joke.

Then you've got the gimp worship that's barely feature-compatible with Photopshop 4.0 Adjustment layers? Woo, PS had had those since 1996! And GeGL is set to finally implement features (CMYK) that Photoshop has had since 1990!

But no, Linux people don'y have lowered expectations, it's just the rest of the world has unrealistic expectations because they're spoiled with an influx of features that nobody actually needs, right?

Anonymous said...

You've never been close to a complex software engineering project in your whole fuckin life. You think all software development is as easy and trivial as writing yet another text editor.

The vast wasteland known as sourceforge is the best example of this. Literally hundreds of thousands of abandoned projects because some luser figured out you can't just slap something together and release it as finished software.

For freetards, ignorance is indeed bliss.

Anonymous said...

updated marketshare figure:
Linux's share is now 0.91%.


So it's DECLINED from 0.93%? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Netcraft confirms Linux is dead!

Anonymous said...

One of the other great & much hyped OSS project is off course - Flight gear. FOSStards cannot but whine infinitely about it's superiority over MS flight simulator. Of course it doesn't really connect to IVAO or Vatsim, neither does it have the hundreds of thousands or add-ins that Flight simulator has had for years. But what the hell!!!. Its FOSS!!!. All is forgiven!!!.

And guess what?. You have a much better chance of getting Flight gear up & running on windows than you have on any distro of Linux. On windows, I could at least see the plane & take off (it turned left & crashed soon afterward due to no fault of mine). But on Linux there is a fare chance that you won't even see the cockpit ever. Ah! The irony. FOSS truly rulezz!!!

Anonymous said...

Talking about non-functional FOSS software....


Can anyone tell me what is the function of Kcron in Linux?. Last time I checked it was a task scheduler. I schedule Firefox to start automatically after 5 minutes. Save the whole thing. Then I wait.... After 5 minutes...nothing. I check to see if Linux started firefox in the background. Nope. No firefox related process is running.

I have tried the same in multiple versions of Kubuntu as well as on fedora core on multiple machines with the same results. What is this kcron app for????. Can't these dumbos even design a simple scheduling application properly???.

It is amazing to see the extent of failure of these Linux dumbos. They are really working hard at sucking. Linux has become synonymous with non- functional garbage.

Anonymous said...

How many users are working simultaneously on your machine? How many programs run remotely on your machine , export their output to another display and get their input from there?

I've got a handful of remote users running apps from my machine via that old tricked-out Terminal Services hack. And one or two that RDP in periodically. Granted this is my XP desktop. It's a workstation OS It isn't really designed to accomodate multiple concurrent users. Compared to my FreeBSD server, for example, which has a much more significant number of users SSH'ing in and out constantly, myself included (it's in a closet somewhere, I can't physically find it, heh) But that's because it's a server OS designed to accomodate multiple concurrent users.

Windows server 2k3 and server 2k8, however are server OSes, They're designed to accomodate many concurrent users (as opposed to a workstation which is designed for one local user at a time) and both do it quite well.

Linux people like to forget that although XP and 2k3 as well as Vista and 2k8 share kernels, they aren't the same OS. The biggest difference is that the functionality, in Windows, is split across a server OS and a workstation OS, whereas in Linux it isn't.

2k3 isn't XP and 2k8 isn't Vista, that's really all there is to it. Do you really _need_ your desktop to accomodate several concurrent users? Probably not, more often than not being able to RDP into your running session is plenty. Your server? Probably yes. Do both need to be the same machine? Probably not.

Bob said...

@net jerkface:

You should check out the download page for Opera.

Opera

Linux is f*cked up beyond belief.


Jebus anal fisting christ. 44 different builds! And that's just for the English (US) x86 variant! Another 12 for linux Sparc, 24 for PPC and 11 for x86_64/. 91 builds (one for each 0.01% of Linux's market share, AWESOME!) and that's just the English (US) variant! And another 92 for the multilingual Linux builds.

They do this for every release of Opera, man, Linux is so awesome, VIVA EL CHOICE!

Anonymous said...

What is awesome is that the Opera guys are willing to put up with that crap. I wouldn't bother to do that for an OS with less than 1% of the market and with users that don't want to use a "OMG IT-S NOT FREE" browser.

yOSHi314 said...

"I think he makes one amazing point, that couldn't be more true: the Linux development toolchain has been in stagnation for like 15 years. People still use that same old gcc, gdp, make, etc they've been using back in 1992."

can you define "stagnation"?

the linux toolchain can produce code for virtually any architecture around and it's being actively developed. (you can even build windows apps on linux, btw).

and gcc from 1992 is _way_ different than the current one.

.net jerkface said...


Granted this is my XP desktop. It's a workstation OS It isn't really designed to accomodate multiple concurrent users.

It is designed as a workstation os but the concurrent user limit is actually artificial. XP has the same nt kernel as win2k which is a server os.
You can get around the concurrent user limit by using vmware server inside xp. But of course a freebsd server in the closet is a better solution.

the voice of truth said...

Yawn, call me when Windows has basic functionality like virtual desktops. Windows Vista is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

This website pretty much validates that idea that Linux is powerful and will take over the market. Otherwise it wouldn't be filled with hundreds or thousands of unemployed .NET developers talking shit over and over and over and over... If Linux sucked, there would be no LinuxHater.

You don't need to talk shit about something that naturally sucked. It would talk shit about itself by naturally existing. No, Linux is great software. A marvel of modern engineering. LinuxHater exists not because Linux sucks, but because Linux kicks ass. So he and his band of scared shitless and worthless developers who's jobs will be outsourced to India anyway will futilely talk shit on and on. Talking shit about Linux is like trying to argue George Bush is smart, you'll never convince anyone, except already stupid and biased people. Good job.

Linux is the most advanced operating system kernel in the world in terms of scalability and features. Nothing is even in the league or worthy of a comparison. Don't hate.

Anonymous said...

@the voice of truth
You forgot the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]
tags.

Anonymous said...

I love how you people use the word "freetard" as in loving liberty and freedom is a bad thing. You guys are pathetic.

Anonymous said...

lol, typical luser response

Yawn, call me when Windows has basic functionality like virtual desktops.

Here - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx


Windows Vista is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.


And Linux is like a pig without a lipstick

This website pretty much validates that idea that Linux is powerful and will take over the market.

Yes, it will take over the market...0.93% of the market. It already has. Only another 99.07% to go. We are getting there. This is the year of the Linux desktop. Yaah!!!!

Otherwise it wouldn't be filled with hundreds or thousands of unemployed .NET developers talking shit over and over and over and over...

If Linux didn't suck we would have thousands of hippies smoking pot endlessly praising it's supposed advantages

LinuxHater exists not because Linux sucks, but because Linux kicks ass.

True, but the question is who's ass does it kick?. Many users are so frustrated with Linux that they are waiting to kick RMS's & Linus's ass. Yes Linus does kick ass indeed!.

A marvel of modern engineering.

Yes 1985 IS considered a part of the modern age.

Linux is the most advanced operating system kernel in the world in terms of scalability and features. Nothing is even in the league or worthy of a comparison. Don't hate.

yes, yes, It fits in well in the trash bin as well as inside toilet. 100% compatibility with no driver issues. Codecs are good too

.net jerkface said...


No, Linux is great software. A marvel of modern engineering.


Linux isn't engineered for anything, even Linus will tell you that.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/11

It is a hacked-together unix kernel clone, not even a full OS.

LinuxHater exists not because Linux sucks, but because Linux kicks ass.


LinuxHater exists because every other goddamn tech site considers Linux to be the second coming. That and the linux fanatics that dominate the forums, making disingenuous statements while voting down all criticism.

If you want to look at a marvel of kernel engineering then try QNX.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

Try playing a mouse+kb game on a console. OTOH I can connect a gamepad on my vista rig and play any game out there. Also my 9800GX2 can beat the crap out of any console video card..

Thank you!!! I've tried to make that point to people, but they ignore the facts and still parrot the line that you need a console for gaming.

PC Gaming > Console Gaming

Anon E Moose said...

"I don't think that will convince anyone to switch to a virus like vista."

You'd be amazed what people will do to have a system that works for them.


"Windows is not suitable for true multiuser/networking usage."

I will call down bullshit on that one. Couple years back we bought an Xtenda system to test. It's a PCI card that connects to 3 breakout boxes via cat6 cable which then connect to 3 more keyboards/monitors/mice.

Result: 4 people working at the same time on 1 XP machine.
You could also run 2 cards if your system had the horsepower. All this on an aging P4 2.4HT Dell system with a gig of RAM.

I won't even bother getting into terminal services on NT server...

And from the perspective of a home user, the argument is spurious anyway. To a home user, "multiuser" indeed refers to multiple user accounts, not how many virtual terminals you can keep open.

NetcraftGuy said...

Netcraft confirms Linux is dead!

Netcraft doesn't measure marketshare. They even state this on their main page, they do not represent marketshare, they can only track trends. The reason, they are a paid opt-in network of mainly North American corporate sites (typically use IIS and no doubt lots of IE only extensions) that want to measure their own specific user trends. Nothing to do with actual worldwide marketshare.

They also tout some custom method for accounting that nobody knows about, and each time this subset gets close to Linux in their domain is about to cross 1%, they rework the rules to drop it back down.

I will easily concede that Linux is 1% or less in MS's stronghold neighborhood, but Asia, Europe, (heck even the UK ships 3% of machines with linux OEMed per demand since Vista launch) central and South America, could we measure it (which netcraft can't and doesn't want to), overall, Linux would be between 3 and 6% worldwide. Otherwise, and this is the important part, MS really wouldn't care, and all the astroturfers here wouldn't care.

Why beat up on something that nobody uses (if anyone really believes that).

Oh yeah, in terms of revenue, MS has it 4 to 1 over Linux in the enterprise. Given that they are a minimum of 4X more expensive, what really scares MS is simply that the raw number of servers bought is about equal (meaning they are actually losing in terms of raw numbers since many are built in house, not bought). Not bad for an OS that serves no purpose and fullfills no need and certainly does nothing better than Windows offerings.

And you know what, nothing any of us says in these talkbacks matters. Linux is growing despite any advocating I do, and Linux is growing despite anything the pro windows group says. It never even would have existed or be growing if it didn't satisfy real needs.

Anonymous said...

@to the anonymous wintard with the virtual desktop shit

That program is a joke. You can't even switch a program from one desktop to another.

Anyways I love this site, and reading all the foolish comments from Wintards.

Anonymous said...

Netcraft confirms Linux is dead!

Netcraft doesn't measure marketshare.


Freetard. How can you be such a luser you don't know the Netcraft meme? Crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

Plus, pinhead, if you REALLY knew what you were talking about, you'd know Netcraft tracks server stats, not desktop Linux stats. Hmm...a luser absolutely pulling shit out of his ass...

Say...

You must be...

JULIAN!!!!!!!!!!!! Welcome home!

Did you think people would not recognize your unique writing style, your total failure to know anything about the real world?

Oh yeah, in terms of revenue, MS has it 4 to 1 over Linux in the enterprise.

4 to 1? Try 4 million or more to 1.

Anonymous said...

@.net jerkface

It's interesting how good you are as a spin doctor. Maybe development isn't for, maybe politics is your calling. I urge anyone reading this to go to the link he posted and actually read Linus's comments.

Anonymous said...

"I will easily concede that Linux is 1% or less in MS's stronghold neighborhood, but Asia, Europe, (heck even the UK ships 3% of machines with linux OEMed per demand since Vista launch)"

Source or it's not true, Julian.

Anonymous said...

That program is a joke. You can't even switch a program from one desktop to another.

Programs?. Linux has no usable programs to begin with.

Anonymous said...

hey anon wintard,

Why don't you suck Internet Explorer off. Clueless person who doesn't realize many of the same programs you use on Windows also work (better) on Linux.

anonymous freetard said...

Death to Windows. Praise be Linux.

Done.NowYourTurn said...

Source or it's not true, Julian.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Linux 3.8%. Now, the problem here, W3schools just measures ALL visitors to their site, no "custom model".

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001577
Gartner estimates that the market share for desktop Linux is about 2% in the Asia-Pacific region, 4.5% in Eastern Europe, and 4% in the Middle East and Africa. By contrast, Linux holds 1.2% of the desktop market in the U.S.

I could go on, no point, now I defy you to find anything on Net Applications that shows they measure marketshare. You can't, even they don't claim to.

This data provides valuable insight into significant trends for internet usage.

That is as much as they claim, trends. I suspect the 53M Brazilian kids using Linux+Open Source (100% penetration in Brazil schools) is something MS never wants measured.

Anonymous said...

Linux 3.8%. Now, the problem here, W3schools just measures ALL visitors to their site, no "custom model".

Wrong!

read the lines below the stats, idiot

Anonymous said...

I defy you to find anything on Net Applications that shows they measure marketshare

You mean this ?

Any dick knows that w3schools attracts more Linsux lusers than average.

I defy you: find me the visitor OS stats for Wikipedia. They're online for fosstards like you. No discussion on those stats.

Anonymous said...

Clueless person who doesn't realize many of the same programs you use on Windows also work (better) on Linux.

Wonder what those programs are. Last time I checked no one could develop a decent application for Linux even if they wanted to.

Happy switching between programs Gjerk_me_off 0.11.34.5 & KI_dont_have_balls 0.56.1.2

Heard they are incompatible with each other.

Anonymous said...

Windows Vista is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Linux is pig turd with perfume.

Anonymous said...

http://www.w3schools.com

BWAHAHAGHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Is that the best you can do, freetard? w3schools? A site devoted to OPEN-SOURCE EDUCATIONAL TOOLS? A site GEARED TOWARD FREETARDS? A site where the owners even fuckin' admit not to take their stats seriously:

"Statistics Are Often Misleading"

BWAHAHAGHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

This ain't slashdot, boy. Here we don't worship at the cock o'Stallman. Crawl back to slashdot where you belong for yet another luser circle jerk.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I am saying this, but get a life Windows users.

TryAgainFool said...

I defy you to find anything on Net Applications that shows they measure marketshare

You mean this ?


Thank you for the laugh. That is my entire point, this is, in their own words...

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers.

Again, I defy you to show that this unique methodology and the exclusive on demand network of live stats customers represents reality. It doesn't because they themselves don't make that claim. Happens every time I challenge the "holy grail" that is Net Applications FUD talking point, and it makes me smile, because you will deny, deny, deny, but more reasonable people will say, you know, what does it really mean.

As for W3Schools being technical, yes it is, but they don't massage their data or use a unique methodology, they just measure everyone. How can you say the unique methodology for Net Applications is not to simply filter non North American IPs from stats, inflating MS share? Nobody knows, they won't tell. Thanks for coming out though.

GoodLaughThanks said...

Is that the best you can do, freetard? w3schools?

No, and it wasn't even the ONLY source in my original post. What part of stupid doesn't apply to your reply. Here, I will make it easy on you, scrolling up might be a little too hard for you. Repeated from my post where, yes, it was originally.

Start Original Post Clip...

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001577

Gartner estimates that the market share for desktop Linux is about 2% in the Asia-Pacific region, 4.5% in Eastern Europe, and 4% in the Middle East and Africa. By contrast, Linux holds 1.2% of the desktop market in the U.S.

End Original Post Clip ...

Net Applications is provably wrong in so many areas, simply because their FF numbers are provably wrong by more stats from more sources because more people measure it. It's amazing how Europe can be at 32% measured, 50%+ in South America and Net Applications clings to massaged less than 20% as the gold standard.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why you are baiting them tryagainfool. These Wintards are clearly getting delerious and schizophrenic. You should stop quickly before the Wintards start slitting their wrists or something.

Basically, let Windows be the McDonalds of operating systems. Who cares.

Anonymous said...

you're an idiot. The fosstard community at wikipedia is happily adopting hitslink for citation in market share stats for all main browsers and linux:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=hitslink&go=Go

They even use hitslink.com to validate the Guiness world record claim for FF3.

You're in denial and holding on to a straw. W3schools is not a reference because it focusses on a very specific audience. Or let me rephrase that: the average user does not visit w3scools.

Anonymous said...

Gartner does no live tracking: it's all figures summoned from thin air. That's even less valid than w3schools, which itself is a joke.

Tr0n said...


Linux is the most advanced operating system kernel in the world in terms of scalability and features. Nothing is even in the league or worthy of a comparison. Don't hate.

Scalable. I don't think it means what you think it means. Simply being able to 'execute' on multiple devices, big and small is not the definition of scalability. Thats simply multi-platform.


Scalable = Add more CPU's & performance increases linearly. Add more ram and performance increases linearly, Add more IO b/w and performance scales linearly, etc. Get it yet?

AIX ,Solaris, the traditional big irons are a lot more scalable than Linux.
--

And features.. What specific features make it the 'most advanced'? Which is a joke, but I'll play along just so you realize for your own self how dumb you are.


I'll be amazed if you can put together 2 sentences without copy pasting from somewhere else..

sv said...

Man, you're my blog discovery of the month. I've read all your posts the other day. Keep the good stuff on. Respect.

Karl said...

If Linux sucked, there would be no LinuxHater.

Really? So, if Windows or Mac OSX sucked there wouldn´t be the rest of the Internet ranting about them.

Anonymous said...

Virtual Desktops are fucking lame or rather are useful to a small number of users. Windows does have multiple virtual desktop applications from various vendors. If you really need it on Windows you can find it.

Let me know when KDE or Gnome can tile windows.

Anonymous said...

This website pretty much validates that idea that Linux is powerful and will take over the market.

Been hearing that for over a decade now, dude. If you weren't freetards and so obtuse, you would have got it already: it ain't gonna happen just because you say it every fucking day.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic swine. Every last one of you.

Long live free software!

a voice of truth said...

@Tr0n

So your idea of refuting an argument is by redefining a word and using your this changed terminology to prove a point that you don't prove and is largely false.

Terrible.

You should probably mentor with .net jerkface, he is a much better spin doctor then you.

Tr0n said...


So your idea of refuting an argument is by redefining a word and using your this changed terminology to prove a point that you don't prove and is largely false.

That is the definition used widely in the industry and the academia. I suggest you get familiar with the real world.

Start here:

http://www.acm.org

Anon E Moose said...

"Enlightened, free-thinking people. Every last one of you.

Long live good, well-written, properly supported, and well documented free software!"

Fixed if for you

Now, if only the linutics could accept that just because it's *free* software, it isn't necessarily and automatically *good* software...

Anon E Moose said...

"Enlightened, free-thinking people. Every last one of you.

Long live good, well-written, properly supported, and well documented free software!"

Fixed if for you

Now, if only the linutics could accept that just because it's *free* software, it isn't necessarily and automatically *good* software...

Anonymous said...

I know what you mean, atheist are fucking retarded. Damn those infidels to hell. allah u akhbar

Anonymous said...

@Tr0n

Sense you want to argue over words instead of technology, I will play your game:

Refering to the ACM publication:
Mark D. Hill, 'What is scalability?' in ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, Volume 18 Issue 4, pages 18-21, (ISSN 0163-5964)

I quote: "In this paper, I first examine formal definitions of scalability, but I fail to find a useful, rigorous definition of it."

What were you saying again Tr0n? That you are a stupid lying sack of shit who doesn't even read the sources he quotes?

Because that's what I heard.

Tr0n said...


What were you saying again Tr0n? That you are a stupid lying sack of shit who doesn't even read the sources he quotes?

Ohh There is no formal definition. I guess we should stop all scalability tests and benchmarks because its not defined.


I guess all the thousand ACM publications with the word scalability are now invalid, if we follow your luser logic.


Furthermore, I didn't quote anything. I pointed you to a place where you could find out more. Almost _ALL_ scalability benchmarks have to do resource scalability.

-
I dont see any formal, rigorous definition of luser, freetard, etc. How in the world are people using them!?


Sense you want to argue over words instead of technology, I will play your game:

Right. You cant type a single sentence about anything you say without using google or wikipedia. I can, thats the difference.

Anonymous said...

AIX ,Solaris, the traditional big irons are a lot more scalable than Linux.

What a joke. IBM has been promoting Linux to the near exclusion of their own AIX product on all of it's mainframe and server hardware, and Linux has choked off so much of Solaris's market share that they open-sourced there crown-jewels as a last-ditch desperation attempt cull Linux's developer community of shiftless pot-smoking hippies and bored 14 year-old boys coding in their basement into their fold to breath life back into their own dead commercial Unix OS. lol, Sun "freetards". Impressive that enterprise-grade bullshit like AIX and other SysV Unices can't even compete in their established high-end domains against a competitor that only ever passively vied for those markets. It's clearly the superior choice in terms of development, compatibility and extensibility in every other sense.

Anonymous said...

Sense you want to argue over words instead of technology, I will play your game:

Refering to the ACM publication:
Mark D. Hill, 'What is scalability?' in ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, Volume 18 Issue 4, pages 18-21, (ISSN 0163-5964)

I quote: "In this paper, I first examine formal definitions of scalability, but I fail to find a useful, rigorous definition of it."


Oh, come on... if you are going to quote references from the Wikipedia article on scalability, why don't you quote this, from the Linux info project (
http://www.linfo.org/scalable.html
)

"Scalable refers to the situation in which the throughput changes roughly in proportion to the change in the number of units of or size of the inputs. It can also be looked at as the cost per unit of output remaining relatively constant with proportional changes in the number of units of or size of the inputs. Scalability refers to the extent to which some system, component or process is scalable."

Or, this one:
http://www.gridwisetech.com/content/view/168/120/lang,en/


"Also, a scalable system will reconfigure and use all of its resources to a maximum when the demand exceeds the daily routine. A scalable system is designed with growth in mind, thus its performance will always increase in proportion to the available hardware."

Tr0n said...


What a joke. IBM has been promoting Linux to the near exclusion of their own AIX product on all of it's mainframe and server hardware, and Linux has choked off so much of Solaris's market share that they open-sourced there crown-jewels as a last-ditch desperation attempt cull Linux's developer community of shiftless pot-smoking hippies and bored 14 year-old boys coding in their basement into their fold to breath life back into their own dead commercial Unix OS.

A shining example of luser hypocrisy.

So when the argument is against you, proving AIX doesnt scale means its enough to prove linux is more popular in certain markets and vendors promote it over their other less revenue generating (if that is even the real reason) products.

So since Windows is more popular in general and everyone promotes directly or indirectly what should we infer?

You'll need some time to come up with new FUD. Its ok.
-------

All Linux has done is commoditize the server market so anyone can cheaply (well if they dont want support) build a cluster or whatever. Doesnt prove anything.

Anonymous said...

All Linux has done is commoditize the server market so anyone can cheaply (well if they dont want support) build a cluster or whatever. Doesnt prove anything.

You missed the part where I proved that All Linux has done is commoditize the server market so anyone can cheaply (well if they dont want support) build a cluster or whatever. Like commodification of technology has ever been trivial.

There's no comparison between the position of Linux on servers and Windows on the desktop, I'm sure you're well aware there's actually a healthy ecosystem of competition in the Server OS market. What dogshit single-user OS's competed with Windows on the desktop? DOS? MacOS? OS/2? No wonder such a maldesigned waste of software has held the market. And to think it was a "professional" development project from the start.

.net jerkface said...


How can you say the unique methodology for Net Applications is not to simply filter non North American IPs from stats, inflating MS share?

Why would they do that? They don’t get their money from MS, they get it from hundreds of thousands of websites that want to track user data. They provide a good indication of what internet users are browsing the web with.
Their data is collected from about 160 million users per month from a variety of websites.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/

They have been in fact showing a decline in windows and explorer over the past year. Perhaps MS forgot to send that paper bag filled with cash?

Anonymous said...

Check out
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=556 and http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=538

Pure comedy gold from one of the head freetards, ESR. I LOL'd at http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=556#comment-228034

Tr0n said...


What dogshit single-user OS's competed with Windows on the desktop? DOS? MacOS? OS/2? No wonder such a maldesigned waste of software has held the market. And to think it was a "professional" development project from the star

So if a business makes money while everyone else was asleep, as you point out, thats bad? So I guess we should stop businesses from entering markets where no competition exists?


If the desktop was so 'easy' as you claim for lack of competition, what about the server market. If unix was better in every respect why even use windows?

And they started at 0% market share as everyone else in both server and desktop. What happened in between 0% market share and 90% market share?


Oh right, some manifestation of evil, monopoly, strong arming, etc It couldn't possibly be because someone thought they had a decent product.



lusers really amuse me. Most of this is old FUD though, cmon .. put together something more 'fresh'.

.net jerkface said...


It's interesting how good you are as a spin doctor. Maybe development isn't for, maybe politics is your calling. I urge anyone reading this to go to the link he posted and actually read Linus's comments.


I don't care for the constant bullshit you find with politics which is a big reason why I hate linux. It is a shame in fact how abm'r politics are a constant part of the tech world. There are too many people that will dismiss anything microsoft related for political reasons only. If the empire makes it then there must be something wrong with it. If it is linux related then there must be something superior about it. That attitude has become so tiresome yet it dominates tech web sites.

As for that link
http://kerneltrap.org/node/11

Linus clearly admits that Linux wasn't designed, so I wouldn't call Linux a marvel of engineering when it was never engineered with a specific purpose. It is a hacked together clone of a unix kernel that was designed with 1970's terminal computing in mind. To call Linux a marvel is especially laughable when it is really no better overall than the freebsd kernel.

Anonymous said...

"Virtual Desktops are fucking lame or rather are useful to a small number of users."

Really? Most people would find them very useful. Just because windows doesn't have them by default, or just because the 3rd party implementation sucks ass on windows doesn't mean its not useful.

Anonymous said...

So if a business makes money while everyone else was asleep, as you point out, thats bad?

It's not bad in a capitalistic sense, it's bad because consumers are now cornered using horrid botnet-node spawning porous and badly-architechted shitpile of an operating system.

If the desktop was so 'easy' as you claim for lack of competition, what about the server market. If unix was better in every respect why even use windows?

The AT&T divestiture which allowed them to return to the computing business in the mid-1980's turned Unix proprietary and the oversight of the desktop market was largely the product of myopic upper management businessmen in AT&T and Sun who had no concept of computers outside the realm of mainframes and business workstations. There was no home consumer market then. No one in this thread ever claimed MS wasn't at least at some point saturated with capable businessmen, but most of us wish there was a better ratio of competent software designers and programmers to go along with that monopoly. Bill Gates buying off QDOS and passing it off as his start-up's first in-house commercial breakthough exemplified this pretty well.

Oh right, some manifestation of evil, monopoly, strong arming, etc It couldn't possibly be because someone thought they had a decent product.

The overwhelming majority of the people who use Windows aren't in an any sense qualified to make that assessment. Because for most people Windows was 'the only choice' in the past 15 years or so it's now taken for granted that viruses, trojans, BSODs, DRM, botnets, e-mail spam, and running all programs as administrator are an expected part of the computing experience.

Windows has crippled the modern computer.

Anonymous said...

As for that link
http://kerneltrap.org/node/11

Linus clearly admits that Linux wasn't designed, so I wouldn't call Linux a marvel of engineering when it was never engineered with a specific purpose. It is a hacked together clone of a unix kernel that was designed with 1970's terminal computing in mind. To call Linux a marvel is especially laughable when it is really no better overall than the freebsd kernel.


He isn't disparaging his own work. He's stating it's growth was evolutionary and not coreographed, for instance in the fashion of the Unix variants of the day which were rife with feature-creep and product differentiation through non-standard design. Linux is a marvel of adaptive engineering and peer-review. Windows is a pile of ad-hoc semi-broken or unmaintained features that have failed coherency. See CIM, the POSIX subsystem, and every proprietary programming language and HTML extension MS has ever designed. Linux is superior.

thecodewitch said...

I *wish* linux was the dominant OS, had good software, was a pleasure to develop for, was well documented. I think many other "Wintards" feel the same way.

The bitter truth is, it is not.

What better environment could there be for a free, high quality, open source operating system to flourish than the environment we have now?

Macs are good, but too expensive. Vista had many problems at launch, and attracted a tonne of bad press, with many companies to this day sticking with XP.

Surely, linux should have risen from the ashes and claimed its rightful place as the centerpiece of the new world order. At the very least, it should be taking up some market share, as people abandon windows in favour of it, right?

Instead, what happened? A few companies played with releasing linux laptops - Dell, Lenovo, Asus, et al.

Then, the amateurish "we don't need no stinking users" nature of ubuntu, KDE, GNOME et al became a spectacle for everyone to see.

Linux has never been focussed on making features that are relevant to users, or even to DEVELOPERS. Hobbyist developers make broken knockoffs of the windows desktop, and add astronomically idiotic features like rotateable and scalable desktop icons.

When the brokenness of the linux desktop became evident to consumers, people rejected the cheaper, non M$ taxed laptops and desktops that were running linux, and quietly went back to buying Vista machines. Dell and Lenovo have since quietly withdrawn their linux laptops.

Meanwhile, MS (sorry, M$) quietly fixed the bigger issues in Vista, and left linux back where it was, a humiliating wreck of an OS, caught with its pants down and left to limp along with its less than 1% market share.

Linux is perpetually paralysed by the shit flinging simians in its community, and especially by the misguided insistence on making it as hard as possible for companies to make closed source software for it.

.net jerkface said...


Linux is a marvel of adaptive engineering and peer-review. Windows is a pile of


Forget windows for a second. How exactly is the linux kernel more of a marvel than the freebsd kernel?

Tr0n said...

Jeez, still peddling the old FUD.


It's not bad in a capitalistic sense, it's bad because consumers are now cornered using horrid botnet-node spawning porous and badly-architechted shitpile of an operating system.

Right, so we should always trust you, or someone else to make decisions about whats good or bad for people. Take away choice to give them choice? Crap ! Luser logic, Does not compute. Or are we in back in soviet russia?


Bill Gates buying off QDOS and passing it off as his start-up's first in-house commercial breakthough exemplified this pretty well.

So why didn't they buy off some proprietary unix and brand it for their server product? Why even bother spending vast amounts of money and coming up with a totally new kernel architecture based on untested, unimplemented theories. Using DOS for your lame point proves how clueless you really are.


Because for most people Windows was 'the only choice' in the past 15 years or so it's now taken for granted that viruses, trojans, BSODs, DRM, botnets, e-mail spam, and running all programs as administrator are an expected part of the computing experience.

There is no technical reason why any of this cant happen on a linux desktop machine. Hell they already do. There are about 30-40 viruses on Linux. If you have any insights into the Linux based OS architecture that prevents or detects programs that can harm users data, but allows other programs to access the same data because their intentions are pure, the rest of the computing world would be all ears.


Windows has crippled the modern computer.

If it wasn't for windows, your pc would still cost a small fortune. The entire desktop pc industry is based on people buying into the windows ecosystem, be it software or devices, which in turn has caused prices to drop. If you think otherwise you should write a paper proving why everyone else is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Instead, what happened? A few companies played with releasing linux laptops - Dell, Lenovo, Asus, et al.

This started barely more than a few years ago and with the widening of the UMPC market it's going exceptionally well, to say nothing of the vendors marketing Linux desktop machines. Lenovo is a regrettable exception. I have no idea what you're going on about regarding dell but good work inventing talking points off the top of your head:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Linux is perpetually paralysed by the shit flinging simians in its community, and especially by the misguided insistence on making it as hard as possible for companies to make closed source software for it.

I think it's pretty clear you're making shit up by now. The LGPL exists for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proprietary_software_for_Linux

Forget windows for a second. How exactly is the linux kernel more of a marvel than the freebsd kernel?

I'm clearly not a kernel programmer and I don't think you are either, so that's quite a pisstake of a rhetorical point. Nonetheless I don't recall making that argument. I run FreeBSD 7 on my home file server and I'm pretty happy with it.

For what it's worth DragonFlyBSD seems to be travelling some much more interesting territory.

thecodewitch said...

Linux is a marvel of adaptive engineering and peer-review. Windows is a pile of ad-hoc semi-broken or unmaintained features that have failed coherency. See CIM, the POSIX subsystem, and every proprietary programming language and HTML extension MS has ever designed. Linux is superior.

Thats the problem (or one of them anyway) right there - In an academic sense, linux is superior in many ways. Some neat things have come out of the linux world, standards and languages such as perl, python, ruby, Tcl/Tk, things which have benefitted programmers on other platforms.

What is missing is a focus on satisfying the people that will need to use the software. Whats missing is a desire to listen to what programmers need to develop for your platform effectively. Whats missing is some business common sense. Scenarios like this: I'll buy the system you're making, if you will add these features that I need to get my app to work. That sort of business. Things that not only MS, but most other development shops do routinely - they work with their customers.

Graphics card example:

MS goes out and talks to card manufacturers, and says "I hear you're working on vertex and pixel shaders. Tell me what you're doing so that we can optimise the next version of DirectX for it."

In the meantime, OpenGL ARB is left out in the cold, trying to listen in on the conversation, maybe be invited in, only IT CAN'T, because there are 10,000 shrieking idiots protesting that the video card driver isn't open source.

So, linux continues to be a nerd toy / obsession, irrelevant to most other people.

thecodewitch said...

I think it's pretty clear you're making shit up by now. The LGPL exists for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proprietary_software_for_Linux


That list is one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see linux kick ass.

If linux takes over the world, I'll be impressed, and pleasantly surprised.

However, if that ever happens, I'm sure some idiots will make 50 different incompatible forks, and we'll be back where we started.

Anonymous said...

So why didn't they buy off some proprietary unix and brand it for their server product? Why even bother spending vast amounts of money and coming up with a totally new kernel architecture based on untested, unimplemented theories. Using DOS for your lame point proves how clueless you really are.

I don't think you even read what you quoted. They didn't "bother spending vast amounts of money and coming up with a totally new kernel architecture based on untested, unimplemented theories". They stole DOS and rebranded it, then slapped a GUI shell with a glitchy API over top of it and let that pass for their home-consumer OS until Windows2000. It's ironic you mention buying off some proprietary Unix and branding it" because they tried exactly that in the early 80's with Xenix, then ditched it when IBM offered to help them develop a real desktop OS, which was OS/2.

There is no technical reason why any of this cant happen on a linux desktop machine. Hell they already do. There are about 30-40 viruses on Linux. If you have any insights into the Linux based OS architecture that prevents or detects programs that can harm users data, but allows other programs to access the same data because their intentions are pure, the rest of the computing world would be all ears.

Outside of exceptionally sheltered Windows users, I'm pretty sure the rest of the computing world would barely give a shit as it would fall pretty short of insight. Windows maintains legacy code from it's time as a single-user operating system for backward compatibility, encourages users to run as root, dependence on Remote Procedure Calls for for IPC, no security controls on message passing between GUI applications, etc.

Linux viruses are proof-of-concept and under the constraints of the Unix security model, pretty much require that they be manually installed and configured by users.

If it wasn't for windows, your pc would still cost a small fortune. The entire desktop pc industry is based on people buying into the windows ecosystem, be it software or devices, which in turn has caused prices to drop. If you think otherwise you should write a paper proving why everyone else is wrong.

Swap windows with OS/2, BeOS, SunOS and regardless of who outmaneuvered who in the early 90's you'd be no less able to parrot the same line 15 years later no matter who won. You're confusing innovation with having ridden the perpetual tide of global technological prosperity by locking-in the market. Microsoft never invented anything original or critical. It's not what they do. Sorry this comes a little short of "writing a paper", if you're eager to learn more there a plenty of other freetards who've taken the effort upon themselves and you're probably the firt person here to clamor for that to happen more often.

.net jerkface said...


I'm clearly not a kernel programmer and I don't think you are either, so that's quite a pisstake of a rhetorical point.


It wasn't a rhetorical question, it was a serious once since you called linux a marvel of engineering. I'm not a kernel programmer but I know enough about them to know when someone else is full of shit on the subject.
Maybe you should go back to slashdot where you are free to mod down people that threaten the sanctity of linux.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't a rhetorical question, it was a serious once since you called linux a marvel of engineering. I'm not a kernel programmer but I know enough about them to know when someone else is full of shit on the subject.
Maybe you should go back to slashdot where you are free to mod down people that threaten the sanctity of linux.


I was speaking of the development methodology and its transparency, not drawing comparisons to technical features of other operating systems. Linux has succeeded in being many things to many people and organizations, it's success in business world (and yes, among hobbyists and developers) is a testament to this.

Anonymous said...

Microsoft's real success was in marketing and business, not technology. Very little or anything Microsoft made is original, but they knew how to market it. Yes, there were GREAT at marketing. But ever since they obtained this monopoly they are fat on their ass and both their marketing and technology has suffered.

Microsoft is literally losing it's business basically what amounts to two pot smoking former ph.D. students, a nutty LSD addict obsessed with gadgets without buttons, and 14 year boys in their parents basement hacking kernel code together with a pirated copy of Inside Kernel Development.

This is all possible because Microsoft is being run like the DMV. The company screams incompetence in it's very core. But that could just be the natural state of any monopoly, no need to cull the hurd.

.net jerkface said...


then slapped a GUI shell with a glitchy API over top of it and let that pass for their home-consumer OS


And everyone in the world bought it because it had a good price/value ratio compared to the alternatives. The horror.


Microsoft never invented anything original or critical. It's not what they do.


Never? Have you ever heard of NT?

What is with you guys and fucking absolutes? Do you just get used to using them in linux echo forums?

Anonymous said...

@ .net jerkface

You should probably learn a little more about Linux. As far as a kernel go, nothing is more advanced or more actively developed. Wither you look at the process scheduler, the memory manager, the integrated virtual machine support, the security / mandatory access control framework, hell even the new input driver API, what you are looking at is the latest and greatest advancements in Computer Science research.

.net jerkface said...


Microsoft's real success was in marketing and business, not technology. Very little or anything Microsoft made is original, but they knew how to market it.


So most programmers prefer visual studio because of marketing? More people would be using eclipse if it wasn't for Microsoft's marketing department? Do you really believe that?

If Microsoft is really not about technology like you claim, how do they keep making gains in the server market? Especially when linux is free?

Anonymous said...

And everyone in the world bought it because it had a good price/value ratio compared to the alternatives. The horror.

Indeed, the horror.

Never? Have you ever heard of NT?

Apparently better than you've heard of VMS and the guy they hired to rebuild it under Microsoft branding (Dave Cutler).

What is with you guys and fucking absolutes? Do you just get used to using them in linux echo forums?

http://zip.4chan.org/g/ is pretty far from a Linux echo forum. Sorry for maintaining my opinion; at the very least I can claim it has a basis in reason rather than a circle-jerk of emotional conviction and strong feelings about operating systems as would naturally be the case on a "Linux Hater's Blog".

Tr0n said...

Still no points. Shocking..


It's ironic you mention buying off some proprietary Unix and branding it" because they tried exactly that in the early 80's with Xenix, then ditched it when IBM offered to help them develop a real desktop OS, which was OS/2.

I'm talking about NT, you're stuck with DOS. Still havent given a reason as to why they spent their own capital developing a totally new OS, incompatible with Win95 atleast on the driver, kernel level. No answer ? lack of fud? Why did they develop NTFS, DirectX, etc etc.


Windows maintains legacy code from it's time as a single-user operating system for backward compatibility,

Win32 is subsystem in the NT kernel. You can run other subsystems too. Look up Open NT.

Also Look up minwin. the built it by just tweaking xml files used by the build machine and got down the nt core to about 40 megs, without doing anything. that shows some level of modularity. If they tried to really cut down, I bet you would be able to fit NT on a really cell phone or w/e. I have had in the past acadameic access to the NT code in my grad school but I cant really divulge anything without breaking the NDA..


encourages users to run as root

You can create another user account on NT. I wonder how they managed those thousands of corporate desktops. What you're really trying to say is, programs on win95 assumed that the user had write access to any location on the harddisk. True, Win9x is a horrible when it comes to security. However its well documented that MS has bent over backwards to keep app compat a top priority. You can argue that this is for business reasons, but the users benefit too.



dependence on Remote Procedure Calls for for IPC, no security controls on message passing between GUI applications, etc.

LOL. You truly need a clue about NT design. Go read Inside NT.


Linux viruses are proof-of-concept and under the constraints of the Unix security model, pretty much require that they be manually installed and configured by users.

google linux virus in the wild or similar. You do know what in the wild means right? Or do you need a formal, rigorous definition?



Swap windows with OS/2, BeOS, SunOS and regardless of who outmaneuvered who in the early 90's you'd be no less able to parrot the same line 15 years later no matter who won.

Err, so any company would have got 90% market share. Just by showing up? Interesting. Your luser brain is so messed up it would probably take a decade of therapy to even expect a rational thought from you.

Tr0n said...


You should probably learn a little more about Linux.

So tell us why linux is the 'most advanced' ? No?


Wither you look at the process scheduler, the memory manager, the integrated virtual machine support,
security / mandatory access control framework, hell even the new input driver API,

WOW, really cutting edge. Is that it?


what you are looking at is the latest and greatest advancements in Computer Science research.

One says its research, one luser says its 14yr olds potheads hacking the kernel.. You need to get your FUD straightened out..

Anonymous said...

"Really? Most people would find [virtual desktops] very useful. Just because windows doesn't have them by default, or just because the 3rd party implementation sucks ass on windows doesn't mean its not useful."

Considering that "most people" don't even run an OS that comes with virtual desktops by default I doubt it.

Secondly, you shouldn't assume that I've only used Windows or virtual desktops on Windows. Most people here have used Linux. I still use Linux. I don't find virtual desktops all that useful. I can see why they can be useful to certain people however they aren't a huge percentage of users. I personally don't like them due to the manner in which I use my computer. I do not like to leave programs running if I am not using them and I have no use for setting up different desktops. As such having more than one desktop is nothing more than a waste of resources as I'll never use it. However I do tile windows frequently and thus far support for that functionality has been abysmal and buggy on Linux yet it is something extremely simple to do. So simple that I wrote a program to do it for me. That's hardly the ideal solution. It's like having to write the code for minimize and maximize because it's not supported out of the box. Fucking lame.

.net jerkface said...


You should probably learn a little more about Linux.


You should probably learn a little more about Freebsd and Solaris kernels so you can understand that there is really nothing that special about the Linux kernel.
http://opensolaris.org/os/article/2005-10-14_a_comparison_of_solaris__linux__and_freebsd_kernels/

The freebsd 7 kernel in fact beat linux in a recent smp performance benchmark.
http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/online/news/freebsd_7_0_released/(kategorie)/0

Anonymous said...

@ .net jerkface


So most programmers prefer visual studio because of marketing? More people would be using eclipse if it wasn't for Microsoft's marketing department? Do you really believe that?


Visual Studio is pretty good, I'll give you that. One of the few things Microsoft is good at is development tools. Sure Visual Studio is a bit on the bloated side, but so is Eclipse.

But they do also market the fuck out of it, if you think people pick it up because it's simply superior, you are fucking delusional.

Microsoft developer evangelism.

It's a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE department in Microsoft. They hire literally hundreds of people to go to companies and user groups to just promote Visual Studio. Yes.. _JUST VISUAL STUDIO_. All together for all the products evangelists number in the thousands, and this doesn't even include Microsoft's massive marketing budget. That's separate.

This is a massive massive investment and it has nothing to do with advancing Microsoft technology, just promotion and marketing. Microsoft can do this, and pass off substandard technology with sales tactics and campaigns. True story.


If Microsoft is really not about technology like you claim, how do they keep making gains in the server market? Especially when linux is free?


That's a bit of a red herring, since they have been losing market share in the server market lately.

And yes, Windows Server is crap. I am not even going say it's slightly good. Not even comparable to Linux. It's pure crap. Pure crap. Only a true moron and/or Steve Ballmer could appreciate it. Yes, I've worked with it and developed for it. It's garbage.

It's basically an OS designed as a desktop OS shoehorned into a server. Pure fucking crap. I don't want millions of lines of GDI code bloating up a fucking server and increasing the attack surface. Yes I know about Windows Core, and it's mostly useless. Windows lacks true separation between logic and presentation in a kernel level. It'll all a disaster down there.

Poor poor fucking Windows kernel developers. Bless their souls, every one of them which keeps getting denied employment by Google.

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about NT, you're stuck with DOS. Still havent given a reason as to why they spent their own capital developing a totally new OS, incompatible with Win95 atleast on the driver, kernel level. No answer ? lack of fud? Why did they develop NTFS, DirectX, etc etc.

Because DOS-based Windows OS's were even worse? Same with NTFS and FAT. Does this really bear elaboration? They hired outside developers from DEC and the like to design NT, see the comment above. I'm stuck on DOS because if you could maintain your attention span between three or four post this point stems from a discussion of the formative years of Microsoft in which they rose to prominence through buying off other software products and passing it off as their own innovation.


Also Look up minwin. the built it by just tweaking xml files used by the build machine and got down the nt core to about 40 megs, without doing anything. that shows some level of modularity. If they tried to really cut down, I bet you would be able to fit NT on a really cell phone or w/e. I have had in the past acadameic access to the NT code in my grad school but I cant really divulge anything without breaking the NDA..


If it were really that simple, I'd expect they would instead of producing an even more lacklustre embedded OS that's been pretty well marginalized by the likes of Symbian and Linux.

You can create another user account on NT. I wonder how they managed those thousands of corporate desktops. What you're really trying to say is, programs on win95 assumed that the user had write access to any location on the harddisk. True, Win9x is a horrible when it comes to security. However its well documented that MS has bent over backwards to keep app compat a top priority. You can argue that this is for business reasons, but the users benefit too.

You can create another account, but no one does, and well into the era of NT-based home operating systems programs were seldom designed around the idea of a multi-user OS in Windows. Priviledge seperation is alien to 99% of Windows users and until Vista it there was no attempt to present it forwardly in the UI to the extent that it was a feasible security feature. As it turns out, they made UAC so chatty and irritating anyone who knew how would turn it off.


LOL. You truly need a clue about NT design. Go read Inside NT.

Maybe you should distill some of the central ideas so I don't need to distract myself reading a 500-page book to prove myself wrong for you. I have plenty of books for you, too.

google linux virus in the wild or similar. You do know what in the wild means right? Or do you need a formal, rigorous definition?

The first result I got from that search was (not kidding) an April Fool's joke. How many links will I need to sift through before I find something for you I can take exception to and refute?

Err, so any company would have got 90% market share. Just by showing up? Interesting. Your luser brain is so messed up it would probably take a decade of therapy to even expect a rational thought from you.

That, at least in combination with OEM liscensing, proprietary standards extensions, vendor lock-in, anti-competitive business practices is pretty much how it happened. But yes, showing up while big Unix vendors were fighting and litigating amongst themselves was pretty big part of it.

Anonymous said...

Microsoft is literally losing it's business basically what amounts to two pot smoking former ph.D. students, a nutty LSD addict obsessed with gadgets without buttons, and 14 year boys in their parents basement hacking kernel code together with a pirated copy of Inside Kernel Development.

Sorry to wake you up from your wet dream before you ejaculate, but which world are you living in exactly????.

Can you give us some figure as to where MS is losing market share to you Linshit?.

Anonymous said...

They stole DOS and rebranded it, then slapped a GUI shell with a glitchy API over top of it and let that pass for their home-consumer OS until Windows 2000.

Wrong. Windows 2000 and up are NT based; ME was the last version that ran on top of DOS. XP is NT 5.1.

Never? Have you ever heard of NT?

Apparently better than you've heard of VMS and the guy they hired to rebuild it under Microsoft branding (Dave Cutler).


NT actually draws far more from OS/2 (which Microsoft was in a partnership with IBM to develop) than anything else. And it's evolved from those roots significantly since then. They just hired Dave Cutler as the lead developer and he used some of the design aspects he previously used; they didn't use his old code.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget Microsoft is literally a criminal organization. They were tried and convicted for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - criminal law. Typical Wintards will start arguing right about now that Microsoft is an angel organization like the fucking Peace Corps and that the USA govt and judges are evil lusers who want to keep the Bill Gates down. At least that is my experience with this types of debates.

Anyways I can separate Wintards into two groups:

1) .NET Developers who have no formal University education or just an AS and feel they "owe" their success to Microsoft. Basically they would be useless without Microsoft.

Typical signs:
You will often find these people in developer forms exposing the virtues of .NET, Visual Studio, or Windows Server. They also love talking about marketshare because it makes them feel safer about their stupid life decisions of not getting a college degree.

2) People still stuck in Cold War era thinking who somehow believe subconsciously believe Linux is an evil Soviet plot.

Typical signs:
You will find these people shitting on RMS at any chance they get. Tend to be largely clueless.

3) People who make a living with tech support. Removing malware. Basically they owe their career to the incompetence of Microsoft.

Typical signs:
They usually have terrible grammar and spelling. They love Internet Explorer (probably because it gets them so much business).

I think that fits about 95% of all Wintards.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. Windows 2000 and up are NT based; ME was the last version that ran on top of DOS. XP is NT 5.1.

My god, reading comprehension. until Windows 2000. Read post, then click "publish".

NT actually draws far more from OS/2 (which Microsoft was in a partnership with IBM to develop) than anything else. And it's evolved from those roots significantly since then. They just hired Dave Cutler as the lead developer and he used some of the design aspects he previously used; they didn't use his old code.

Clearly. That's DEC's IP. In any case, architechting off of an existing OS doesn't give them a leg-up in terms of creativity and the similarities are more than superficial.

Anonymous said...

I love how it is always "Microsoft stole DOS" as history indicates that it was actually purchased. Yeah, Bill didn't design it from the ground up, he bought it. Big fucking deal.

Anonymous said...

I love how it is always "Microsoft stole DOS" as history indicates that it was actually purchased. Yeah, Bill didn't design it from the ground up, he bought it. Big fucking deal.

Because in terms of his capability as a programmer or technologist there's barely a difference. At the very least he could have had the technical competence to buy out something worthwhile. QDOS was even crap back in that age and it's a sad foundation for the era of DOS-based Windows operating systems to follow.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous October 1, 2008 6:39 PM

Anyways I can separate Wintards into two groups:...

Better do it fast before you have to restart X-Windows...

Typical signs:
You will often find these people in developer forms exposing the virtues of .NET, Visual Studio, or Windows Server...


I think you meant to say espousing....

Typical signs:
They usually have terrible grammar and spelling...


Like the above, where you said "exposing the virtues..." rather than espousing the virtues?

I think that fits about 95% of all Wintards.

I think you got ripped off on your degree from the Stallman University of Beard Growing, OS-Breaking-Kernel-Updates, and Refrigerator Repair.

-derChef

Anonymous said...

Their is a big difference between theft and purchasing. How did Bill manage to "steal" QDOS? Did he jump the author of QDOS in the parking lot and beat him until he recited every line of code to Bill?

There is no gray area in theft. You either had permission to obtain it or you didn't. Coding skills do not affect this and thus is completely irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I love how it is always "Microsoft stole DOS" as history indicates that it was actually purchased. Yeah, Bill didn't design it from the ground up, he bought it. Big fucking deal.

And Apple stole from Xerox, and Linus stole Minix, and the guy who wrote that stole from Unix, etc.

Anonymous said...

Fuck... I meant 'there'.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous Zealot October 1, 2008 6:39 PM

2) People still stuck in Cold War era thinking who somehow believe subconsciously believe Linux is an evil Soviet plot.

Wouldn't you Linux Zealots be the ones stuck in that era, with your Cold War-era OS?

Anonymous said...

@derChef

Oh boohoo, you found an error in my post. I totally know what went through you mind:

"Oh my god, this guy is fucking right! How the fuck am I going to respond to this? Oh shit, he used a word incorrectly. I am going to base an entire rebuttal on this! Let me check my rebuttal over in Microsoft Word like 10 times before I post it. Oh god I hope this fixes my fractured ego."

From my assessment I will say you are a Category 1 Wintard. Please confirm.

Anonymous said...

And Apple stole from Xerox, and Linus stole Minix, and the guy who wrote that stole from Unix, etc.

And yet these are all distinct software products coded from scratch. Whereas MS-DOS is QDOS with a different name.

INNOVATION.

Anonymous said...

@ Category #2 Anonymous Wintard

Linux was first created in 1991. That if you remember from your middle school history, was after the fall of the USSR.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous Zealot

I know what went through you mind...

As opposed to "I know what went through your mind"?

I think your GNoffice spell checker is broken.

You also said "Anyways" in your earlier post. That shows you are of limited intellectual capacity and has nothing to do with checking your spelling.

Sharpen your pixelated crayons; I'll anxiously await your next gaffe-laden response.

Anonymous said...

@ moronic Linux Zealot October 1, 2008 7:18 PM

Try your very best to follow this: I didn't claim that Linux came out during the Cold War, I was saying that it is on par with Cold War era technology.

Isn't reading comprehension a wonderful thing?

Tr0n said...


through buying off other software products and passing it off as their own innovation.

There is a difference in making good hiring decisions and buying products changing nothing and rebranding them. Look it up. They are known for a few high profile hires, so what? Typical petty luser nonsense. Cutlers project was canned by DEC and he was layed off. This is when MS hired him.


If it were really that simple, I'd expect they would instead of producing an even more lacklustre embedded OS that's been pretty well marginalized by the likes of Symbian and Linux.

Its not a trivial task, thats for sure. Whats slightly easier is, to ship multi-platform. Ofcource, theyre in bed with intel, and theyre generating huge revenues, why bother. I guess there is a limit to greed.



As it turns out, they made UAC so chatty and irritating anyone who knew how would turn it off.

Whats 'so chatty' about it? Are you adding new devices every day or writing to system root or some other ridiculous scenario that you have to contrive to make this true. Keep repeating the same FUD



Maybe you should distill some of the central ideas so I don't need to distract myself reading a 500-page book to prove myself wrong for you.

Its not my job to educate you. I dont have to come up with extensive proof everytime someone says the earth is flat. Look Object/Token based security and go from there.



I have plenty of books for you, too.

Please, spare me the 'me too' linux OS theory.

Anonymous said...

@anon Wintard #Category 2
October 1, 2008 7:26 PM

Well that makes you even more of a fucking idiot. Excellent work.

Anonymous said...

@Tr0n

You could have just reshaped your entire comment as "I am clueless". It would have saved you a lot of time.

Anonymous said...

@derChef

Oh boohoo, you found an error in my post. I totally know what went through your mind:

"Oh my god, this guy is fucking right! How the fuck am I going to respond to this? Oh shit, he used a word incorrectly. I am going to base an entire rebuttal on this! Let me check my rebuttal over in Microsoft Word like 10 times before I post it. Oh god I hope this fixes my fractured ego."

From my assessment I will say you are a Category 1 Wintard. Please confirm.

Anonymous said...

Woo hoo ! A real live penguin dance. This one is so agitated its actually doing back flips.



It's basically an OS designed as a desktop OS shoehorned into a server. Pure fucking crap. I don't want millions of lines of GDI code bloating up a fucking server and increasing the attack surface. Yes I know about Windows Core, and it's mostly useless. Windows lacks true separation between logic and presentation in a kernel level. It'll all a disaster down there.


Aww how cute.. penguins blaming incompetence on the OS. If you're incapable of securing the OS, you're fucking stupid. By stupid I mean retarded. Linux has caused brain damage... too bad.

Re: Bloat
If only there was some API call to only load bits in memory that were actually being used. LoadLibrary and FreeLibrary perhaps? Maybe thats too hard for your toddler brain?

Guess what maybe you should call FreeLibrary on your brian. Might get rid of the linux bacteriums that love to ingest on stallmans piss and feces. Try bukkake next time.



every one of them which keeps getting denied employment by Google.

Wait the company with ... one revenue generating product? But you know what I'm glad they exist. I bet they have all the linux forums cached extra well. After all the lusers have to search so much to fix shit, no wonder they're in love with google.


More !!!! More of the penguin dance.

Anonymous said...

@Wintard (Type: Category #3)
October 1, 2008 8:22 PM

GDI is kernel space numbnuts, it doesn't get "unloaded" when it's not in use because it's ALWAYS in use. The rest of your post is equivalently understood by the following word: FAIL.

And yes we know Wintard can't dance because they are so far up Ballmer's asshole they can't even move.

Anonymous said...

Nice shitstorm developing here.

Speaking of the cold war..

You've also got to love the cold war era mentality of the lintards. That being the good old "If you're not with us, then you're against us" response to any criticism.

And the automatic reds-under-beds categorizing of all dissenters as 'wintards', thereby associating them with the greater perceived corporate evil and making the group as a whole so much easier to persecute.

Just who are the real haters here?

I'll answer that: the small vocal faction of elitist turd-polishers with deeply rooted self esteem problems that make the whole FOSS community look like a group of pathetic quasi-religious assholes waging a pointless jihad in defense of a platform that will still be in BETA long after we're all dead.


I'm a pragmatic fellow. And I call "suck" on an OS that broke itself completely to the point of not achieving even a text logon prompt after a simple (100meg) update. I would not do so if it had been an isolated incident, but it was not.
Having to try 4 different distributions before finding one that even completed installation on a 5 year old system also sucked. And the 4th one also broke after doing a post-install 700megabyte apt-get dist-upgrade.

And that suck is compounded with the fact that, in the end, the kid that it will be donated to will just wipe it and put Windows on it anyway so he can play his edutainment games from the 1990's.

Oh damn, I guess I just painted a great big wintardget on my forehead :P

That's ok. I'll just issue a pre-emptive "get fucked (if you can)" to the potential lamer flamers out there.

The truth sucks, doesn't it?

Linux for the masses... not this year. Maybe 2009.

Anonymous said...

It's funny to hear the Linux bums talk about how Linux is an 'advanced' OS. Forget advanced, the Lintards did not master even the most basic of software development principles. When multiple parties are working together on the same piece of software, some working on some parts and some on others, it is customary to agree on and stick to interfaces between parts. Almost the entire software industry realized the wisdom of this practice a long time ago, but the Linux bums prefer to ignore it in favor of their primitive development methods.

It's beyond the bums' ability to define interfaces or to keep them reasonably constant across versions. The result is, no commercial entity will develop a driver or a program for the wretched Linux system. Even after 17 years of trying and failing to give their creation away for free, the bums still have not realized why Linux continues to be fundamentally fucked. Advanced, my ass!

Anonymous said...

Funny how freetards always bring MS-DOS back into the fray. I guess it makes sense when you are still struggling to catch up with Windows 95. We are not buying your "superior OS" shit here. Try slashdot for that.

Anonymous said...

Because for most people Windows was 'the only choice' in the past 15 years or so it's now taken for granted that viruses, trojans, BSODs, DRM, botnets, e-mail spam, and running all programs as administrator are an expected part of the computing experience.

As opposed to compiling your own software, updating your OS to get new versions of the applications, struggling to make your hardware work, reading obsolete and cryptic HOW-TOs and FAQs, impossibility to watch media precisely because of LACK of DRM, kernel panics, rebuilding your modules after a kernel update, learning package managers that don't work anyway and cutting and pasting commands in a text terminal.

Now that's beautiful computing experience. If you are a 70's nerd, I guess.

Anonymous said...

When MS buys companies and hires people, that's stealing.

When FOSS gets OpenOffice from Sun, Eclipse and Kernel code from IBM, and the entire Netscape codebase, that's innovation.

I guess Microsoft needs to build itself cloning vats in order to play fair according to this logic.

----

A typical Linux user is always one of those:
1. A sysadmin.
2. A web developer.
3. Technical support.

Arise, IT proletariat! The revolution is at hand!

----

Grammar, etc:
That's super important. One day the future generation will use this blog's talkback as the base for literary evaluation of the 21st.

----
Linux developers are not magical bit-fairies, there's no intrinsic reason for Linux to be any better than any other OS. Since Linux doesn't have any sort of sustainable strategy, it is destined to always be far behind the curve. Linux/FOSS is inferior now, and will remain always inferior, since it'll never have the resources or the focus needed to close the widening gaps.

Linux losers are losers

Anonymous said...

eiShrink wrapped / proprietary software is a thing spawned in the 1980s, and there has been no recent major players in this game, just small companies (many more have died).

UNIX is a thing spawned in the 1970s, and, other than Apple, there haven't really been any new major players in more than a decade. I guess Unix is read, too, eh?


It's sad but true - proprietary software development is a dead industry.

Riiight. So let me get this straight, your not needing proprietary software to accomplish 99% of your computer workload, which is by any measurement absolutely trivial, is your sole basis for this? Take your head out of your ass, it doesn't start and stop at you.

OSS likes to banter about "how can you compete with free?" It's easy. Proprietary software development (motivated by the need to eat and have a roof over one's head) has the answer, and it's simple. "Easy, we'll compete with features and functionality, we'll give users what they want, in a way that's comfortable to use and actually streamlines their workflow and increases productivity, and above all, we'll give them something that actually works". It really is that easy. And here's a news flash, people will pay for something that makes their work easier.

And the fact of the matter is, most of those people have more complicated needs and workflows than you.

That music you use your FOSS player to listen to, well it doesn't just fall out of the sky, people compose and record it; it needs to be digitized, and mastered, and I can guarantee you that 99.991% of the time it's being done on Cubase or Nuendo (Steinberg), rather than Audacity, Ardour or Jokosher.

Those movies you watch on your FOSS player, I can guarantee you that 99.991% of the time they're composited in Premiere Pro or After Effects (Adobe) or Final Cut Pro (Apple, believe it or not, even in iMovie, which a number of scenes in 300 and The Fountain were arranged in) rather than Kino or whatever else is out there these days. (yes, yes, cinepaint is used on movies, too).

Those CG effects, I can guarantee you are done in Maya rather than blender 99% of the time.

Those video games? XSI and Max.

Magazines, billboards and anything you see in print? I can guaran-damn-tee you, based on 10 years in the print industry are done with Photoshop and Illustrator/Corel Draw/InDesign/QuarkXpress rather than gimp, or krita or inkscape or scribus.


But obviously, you're absolutely right, proprietary software is in its death throes solely on the basis that a lone insignificant freetard without even the slightest ability to fathom how the real world operates is content completing his trivial workflow with free software.

I've always wondered, all this talk freetard do about freedom and boycotting proprietary vendors, etc. Shouldn't they also be boycotting all mass-media created with non-free tools in a non-free way?

one aspect of open source you haven't wrapped your head around is that anyone can crank up their own project, and that once out there, code stays out there, so there will always be more, and more, and more, and more. (get the pattern)

Less is often more (second rule of design). Quantity is worthless when the quality isn't there. Users don't care much for the fact that there are eleventy billion text editors, media players or browsers. They only want or need one that works.

Free software makes tthe misguided assumption that everyone is a programmer and everyone else ought to be one, humorously enough, FOSS depends on that being true to actually work as intended. In practice, however non-developers don't give two shits about source code and just want something that does what they need. As Jon Blow said, every hour he's off trying to get shit to work is an hour he's not working on his game; so too, every hour I spent on fidling with source code is an hour away from my synths and canvas. Every hour spent fiddling with source is an hour spent NOT DOING WHAT YOU SAT IN FRONT OF THE COMP TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. (get the pattern?).

Quality always trumps quantity.

Anonymous said...

What better environment could there be for a free, high quality, open source operating system to flourish than the environment we have now?

FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, Darwin?

Anonymous said...

As a developer, I can tell you this:
I don't want the source code. I don't care about other people source.
I want good, stable, well performing libraries, with ample documentation and examples, that won't break their API tomorrow without really REALLY good reason, and not because some kid decided it was better.

Source code is nice-to-have, if and when I encounter a problem I cannot work around.

If having the source code is supposed to be a replacement for documentation and examples, than fuck off. You're wasting both my time and patience.

Bob said...

That, at least in combination with OEM liscensing, proprietary standards extensions, vendor lock-in, anti-competitive business practices is pretty much how it happened. But yes, showing up while big Unix vendors were fighting and litigating amongst themselves was pretty big part of it.

I'd say the combination of an easy to use, simple operating system when all there was at the time was big iron UNIX, on relatively cheap comodity hardware (when all there was was big iron Unix on mainframes) had a lot more to do with it than anyone in the Linux camp is willing to acknowledge.

Big Unix, would have never been able to put a computer in every other household the way Microsoft did. It was too expensive and too complicated. (Hint: There's a reason Microsoft got out of the UNIX business. What, nobody remembers XENIX?).

The OEM deals were IBM's mistake, not Microsoft's illegal maneuver, get over it already.

The vendor lock-in, proprietary extension (which their competition was every bit as guilty of, and everyone knows it) and the anti-competative behaviour isn't what _got_ them to the top, it's what _KEPT_ them at the top. And that's a very important distinction to make.

As for showing up when the big UNIX vendors were litigating each other into oblivion? Again, Microsoft didn't just happen to show up at that moment out of nowhere. They were responsible for XENIX, and long ago (1979) they realized the potential of the 08086. They were the first to port UNIX to 16-bit microprocessors, and because of this, XENIX had the largest install-base of all Unixes even back in 1980. Funny thing is, even then, MS didn't sell directly to end users, and took the OEM approach instead.

It's pretty funny in hindsight, OS/2 killed Xenix, and DOS/Win 3.x killed OS/2, but even back then, Microsoft was already working on NT. They saw an opportunity and they took it, but more importantly, they spotted that opportunity due to having had the foresight to see the potential in the low-cost x86 arch, and they had the opportunity to take advantage because they already were the dominant player in the OS market to begin with (think about it, the most dominant Unix vendor pulled out of the Unix market and went on to not only put a computer in every other household, but also take 91% of the market in the process!).

People like to forget that MS didn't start off as the evil empire. In fact, they didn't become evil until they supplanted IBM, the original Evil Empire (tm).


Revisionist history is wonderfull isn't it? Or at the very least it is until someone calls you out on it.

Bob said...

Worth adding to the above is that IBM's deal with MS, as well as their decision to allow IBM clones is what allowed Microsoft and Intel to push each other to market dominance.

Intel had been OEM'ing with Microsoft since the early '80s with XENIX. Which is also something people like to forget.

Anonymous said...

"I think he makes one amazing point, that couldn't be more true: the Linux development toolchain has been in stagnation for like 15 years. People still use that same old gcc, gdp, make, etc they've been using back in 1992."

can you define "stagnation"?


Can you actually read the whole discussion? They go into great detail on the matter, and many people end up in agreement with J.Blow on the matter. A choice quote:

"Have you ever seen PIX? Have you seen D3D’s debug modes? Have you seen someone step into a vertex shader in Visual Studio? These things stomp on the Linux environment’s face, with steel-toed boots, that are covered in spikes everywhere, where those spikes are made of depleted uranium."

Anonymous said...

Abso-fucking-lutely amazing.
The fosstard declared war on Microsoft, using the same technology MS abandoned more than 20 years ago!

It's liking using muskets against tanks.

Anonymous said...

Yawn, call me when Windows has basic functionality like virtual desktops. Windows Vista is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Ring ring.
a) XP power toys.

b) in practice virtual desktops aren't necessary when it's so trivial to set up multiple physical desktops.

c) I <3 my 3200x1200 dual-display setup.

d) virtual desktops are a sort of kludgy replacement for multiple monitors. Nobody can deny that setting up a multi-diplay environment is outright painful in Linux. (I set up a 4800 x 1200 triple-display on one of my old Linux workstations some years back. Awesome, but entirely too painful a process. Ended up turning VDs off afterwards, though)

e) VDs are implemented on Window Manager level, not on an OS level, so if you want to get technical, Linux doesn't have VDs either, per say.

e) That being said, try any of the replacement shells for Windows, they've had VD support since the 9x days. What, you didn't know you can replace the WM on Windows and that there as many to choose from as there are on *nix?


This website pretty much validates that idea that Linux is powerful and will take over the market. Otherwise it wouldn't be filled with hundreds or thousands of unemployed .NET developers talking shit over and over and over and over... If Linux sucked, there would be no LinuxHater.

You still haven't figured out that most of us here have either gone through the whole Linux thing before, and some of us even have to use it for work?

There's an old adage, and it's been true since the 1980s: The people who love Unix most, are also its biggest haters.

I'm a self-employed graphic designer who composes music on the side, just so you know. No .NET for me.

Fact is if Linux didn't suck, it wouldn't be so frustrating to work with.

No, Linux is great software. A marvel of modern engineering.

Modern? The monolithic kernel has been outdated since the late '80s/early '90s. Further, almost everything in it is a kludged-up re-implementation of something implemented elsewhere originally.

The kernel is essentially a knockoff of Minix, minus all the fun stuff that made Minix special (e.g. microkernel archetecture), and the GNU userland is a knockoff of the traditional Unix userland from the '80s.
Yes, it really is, that's what the acronym stands for.

You want a marvel of computer engineering? Take a look an QNX, Solaris on Sparc, Plan9 and the up-and-coming Singularity from Microsoft.

LinuxHater exists not because Linux sucks, but because Linux kicks ass. So he and his band of scared shitless and worthless developers who's jobs will be outsourced to India anyway will futilely talk shit on and on.

Right. Call me when Linux breaks the single (whole) digit mark in market share, will you? Also, wake me up when Linux offers stable APIs and ABIs, stable interfaces and subsystems, a standardized base system, graphics and sound API, so that developers actually give a shit about it.

There wouldn't be a Linux Hater if it wasn't such a nightmare to work with and develop for. I'm not even a developer by trade, and I cringe at the thought!

Do you honestly believe that anyone is opposed to Linux one day becoming what it can be? It just isn't now, and it won't be for a long time, until the above mentioned problems are fixed.

Talking shit about Linux is like trying to argue George Bush is smart, you'll never convince anyone, except already stupid and biased people. Good job.

That is by far, the stupidest analogy I've ever seen. Good job.

News flash: 91% of computers run Windows. 8% are macs. Where does that leave Linux?

slightly ahead of win98 and NT4, that's where.

Linux is the most advanced operating system kernel in the world in terms of scalability and features. Nothing is even in the league or worthy of a comparison. Don't hate.

Do I really need to go into the AIX and Solaris discussion, AGAIN?

Ugh... So be it.

As for the unstable kernel driver interfaces... lets say I rest my case. I won't defend the mess that has become of the Linux *kernel*. However, despite the internal development problems the Linux kernel is still superior to any other Unix kernel in terms of enterprise features, performance, and hardware support

How it compares to other Unix kernels is of no importance in regard to the mess of an API. This is both irrelevant and misguided, I'll bite, all the same.

The only area in which Linux is a clear winner as compared to other Unix and Unix-like kernels is device support, and that is only insofar as quantity is concerned, not quality.

The largest reason it "supports" more devices than the others, is because it's the only one that aims to do so, the other (proprietary) Unices tend to be designed to run on specific hardware, usually due to being half of a hardware/software package.

And the free Unices tend to be designed for specific tasks, rather than general purpose (so trying to support everything under the sun isn't a priority). Or in some cases are primarily a proof of concept (See Minix and microkernels).

The biggest appeal to Linux on the enterprise is the cost and that it runs on commodity hardware (which again, comes down to an issue of cost). That's fine in the low/middle/low-high end.

The high end, big iron and ultra-high end. however, are a completely different ballgame. These markets are dominated by Sun and IBM for the simple reason that Linux can't even begin to compete with Solaris and AIX in terms of performance, reliability and raw power on the ultra high end hardware.

You'll note that although both companies support and ship Linux on the low, middle and low-high ends (and are in fact, two of Linux's biggest (if not the biggest) corporate contributors to Linux and to FOSS in general), they won't even consider considering suggesting it on the highest end markets. Linux is certainly good enough on the backend in many cases, but there are situations where "good enough" just isn't good enough. That's where high-grade Unix made to run on high-grade hardware comes it.

You talk of more support for enterprise features and whatnot, but I have yet to see anything like DTrace, ZFS, 10+ year support cycles (LTS, my ass!), binary compatibility with itself, predictive self-healing, optimizations to run on hardware built not only for the OS running on it, but for specific tasks, hardware-level optimizations virtualization and I don't mean intel hypervisors, I mean stuff like the Rock/II and Niagara/II, etc SPARC CPUs (while Linux can run on Sparc, it does not take advantage of the hardware-level features, and even where is does, or tries to, nowhere near as effectively as Solaris does), and much more.

Even the things that Linux is just starting to support or have Solutions for, Solaris has had for a decade, and in a much more refined, mature, reliable, complete and robust form.

How about device management of AIX's caliber, or SMIT, system-level disk and fs managent, hardware-level grid computing and compartmentalization (as in running a full instance of AIX (or Solaris) which looks and acts like a distinct computer, on 1/10th of a CPU, taking advantage of the hardware-level features of the POWER5/6 that Linux can't even run on natively (PPC-Linux will run on Power, since PPC is a stripped-down version of POWER, with a much, much smaller instruction set, and only a handful of the hardware-level features), support for Blade servers, and the ridiculous scalability of AIX and Solaris.

And when I say scalability in the context of the enterprise, I don't mean supercomputers, so can it. I know you're thinking it, and it's completely irrelevant to the context.

You'd be insane to think commodity x86 hardware can compete with POWER or SPARC in terms of features, reliability, performance, robustness and scalability. You'd be insane to waste a POWER6 or a Niagara II on Linux. And you'd be horribly misguided to believe that Linux is anywhere near as scalable, robust, mature, reliable or performant as AIX or Solaris on this level.

Jebus, I've been in server rooms where the Sparc servers have seniority over 98% of the staff. Hell, I've seen SPARC servers still in operation older than Linux! What's that tell you about reliability?

Linux's broad hardware support is great when you're building servers out of commodity parts, or in regard to that server running out of your closet. But don't kid yourself it's not AIX, it's not Solaris, It's not HP-UX, DEC-UNIX, Tru64 or even IRIX for that matter.

Even in the HPC sector (which linux people love to mention). It's clearly shown that AIX and Solaris scale up to the HPC level. Hell, even OS X and Windows HPC/Cluster edition scale up to the HP level.


The rankings are purely based on gigaflops, which is based purely on the amount of processors you can shove into a cluster. It's just a lot cheaper to toss in more commodity x86/ppc cpus than it is to toss in UltraSparcs, or POWERs or Crays.

At that volume of cpus, it's no longer an issue of scalability, but of cost.

Outside of HPC, does Linux support hundreds of LOCAL CPUs? (as in not on a single board, not clustered) Because Solaris and AIX do.

Anonymous said...

To the above quote about AIX and Solaris: Fucking owned. Brilliant dude.

One day, Stallman's followers will turn on him, in one big epiphany, and lynch him. Glory day!

Anonymous said...

Linux is competing with Xenix, Os/2, Amiga, Atari 2600, and the all mighty Gameboy.

It's a toy, there's no need to take it seriously.

Anonymous said...

Linux exists due to unemployment in the software industry. There is not other explanation for such crap to be developed.

Anonymous said...

Linux is competing with Xenix, Os/2, Amiga, Atari 2600, and the all mighty Gameboy.

Compared at the time of development, Linux does not compete with the Amiga. The Amiga is still just more usable.

ADiversion said...

I don't know why you are baiting them tryagainfool.

It's fun. I actually saw a post was deleted, and you truly have to wonder how bad that one had to be given lots of the rhetoric.

In terms of caring, as I said, nothing any of us say is of any consequence, but maybe for many it is simply cathartic. Peace.

Anonymous said...

How can you say the unique methodology for Net Applications is not to simply filter non North American IPs from stats, inflating MS share?

Why would they do that? They don’t get their money from MS,


Thank you, an actual reasoned response. I don't know anything about their methodology. Repeated attempts to get any information go unanswered. What I have learned is the opt-in network tools run on IIS and I haven't been able to find any confirmation or denial that the reporting tools run on any other platform. If anyone here knows any site in the opt in network running non Windows, post a link.

Again, nice to see a reasoned response, especially here. :D

Anonymous said...

It's sad but true - proprietary software development is a dead industry.

Riiight. So let me get this straight, your not needing proprietary software to accomplish 99% of your computer workload, which is by any measurement absolutely trivial, is your sole basis for this?


I think you two were arguing different things. Shrink wrapped and discrete sales are certainly on the way out, however, they are being replaced (and Intuit, MS, IBM, Google, even games) with subscription based. Both proprietary code and Open Source code. MS just announced that their new OS will offer online hooks to web based functions on a subscription basis.

Then entire industry is moving towards non shrink wrapped and instead, more and more income will come based on providing a service. It will take time, but for all companies, that is the trend.

Anonymous said...

It's kinda of funny how these Wintards manage write these 10 page passionate persuasive essays in response to some relatively small thing I wrote. Shouldn't you guys be doing "real world" things? Isn't that what Wintards do?

Sorry, ironically, my real world duties means I don't have the time to read all that shit you all just posted in response to me. Next time try to keep responses at a manageable level. As you guys keep saying: "quality is better then quantity". Kapeesh?

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't you guys be doing "real world" things? Isn't that what Wintards do?

We have leasure time because we don't need to refuckingcompile a kernel every time we add to a new device, luser. Our computing tools free us from the shackles of labor-intensive OSes like Linux.

Anonymous said...

[B]Our computing tools free us from the shackles of labor-intensive OSes like Linux.[/B]

And now back to our regularly scheduled virus scan...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 346   Newer› Newest»