Is Linux For Losers?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by doris.gets_her_oats@yahoo.com, Apr 28, 2006.

  1. Guest

    This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    share of losers.
    I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a statement like that,
    I believe him rather than listen to the loonytoons over in
    comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a group seem to have some serious
    psychological problems.
    So is Linux for losers?

    http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    It sure seems that way.
     
    , Apr 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    What Mr de Raadt is saying is that he thinks HIS version of UNIX is
    better than the Linux version.

    He most certainly does NOT say that Windows is better than either.

    But, hey, Linux isn't for everyone.

    SOMEBODY's got to occupy the lower half of the Bell Curve.

    And those folks overwhelmingly tend to be Windows users.
     
    , Apr 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    >
    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.


    Losers, like people who can't get it installed or configured correctly?

    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.


    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:p
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
     
    Paul Hovnanian P.E., Apr 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    wrote:
    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.
    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    > Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    > this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    > When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a statement like that,
    > I believe him rather than listen to the loonytoons over in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a group seem to have some serious
    > psychological problems.
    > So is Linux for losers?
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    > It sure seems that way.


    Be very careful what you read. Is it a case of someone reading one of
    the tabloid newspapers in the UK about something and believing
    everything they read?

    Seriously, I'd recommend trying Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu. Install Linux
    and get a good stable and free operating system working pretty much
    straight 'out of the box' as they say.

    I'm new to Linux and with a little research with regard to distribution
    choice and just a small investment of your spare time to learn new
    methods, you'll soon see what I mean!

    Ian.
     
    , Apr 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    wrote:
    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.
    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    > Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    > this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    > When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a statement like that,
    > I believe him rather than listen to the loonytoons over in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a group seem to have some serious
    > psychological problems.
    > So is Linux for losers?
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    > It sure seems that way.


    Bear in mind where his interests lie too ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
     
    , Apr 28, 2006
    #5
  6. wrote:

    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >>From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.


    Maybe ....

    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.


    But then the sign of a loser is he can't make it work.

    > Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    > this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.


    Linux is about choice. That goes both ways. Linux does not want all
    (l)users.


    http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    > It sure seems that way.


    I like fiddling but there is less and less time for it. Now I use linux, at
    work as well as at home - less fiddling and more productivity as it
    matures. BSD is a good server OS, but still lacks drivers and usability for
    day-to-day desktop use, in my hindsighted view.
    I do not hate windows for the core OS part but for the "extensions" that
    nevertheless are security or privacy risks with almost no choice to dump
    them.
    --
    vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse detected penguin patterns
    on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
    incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
    Linux 2.6.14-mm1 [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
     
    Walter Mautner, Apr 28, 2006
    #6
  7. wrote:
    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.
    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back


    Nobody is happier than we are...
    don't let the door hit you on the forehead on your way out.
     
    Cyberwasteland, Apr 28, 2006
    #7
  8. 7 Guest

    Re: Is Windopes For Losers?

    wrote:

    > T


    Is windopes for luzers?
    It sure seems that way.
    They are reduced to asstroturfing on behalf of micoshaft
    to earn their pennies and then paying all their hard earned
    pennies back to micoshaft for license / but not buy/own any software.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    No wonder micoshaft just lost 11% share value in one day
    of trading. Investors are cutting their losses and running.
    Oh how the mighty clippy worshippers have fallen.
    They are useless.
     
    7, Apr 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Rex Ballard Guest

    I think the author of the article captured it very well,

    "In a sort of hacker equivalent of the Ford-versus-Chevy rivalry, BSD
    guys make fun of Linux on message boards and Web sites"

    It really is about that level.

    There are dozens of BSD variants - which is part of the problem. And
    there are dozens of Linux variants - which are at list a bit more
    compatible - there have been efforts such as LSB-3 which are intended
    to make it possible for an LSB3 application to run on an LSB3
    compatible operating system. There are about 10 distributions which
    are LSB3 compatible.

    If I could take a Solaris program and run it on a Mac, or take a Mac
    program and run it on FreeBSD, I'd start to get excited. The problem
    is that BSD has a bad a problem of various vendors adding proprietary
    extensions which really mess up compatibility.

    There have been a number of efforts to standardize UNIX as well,
    including binary standards. It's often hard to get applications to
    even COMPILE FROM SOURCE code from one application to another. On the
    other hand, an application written for Linux can be compiled using GCC
    compilers with glibc libraries.

    Microsoft would love to see the BSD vendors beat the daylights out of
    each other with all of their little quirks, which is how they kept Unix
    out of the desktop market on repeated occaisions. Microsoft was able
    to stop SCO, AT&T, Sun, Interactive, Novell, and SCO (again) from
    putting Linux.
     
    Rex Ballard, Apr 28, 2006
    #9
  10. eXelstar Guest

    wrote:

    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > > From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's
    > > fair

    > share of losers.
    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    > Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    > this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    > When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a statement like
    > that, I believe him rather than listen to the loonytoons over in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a group seem to have some serious
    > psychological problems.
    > So is Linux for losers?
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-u
    > nix-cz_dl_0616theo.html It sure seems that way.




    --
    iooioi
     
    eXelstar, Apr 28, 2006
    #10
  11. flatfish+++ Guest

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:53:01 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

    > wrote:
    >>
    >> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >> >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    >> share of losers.

    >
    > Losers, like people who can't get it installed or configured correctly?
    >
    >> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    >> futzing with Linux to try and make it work.


    From the article:::

    NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement
    and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source
    Linux operating system.

    "It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't
    realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and
    add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we
    should fix it.'"


    Somehow I have to doubt that Mr. de Raadt has problems installing Linux.


    --
    flatfish+++
    "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
     
    flatfish+++, Apr 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Tony Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >>From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair

    > share of losers.
    > I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    > Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because according to
    > this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    > When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a statement like that,
    > I believe him rather than listen to the loonytoons over in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a group seem to have some serious
    > psychological problems.
    > So is Linux for losers?
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    > It sure seems that way.
    >


    It is so sad to see a mighty organisation like Microsoft stoop so low to try
    and discredit the opposition by making anonymous posts like this :)
     
    Tony, Apr 29, 2006
    #12
  13. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
    <>
    wrote
    on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:01:46 -0500
    <>:
    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:53:01 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >>> >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair
    >>> share of losers.

    >>
    >> Losers, like people who can't get it installed or configured correctly?
    >>
    >>> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    >>> futzing with Linux to try and make it work.

    >
    > From the article:::
    >
    > NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement
    > and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source
    > Linux operating system.
    >
    > "It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't
    > realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and
    > add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we
    > should fix it.'"
    >
    >
    > Somehow I have to doubt that Mr. de Raadt has problems installing Linux.
    >


    I'll admit to wondering what his comparison criteria are.
    He is apparently in charge of OpenBSD, and I know that
    FreeBSD has a far better build system than most Linux
    distributions.

    Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with GUI;
    the FreeBSD kernel is, AFAIK, as stupid as the Linux
    kernel when it comes to existing on a system with nothing
    else installed.

    The code in /usr/src/linux/init/main.c is quite clear, near the bottom:

    free_initmem();
    unlock_kernel();
    system_state = SYSTEM_RUNNING;

    [Obviously, there's meaning ascribed to this global.]

    numa_default_policy();

    [This refers to NUMA. I'd have to dig for the details.]

    if (sys_open((const char __user *) "/dev/console", O_RDWR, 0) <
    0)
    printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: unable to open an initial
    console.\n");

    [Pseudodevice major 5, minor 1. I don't know how this would be set up
    for a video-less installation but presumably it's a pseudodevice
    anyway, whose output shows up in /dev/tty1, /dev/tty, or /dev/ttyS0.]

    (void) sys_dup(0);
    (void) sys_dup(0);

    [Standard output and error for the first process. There's a
    code factorization issue here, possibly.]

    if (ramdisk_execute_command) {
    run_init_process(ramdisk_execute_command);
    printk(KERN_WARNING "Failed to execute %s\n",
    ramdisk_execute_command);
    }

    [ramdisk_execute_command is the value of the rdinit= parameter.
    This could be clearer, though I could probably dig for __setup()
    if I had to. Note the ANSI string concatenation.]

    /*
    * We try each of these until one succeeds.
    *
    * The Bourne shell can be used instead of init if we are
    * trying to recover a really broken machine.
    */
    if (execute_command) {
    run_init_process(execute_command);
    printk(KERN_WARNING "Failed to execute %s. Attempting "
    "defaults...\n",
    execute_command);
    }

    [execute_command is the init= parameter. Both of these have now failed,
    so the kernel will attempt the following defaults.]

    run_init_process("/sbin/init");
    run_init_process("/etc/init");
    run_init_process("/bin/init");
    run_init_process("/bin/sh");

    [At this point the kernel gives up and goes foom.]

    panic("No init found. Try passing init= option to kernel.");

    So...envision the following. A Linux kernel on a system, maybe with a
    bootloader just for giggles. It boots...and immediately panics. Either
    /dev/console is completely missing, or it can't find any of /sbin/init,
    /etc/init, /bin/init, or /bin/sh, and hangs the system with a message.

    I don't have a copy of the FreeBSD kernel handy but suspect vaguely
    similar behavior.

    Perhaps Mr. de Raatt can clarify his criticisms? At least he
    could have mentioned "Splunge!". (This in
    /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aha1542.c, line 428, and
    /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/psi240i.c, line 268.)

    This sort of message would pop out at anyone scanning the kernel for
    printk() or panic() calls. What it means, I don't know. Why we
    should care, I'm not certain beyond the vaguity of the message if a
    user or sysadmin ever were to get it.

    Or perhaps he's more concerned with the GUI? If so, his comments should
    concern the KDE or Gnome teams. I for one find this article less than
    clear, and in part agree with Torvalds, who finds de Raadt "difficult".
    :)

    --
    #191,
    Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
     
    The Ghost In The Machine, Apr 29, 2006
    #13
  14. flatfish+++ wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:53:01 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >
    > > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    > >> >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more than it's fair
    > >> share of losers.

    > >
    > > Losers, like people who can't get it installed or configured correctly?
    > >
    > >> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    > >> futzing with Linux to try and make it work.

    >
    > From the article:::
    >
    > NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement
    > and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source
    > Linux operating system.


    Theo de Raadt wasn't the one complaining about installing Linux. Someone
    named Doris was.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:p
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
     
    Paul Hovnanian P.E., Apr 29, 2006
    #14
  15. thanatoid Guest

    wrote in
    news::

    >
    > wrote:
    >> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >> >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more
    >> >than it's fair

    >> share of losers.
    >> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three
    >> days of futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    >> Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because
    >> according to this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    >> When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a
    >> statement like that, I believe him rather than listen to
    >> the loonytoons over in comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a
    >> group seem to have some serious psychological problems.
    >> So is Linux for losers?
    >>
    >> http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/
    >> linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html It sure seems that way.

    >
    > Bear in mind where his interests lie too ...
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
    >


    I just read both articles, and found them quite interesting.
    Theo looks a little weird in the photo, but I admire his honesty
    and strong opinions. I CERTAINLY see no problems with where his
    interests lie.

    I don't know much about BSD or Linux, except that I have found
    Linux users extremely arrogant and tiresome. BSD users may be
    similar, I don't know.

    (What I find strange is that neither Mr. Torvald or any of the
    BSD or latest Mac OS authors have gotten in any trouble for
    basically rewriting Unix. It wasn't "open source" or anything,
    was it? If someone has a simple explanation ("you fucking idiot
    troll" is not one, BTW), I would love to read it.)

    A lot of Windows users >are< stupid, the perfect example being
    waiting in line for 7 hours until midnight when the new version
    (which will fix everything wrong with the universe) goes on
    sale, a year late, and buggy as hell, to put it mildly.

    But what seems >really< funny to me is how EVERYONE, regardless
    of their choice of OS, thinks the latest version or patches to
    the OS will fix all their problems, and create none. Even though
    they are proven wrong EVERY single time.

    Apparently (this is not the first time I have mentioned this) I
    am the ONLY person in the world who is perfectly satisfied with
    using 95B and 98 SE Lite (with NO Microsoft software installed
    except for the OS's, and lots of 3rd party tweaks and utilities
    to make them manageable).
    Most people know a 1966 Mustang is better than a 1995 Mustang,
    but no one will touch an older OS. I really don't get it (yes, I
    KNOW I am a moron troll, thank you).

    I hate quite a few things about M$, but IMO learning an entire
    new OS from scratch just so you don't have to use Windows -
    especially if you're not that young and smart anymore - when a
    well-set up Windows 98 SE will do everything you really need,
    seems a silly waste of time.
    It's like getting you car waxed every 2 weeks. I NEVER wash my
    11-year old car (except for the glass parts), have stopped
    fixing dents in it several years ago, and it still runs better
    than most of my friends' brand new cars.

    And when I see version 15 of a program (just saw OmniPage 15 the
    other day) I can't help laughing out loud.

    Long live consumerism!

    final thanatoid note:
    BTW, y'all really should read a little more carefully. Theo DID
    NOT say "Is Linux For Losers?"

    Daniel Lyons, the author of the article, or VERY possibly his
    editor, came up with that title.

    AFAIAC, all computers are for losers - whatever that word REALLY
    means. And I am definitely one, and have never pretended
    otherwise.

    --

    thanatoid-Tip® #10
    If labeling people you don't like or agree with "trolls" solved
    all the world's problems, suicide might not even be necessary.
     
    thanatoid, Apr 29, 2006
    #15
  16. TheLetterK Guest

    thanatoid wrote:
    > wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.
    >>> >From what I have seen, Linux sure seems to attract more
    >>>> than it's fair
    >>> share of losers.
    >>> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three
    >>> days of futzing with Linux to try and make it work.
    >>> Maybe it's a good thing I didn't get it working because
    >>> according to this guy,Theo de Raadt, Linux is for losers.
    >>> When a pioneer of the Open Source movement makes a
    >>> statement like that, I believe him rather than listen to
    >>> the loonytoons over in comp.os.linux.advocacy who as a
    >>> group seem to have some serious psychological problems.
    >>> So is Linux for losers?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/
    >>> linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html It sure seems that way.

    >> Bear in mind where his interests lie too ...
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
    >>

    >
    > I just read both articles, and found them quite interesting.
    > Theo looks a little weird in the photo, but I admire his honesty
    > and strong opinions. I CERTAINLY see no problems with where his
    > interests lie.


    Uhh, he's the founder of OpenBSD (and project leader IIRC). You don't
    see a conflict of interest there?

    >
    > I don't know much about BSD or Linux, except that I have found
    > Linux users extremely arrogant and tiresome. BSD users may be
    > similar, I don't know.


    There are a small group of arrogant users on all platforms--Linux is no
    different.

    >
    > (What I find strange is that neither Mr. Torvald or any of the
    > BSD or latest Mac OS authors have gotten in any trouble for
    > basically rewriting Unix. It wasn't "open source" or anything,
    > was it? If someone has a simple explanation ("you fucking idiot
    > troll" is not one, BTW), I would love to read it.)


    There are a few inaccuracies and misconceptions there. For one thing,
    GNU/Linux and real Unixes are *very* different beasts. GNU/Linux isn't a
    'rewrite' of Unix, it's an operating system designed to be similar to
    Unix. There's a difference there, and it becomes very important in legal
    battles (GNU/Linux was developed independent of any Unix code, thus
    there could be no infringement). Secondly, there have been several
    battles over this (including the recent SCO vs. Open Source debacle, as
    well as the AT&T vs. BSD case). Each and every time this is brought up,
    the open source project is shown not to contain infringing code.

    Essentially, it would only be a violation of Unix IP if it was a direct
    copy of Unix code. If new code is written that operates in a similar
    manner, it's perfectly non infringing.

    >
    > A lot of Windows users >are< stupid, the perfect example being
    > waiting in line for 7 hours until midnight when the new version
    > (which will fix everything wrong with the universe) goes on
    > sale, a year late, and buggy as hell, to put it mildly.
    >
    > But what seems >really< funny to me is how EVERYONE, regardless
    > of their choice of OS, thinks the latest version or patches to
    > the OS will fix all their problems, and create none. Even though
    > they are proven wrong EVERY single time.


    OSS patches generally don't cause as much trouble, and the fixes for
    them usually work. Microsoft *is* unusually bad about this, though that
    may well be due to the immense number of different systems it runs on
    (which is a bed of Microsoft's own making, so you'll find no sympathy here).

    >
    > Apparently (this is not the first time I have mentioned this) I
    > am the ONLY person in the world who is perfectly satisfied with
    > using 95B and 98 SE Lite (with NO Microsoft software installed
    > except for the OS's, and lots of 3rd party tweaks and utilities
    > to make them manageable).
    > Most people know a 1966 Mustang is better than a 1995 Mustang,
    > but no one will touch an older OS. I really don't get it (yes, I
    > KNOW I am a moron troll, thank you).


    I was using Windows 2000 up until last summer, on the Windows partition
    (this is the only Windows box I've got, and it dual-boots).

    >
    > I hate quite a few things about M$, but IMO learning an entire
    > new OS from scratch just so you don't have to use Windows -
    > especially if you're not that young and smart anymore - when a
    > well-set up Windows 98 SE will do everything you really need,
    > seems a silly waste of time.


    Suit yourself. But don't expect that decision to make sense for many
    other people.

    > It's like getting you car waxed every 2 weeks. I NEVER wash my
    > 11-year old car (except for the glass parts), have stopped
    > fixing dents in it several years ago, and it still runs better
    > than most of my friends' brand new cars.


    Not at all. There are valid reasons to upgrade to new versions of an
    operating system--performance improvements, security improvements, new
    features, good user interface changes, software support, etc.

    >
    > And when I see version 15 of a program (just saw OmniPage 15 the
    > other day) I can't help laughing out loud.


    Why?

    >
    > Long live consumerism!


    It's not consumerism when the product is free.

    >
    > final thanatoid note:
    > BTW, y'all really should read a little more carefully. Theo DID
    > NOT say "Is Linux For Losers?"
    >
    > Daniel Lyons, the author of the article, or VERY possibly his
    > editor, came up with that title.
    >
    > AFAIAC, all computers are for losers - whatever that word REALLY
    > means. And I am definitely one, and have never pretended
    > otherwise.
    >



    --
    "There is nothing I understand." - Shit
     
    TheLetterK, Apr 29, 2006
    #16
  17. asj Guest

    Thanatoid wrote:
    > Most people know a 1966 Mustang is better than a 1995 Mustang,
    > but no one will touch an older OS. I really don't get it (yes, I
    > KNOW I am a moron troll, thank you).


    you might have missed the fact that A COMPUTER IS NOT A CAR.
     
    asj, Apr 29, 2006
    #17
  18. asj Guest

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    > If I could take a Solaris program and run it on a Mac, or take a Mac
    > program and run it on FreeBSD, I'd start to get excited.


    It's called Java.
     
    asj, Apr 29, 2006
    #18
  19. [H]omer Guest

    PKaul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> This guy Theo de Raadt seems to think so.


    Original article - http://tinyurl.com/8ofba (forbes.com)

    To make it clear; the question "Is Linux For Losers" is Daniel Lyons'
    (Forbes' Senior Editor) phrasing, *not* de Raadt's.

    However, having read the article, I think de Raadt's comments are rather
    childish and unprofessional, and would not exactly inspire confidence in
    OpenBSD as a serious platform. He is in a position of responsibility,
    therefore I think he should speak more diplomatically, but comments such
    as his suggests desperation, more than anything else.

    He criticizes IBM, and others, for supporting Linux over *BSD, yet he
    fails to suggest that this may be because of licensing issues, which in
    turn have also affected end-user adoption, which again affects its
    popularity with vendors. IMHO it is the license that has created this
    vicious circle, and his comments WRT Linux about "cheap little hacks"
    and "This is garbage" are not going to help his cause.

    He also criticizes the Linux development model, but his comments are
    utter hypocrisy, since the only difference between this and the OpenBSD
    model is in numbers. Perhaps if OpenBSD had the "thousands of coders"
    that Linux has, he's have no complaints.

    Of course the overall tone of the piece is set by Lyons, who constantly
    embellishes de Raadt's comments with his own (seemingly) bigoted
    commentary. I haven't heard the "no girlfriends" argument being used
    since back in the days of the Amiga. Then again, it could be that Lyons
    is just humouring him; he certainly doesn't seem to be taking the issue
    seriously, and frankly ... neither do I.

    >> I'm just happy to have my Windows system back after three days of
    >> futzing with Linux to try and make it work.


    I'm just happy that I have finally finished "futzing" with my
    neighbour's XP box, that gets so badly (and regularly) b0rked that
    it requires the mandatory Microsoft "Wipe 'n' Re-install"® solution
    every other month.

    -
    K.
     
    [H]omer, Apr 29, 2006
    #19
  20. Cujo Guest

    wrote:

    > SOMEBODY's got to occupy the lower half of the Bell Curve.


    ;))))))))))))))))))))

    regards, f.
     
    Cujo, Apr 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kpg

    OT: Superbowl Losers

    kpg, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    518
  2. Mr Floppy

    Re: MJ is a victim of blood-sucking losers

    Mr Floppy, Mar 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    913
    Mr Floppy
    Apr 1, 2005
  3. john

    Losers

    john, Dec 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    835
    Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
    Dec 15, 2005
  4. Frosty

    For all the Linux losers

    Frosty, Aug 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    494
    Rectum Burn
    Aug 21, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    963
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page