Seems that I have been Right all along..

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Tony, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Tony, Jun 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony

    JC Guest

    Tony wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Lunix for Looser.
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-u
    > nix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >
    >
    > Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >
    >
    > Lunix that is..
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > As they say, you do not have to smell shit to know that its shit..


    Well of course he is going to say that, as he is the maker of OpenBSD.
    I have never tried OpenBSD but have tried various distros of Linux and
    although it isn't really ready for mainstream users, it still remains a
    great OS.

    Maybe you should try it Roger.
    JC, Jun 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +1200, someone purporting to be Tony didst
    scrawl:

    > Lunix for Looser.
    >

    That'd be Losers, Woger. You can't even copy from something that's typed
    in front of you?

    > Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >
    >
    > Lunix that is..
    >

    Where did Theo say that? It was a QUESTION, not a statement.
    Also, Theo is an abrasive arse. A lot like you, but at least he's
    demonstrably intelligent and also responsible for a quality contribution
    to global computing. More than can be said for you.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Tony

    shannon Guest

    Tony wrote:


    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html



    If you accept that from Theo de Raadt then you will have to accept this

    http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1498222899;fp;16;fpid;0


    Do you think Microsoft is learning from the open source community?

    Unfortunately Microsoft security problems have nothing to do with Unix
    security problems. Microsoft’s security problems have to do with its Web
    client which probably has 300 to 500 vulnerabilities in it which a
    firewall will never block as they are all in http, all inside a TCP
    session and a packet filter does not help you. And when you get to some
    of the more obscure things like the way it does ActiveX and the way it
    does cookie handling and the way it does zones. These things are a
    continual trap for the company and all the security knowledge that is
    protecting us in the Unix world is useless for it. It is still going to
    be providing everyone with crap code, so if you’re going to keep on
    providing crap, then the protection technology is going to be their only
    saving grace, the only thing that is going to help. That’s what I think
    it has to do but I don’t think it is really paying attention. For
    example, its entire NX effort, the reliance on AMD64 PAE NX, is a
    mockery of what is possible because it is only protecting some parts of
    the address space so buffer overflows are still possible.
    shannon, Jun 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Tony

    Shane Guest

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +1200, Tony wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Lunix for Looser.
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >
    >
    > Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >
    >
    > Lunix that is..
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > As they say, you do not have to smell shit to know that its shit..



    so you're saying you're a *BSD man then?
    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
    Shane, Jun 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Tony

    thing Guest

    Tony wrote:
    >
    >
    > Lunix for Looser.
    >
    > http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >
    >
    > Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >
    >
    > Lunix that is..
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > As they say, you do not have to smell shit to know that its shit..
    >
    >
    >


    Woger you are a **** wit.

    This is a BSD bigot claiming Linux is rubbish.......no difference from a
    Windows bigot like you claiming Linux is worthless.....

    No I might quantify that, BSD bigots are about the worst of the entire
    lot....and throw in sour grapes as Linux took off and BSD didnt....

    Troll.......

    Your dumb opinion is worthless tripe, just because you do not have the
    capabilty to understand and use Linux does not mean others dont, because
    we do.

    regards

    Thing
    thing, Jun 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Tony

    shannon Guest

    Shane wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:40:05 +1200, Tony wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>Lunix for Looser.
    >>
    >>http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >>
    >>
    >>Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >>
    >>
    >>Lunix that is..
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>As they say, you do not have to smell shit to know that its shit..

    >
    >
    >
    > so you're saying you're a *BSD man then?


    He's saying that when his bed feels wet and squidgy he doesn't have to
    sniff it before he calls the nurse
    shannon, Jun 18, 2005
    #7
  8. On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:48:27 +1200, someone purporting to be thing didst
    scrawl:

    > Tony wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > No I might quantify that, BSD bigots are about the worst of the entire
    > lot....and throw in sour grapes as Linux took off and BSD didnt....
    >

    *SNIP*

    It's entirely unhelpful when the chief Linux bigot weighs in that Linux is
    "much better" than the BSDs in almost the same breath that he admits that
    he knows nearly nothing about the BSDs.
    At least the BSD bigots usually use both, so they know what they're
    talking about as they throw their grapes.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Tony

    thing Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > Tony wrote:
    >
    >
    >> http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > If you accept that from Theo de Raadt then you will have to accept this
    >
    > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1498222899;fp;16;fpid;0
    >
    >
    > Do you think Microsoft is learning from the open source community?


    Hard to tell, strategically possibly, down at code level no. I think MS
    have their MS way and thats it, so probably no they dont understand so
    they cant learn.

    > Unfortunately Microsoft security problems have nothing to do with Unix
    > security problems. Microsoft’s security problems have to do with its Web
    > client which probably has 300 to 500 vulnerabilities in it which a
    > firewall will never block as they are all in http, all inside a TCP
    > session and a packet filter does not help you. And when you get to some
    > of the more obscure things like the way it does ActiveX and the way it
    > does cookie handling and the way it does zones. These things are a
    > continual trap for the company and all the security knowledge that is
    > protecting us in the Unix world is useless for it. It is still going to
    > be providing everyone with crap code, so if you’re going to keep on
    > providing crap, then the protection technology is going to be their only
    > saving grace, the only thing that is going to help. That’s what I think
    > it has to do but I don’t think it is really paying attention. For
    > example, its entire NX effort, the reliance on AMD64 PAE NX, is a
    > mockery of what is possible because it is only protecting some parts of
    > the address space so buffer overflows are still possible.



    Then add in MS's perchant for tunneling other protocols over http and
    you have an even bigger nightmare. Then add in MS software usually uses
    random ports spread over a huge range and before you know it you have
    dumb users demanding you open up significant parts of the firewall
    exposing the network to buggy and insecure programs.....

    MS really has a lot to answer for, but I think there are now enough
    people/CIOs with a strategic and security insight to realise that MS has
    left them a nightmare that is almost un-fixable.

    regards

    Thing
    thing, Jun 18, 2005
    #9
  10. wogers nemesis, Jun 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Tony

    thing Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:48:27 +1200, someone purporting to be thing didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >
    >>Tony wrote:

    >
    > *SNIP*
    >
    >>No I might quantify that, BSD bigots are about the worst of the entire
    >>lot....and throw in sour grapes as Linux took off and BSD didnt....
    >>

    >
    > *SNIP*
    >
    > It's entirely unhelpful when the chief Linux bigot weighs in that Linux is
    > "much better" than the BSDs in almost the same breath that he admits that
    > he knows nearly nothing about the BSDs.
    > At least the BSD bigots usually use both, so they know what they're
    > talking about as they throw their grapes.
    >


    Actually I didnt say Linux was better and knowing anything or not about
    BSD's is not the point I was discussing.

    Most of the BSD people I have met/corresponded with are as about
    obnoxious, snotty and condescending a bunch of people I would rather not
    meet again as Woger here.....either that or I have been really unlucky
    in the ones I have come across.

    regards

    Thing
    thing, Jun 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Tony

    Chris Hope Guest

    Chris Hope, Jun 18, 2005
    #12
  13. On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:08:53 +1200, someone purporting to be thing didst
    scrawl:

    > Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > Most of the BSD people I have met/corresponded with are as about
    > obnoxious, snotty and condescending a bunch of people I would rather not
    > meet again as Woger here.....either that or I have been really unlucky
    > in the ones I have come across.
    >

    Your experience matches the experience of a lot of people who've tried
    Linux, so it's probably something about OSS in general.
    As a general rule the FreeBSD community (cannot speak to the other
    variants) is helpful and polite, but n00bs who ask FAQs may well be given
    short answers. They're called FAQs for a reason, and the reaction is no
    different to that given on many Linux lists.
    I've never seen anyone outright flamed in the FreeBSD lists I'm on, though
    some people are pointed in the direction of the Handbook - having a very
    high quality, comprehensive guide to most topics makes FAQs difficult to
    stomach. Linux hasn't the same excuse, though.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Tony

    shannon Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:48:27 +1200, someone purporting to be thing didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >
    >>Tony wrote:

    >
    > *SNIP*
    >
    >>No I might quantify that, BSD bigots are about the worst of the entire
    >>lot....and throw in sour grapes as Linux took off and BSD didnt....
    >>

    >
    > *SNIP*
    >
    > It's entirely unhelpful when the chief Linux bigot weighs in that Linux is
    > "much better" than the BSDs in almost the same breath that he admits that
    > he knows nearly nothing about the BSDs.
    > At least the BSD bigots usually use both, so they know what they're
    > talking about as they throw their grapes.
    >


    Theo de Raadt claims he has never used linux
    shannon, Jun 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Tony

    Chris Hope Guest

    Tony wrote:

    > Lunix for Looser.
    >

    http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
    >
    > Turns out its utter CRAP..
    >
    > Lunix that is..
    >
    > As they say, you do not have to smell shit to know that its shit..


    I have a question for you Roger. If Linux really is so crap, then what
    possible reason can there be for so many people using it when they
    should be using oh-so-superior Windows? There seems to be a fairly high
    percentage of people in this group alone, who use either Linux or one
    of the BSDs.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
    Chris Hope, Jun 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Tony

    AD. Guest

    shannon wrote:

    >> It's entirely unhelpful when the chief Linux bigot weighs in that
    >> Linux is
    >> "much better" than the BSDs in almost the same breath that he admits that
    >> he knows nearly nothing about the BSDs.
    >> At least the BSD bigots usually use both, so they know what they're
    >> talking about as they throw their grapes.
    >>

    >
    > Theo de Raadt claims he has never used linux


    He would've seen parts of the code though :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jun 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Tony

    Chris Hope Guest

    AD. wrote:

    > shannon wrote:
    >
    >>> It's entirely unhelpful when the chief Linux bigot weighs in that
    >>> Linux is
    >>> "much better" than the BSDs in almost the same breath that he admits
    >>> that he knows nearly nothing about the BSDs.
    >>> At least the BSD bigots usually use both, so they know what they're
    >>> talking about as they throw their grapes.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Theo de Raadt claims he has never used linux

    >
    > He would've seen parts of the code though :)


    That's the thing. He's talking about the code, not about anything else.
    And he's probably right - the BSDs proabably *are* better than Linux
    when it comes to stability, security and reliability, but there was the
    issue with the legality of it in the 90s (which he talked about in the
    article) which slowed the development of BSD for a time. So while all
    that was happening Linux took off and has now become entrenched in many
    circumstances. At the end of the day though, it's just the BSD kernels
    vs the Linux kernel because in general all the apps used on top are the
    same across the different kernels.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
    Chris Hope, Jun 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Tony

    AD. Guest

    AD., Jun 18, 2005
    #18
  19. On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:15:57 +1200, someone purporting to be Chris Hope
    didst scrawl:

    > AD. wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > circumstances. At the end of the day though, it's just the BSD kernels
    > vs the Linux kernel because in general all the apps used on top are the
    > same across the different kernels.


    And this is where you're entirely wrong. A BSD is an OS, not just a
    kernel. They're the kernel, and the base software to go with it.
    Take Linux in its purest form, and it's entirely useless to you. Take any
    of the BSDs and you have a fully-functional OS with text editors, command
    shells, a multitude of shell utilities (such as awk, grep and sed), and
    remote-access software in the form of OpenSSH.

    The BSDs are a cohesive experience, each being complete in its own right.
    Linux is the kernel, and you have to go to one of the many separate
    distros to actually get something usable - either that or you have to
    gather together all the bits necessary, and roll your own.
    Saying that it's just the kernels in competition is to ignore the "whole
    OS" paradigm that is a BSD.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Jun 18, 2005
    #19
  20. Tony

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:43:57 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > And this is where you're entirely wrong. A BSD is an OS, not just a
    > kernel. They're the kernel, and the base software to go with it.
    > Take Linux in its purest form, and it's entirely useless to you. Take any
    > of the BSDs and you have a fully-functional OS with text editors, command
    > shells, a multitude of shell utilities (such as awk, grep and sed), and
    > remote-access software in the form of OpenSSH.
    >
    > The BSDs are a cohesive experience, each being complete in its own right.
    > Linux is the kernel, and you have to go to one of the many separate
    > distros to actually get something usable - either that or you have to
    > gather together all the bits necessary, and roll your own.
    > Saying that it's just the kernels in competition is to ignore the "whole
    > OS" paradigm that is a BSD.


    Please would you elaborate further on this by saying with precision what
    parts of the BSD distros are NOT released under the GNU GPL.

    I mean, Mozilla is a part of a user's experience of FreeBSD, and it is
    GPL'd software.


    Bling Bling

    --
    IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
    collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
    create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."
    Bling-Bling, Jun 18, 2005
    #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. Guest
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,030
    Shep©
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. Phil
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,043
    Wyatt M. Portendt
    Mar 4, 2004
  3. lee houston
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    458
    lee houston
    Oct 5, 2006
  4. thing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    351
    thing
    Jul 6, 2005
  5. William Brown

    Windows SP1 Leaked << I was Right all along.

    William Brown, Feb 16, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    486
    Mgsr. Scooter
    Feb 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page