Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
Zombie9920:
(EDIT) God Damnit you wasted my time with a serious post. I should've read that you were just trolling. :rolleyes:
[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
slave:
These are very common trolls that can be found in the nero-online troll database (http://nero-online.org/troll)
Here's a troll I wrote about linux (actually it was my first post on this forum)
Dispersing the Linux Myths
One of the biggest wails heard by the most vocal and fanatical zealots in the Linux community is that Windows and most of the programs that run on it are bloated and slow, while screaming about how fast and "un-bloated" Linux is. Where this myth started I do not know, but it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics to tarnish the good name of Microsoft and Windows and to lure Linux newbies and those curious about the OS into making the fatal mistake of installing it on their computer. The fact that this alleged truth seems to go unquestioned shows how reluctant most Linux advocates are to admit that their once lightweight OS has degenerated into nothing more than piles and piles of spaghetti code and a huge mess of cheesy, mostly unused apps that is characteristic of most Linux distributions these days.
Now to dispel the myths:
Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.
This Linux Lie is often perpetrated when a newbie wants to try out Linux, but is reluctant to install it on his or her main computer (with good reason) Others replying to his question will say that it is fine to erase the hard drive of his old Pentium 166 with Windows 98 SE to prepare it for the Linux revolution, but the fact is that Linux performs horribly on slow computers in comparison to Windows. Sure, Linux may turn an older computer into a feeble server or a router, but try running things that you could run fairly quickly under Windows such as anything GUI, particularly an office app or a web browser, and Linux crawls, stutters, grinds the hard drive for 10 minutes, and generally eats up all the RAM in your poor machine's system like an obese glutton.
Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight
Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping. Many Linux purists will say that is not true, but since they choose to only use the command line or maybe blackbox or windowmaker they have no say. The very fact that they would be torturing themselves with such rubbish just goes to show that they find straining their eyes and wrists on the geeky command prompt or configuring their blackbox using text files less torturous than suffering through the unbelievably slow load times and bloated programs found in KDE and GNOME.
Myth 3.) Windows is bloated
This absurd statement is the most fictitious, and is spouted over and over again by the Linux faithful in the hopes that they will brainwash themselves into believing this most grievous of the Linux Lies. My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS. None of this speed or functionality was even remotely matched by any Linux GUI I ran on it. The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me, as I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Open Source fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 900 running Windows XP, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even vi is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" OS.
Open Source addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
(note: for the humor-impaired, this isn't a serious post, just a funny troll)
--- End quote ---
I'm not bothering to read the other posts you've made, just this one.
So you asked why someone would choose linux over faster, cheaper, more stable system.
Well for one thing, i've run linux on 486's and even 386's with 20 or so megs of ram. And I've never found it slow.
Its VERY stable and I can do almost anything I want in it. If you find your machine laging, check what x window your using.
You could use an older X Window like KDE2 or even a more light, snappy up to date one like BlackBox.
Most distros automaticaly come with differnt Xwindows as well Like IceWM/Gnome/KDE just to name a few. Also linux comes with all sorts of aplications that you do not need to 'upgrade or add!' in order to work, infact you can select the packeges you want and leave out the packages you do not need.
Like if your not into programming then leave out the GCC compiler, you don't need it. If you want you can get extra software via apt-get. Heck you can modify it to your harts content!
You can also modify the file system. ext2 and ext3 are a little slow but then you have RaiserFS which speeds things up a bit.
Because you can turn services completely off and the programs that you want are on it, there is less chance of spyware, malware or anything else creaping in.
Also Linux is more stable under DDOS attacks as well as many other kinds of attacks on the system because patches are avilable quickly and installs effortlessly onto the system. Also patches that do get applied will not break the system in anyway. So you can continue your use of the OS without any inturuption.
Also its cheap. Linux, if anything hardly evrr needs fixing, to configure anything it is very simple compared to windows and because of this its not gonna cost you $110 bucks just because you got infected with the latest worm virii and or trojen or you messed up the config files somehow!
Pluse you can download the ISO for free or pick one up for $60 bucks total! A lot of places will ship you the CD for a flat fee and shipping n' handling. Compare this to $500 bucks, another $600 bucks for the Office suite or any other programs you need on top of that and don't forget any repairs that might need to be done which might start at $100 bucks, oh and then there is the licencing!
Linux can be installed on as many machines you want!
You don't need to be an MSCE or any other shit paper cert because it has a community and there are lots of books on the subject of linux so anyone can addminister linux with confedence!
And lastly Linux is %100 original! No stolen code what so ever, SCO has alreay been discounted and prooven that FUD just doesn't cut it in this day an age!
Hay even the americans are doubting bush! and hes been liying to people for the last 4 yrs! Same goes with SCO!
But thats politics!
AND Thats a few of the reasons why this IS a superior OS!!!!!.............
[ October 10, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
hm_murdock:
quote: I'm not bothering to read the other posts you've made, just this one.
So you asked why someone would choose linux over faster, cheaper, more stable system.
Well for one thing, i've run linux on 486's and even 386's with 20 or so megs of ram. And I've never found it slow.
Its VERY stable and I can do almost anything I want in it. If you find your machine laging, check what x window your using.
You could use an older X Window like KDE2 or even a more light, snappy up to date one like BlackBox.
Most distros automaticaly come with differnt Xwindows as well Like IceWM/Gnome/KDE just to name a few. Also linux comes with all sorts of aplications that you do not need to 'upgrade or add!' in order to work, infact you can select the packeges you want and leave out the packages you do not need.
Like if your not into programming then leave out the GCC compiler, you don't need it. If you want you can get extra software via apt-get. Heck you can modify it to your harts content!
You can also modify the file system. ext2 and ext3 are a little slow but then you have RaiserFS which speeds things up a bit.
Because you can turn services completely off and the programs that you want are on it, there is less chance of spyware, malware or anything else creaping in.
Also Linux is more stable under DDOS attacks as well as many other kinds of attacks on the system because patches are avilable quickly and installs effortlessly onto the system. Also patches that do get applied will not break the system in anyway. So you can continue your use of the OS without any inturuption.
Also its cheap. Linux, if anything hardly evrr needs fixing, to configure anything it is very simple compared to windows and because of this its not gonna cost you $110 bucks just because you got infected with the latest worm virii and or trojen or you messed up the config files somehow!
Pluse you can download the ISO for free or pick one up for $60 bucks total! A lot of places will ship you the CD for a flat fee and shipping n' handling. Compare this to $500 bucks, another $600 bucks for the Office suite or any other programs you need on top of that and don't forget any repairs that might need to be done which might start at $100 bucks, oh and then there is the licencing!
Linux can be installed on as many machines you want!
You don't need to be an MSCE or any other shit paper cert because it has a community and there are lots of books on the subject of linux so anyone can addminister linux with confedence!
And lastly Linux is %100 original! No stolen code what so ever, SCO has alreay been discounted and prooven that FUD just doesn't cut it in this day an age!
Hay even the americans are doubting bush! and hes been liying to people for the last 4 yrs! Same goes with SCO!
But thats politics!
AND Thats a few of the reasons why this IS a superior OS!!!!!.............
--- End quote ---
I love how you guys present your opinions as facts. you're as bad as the trolls.
Mac OS X is superior still.
Add to all of the benefits of Linux, these things:
highly advanced PDF-based display layer, accelerated though OpenGL
NeXTStep inherited goodies, like single-icon application packages that allow drag-and-drop install/removal, NetInfo,
object-oriented programming model using the YellowBox or Cocoa APIs
backward compatibility with Mac OS 9 by installing on the same filesystem (yeah, a UNIX-core OS and a non UNIX OS coexisting on the same partition)
the most well-designed UI in the world. It has the best concepts from both the original Macintosh UI, and from NeXTStep
however... it does have several cons
price: you have to have the hardware to run it, and Mac OS X itself is $129. however, seeing as 10.3 will run on the blue G3, the cost of getting hardware for it is honestly very nominal ($375 or so?) or you could get a new eMac for less than a grand
oh... that's about it. hardware requirements seem steep, but then, when you consider that 10.2 runs on the beige G3, which was available in a 233MHz model, as well as the Wallstreet G3 PowerBook, which came in a 217MHz model, and the fact that it actually performs reasonably well, considering its nature, is quite nice. the original iMac, another 233MHz machine also will run 10.3. This is 1998 hardware. 5 years old, man.
Linux runs on hardware of the same age, but it doesn't provide the advanced features.
stop making assertions that are really opinions. you feel Linux is best... but based on actual technological advancement... it's not. it might be the best for you, but it's by no means "the best".
sorry :(
JesusRocks:
OS X is not Superior, Linux supports more software, is leeter, and I run it!
I see some good ones on /.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version