Miscellaneous > The Lounge
trolled at Windows BBS
Zombie9920:
Yeah. Linux is great for a server. You install it, configure everything and let it run down in a basement, in a closet, etc. where nobody has to see it or use it.
But then again, I wonder if Linux is as great as some people praise it to be for a server. Why? Example...Neowin.net runs on Redhat Linux w/Apache. The site is always plauged by speed issues, connection issues, database corruption, etc. The site is down for matainence as we speak(it has been down since yesterday). It was down for almost a week a couple of months ago. It will go down again soon after they get it back up. And you get my point.
I think a server that has over a million hits per day should be running the tried and true Unix or BSD. Unix/BSD is proven to be an excellent server environment that can withstand abuse(eg. lots of people connecting at 1 time, lots of bandwidth being used 24/7, etc). I think I would rather use MacOS X(a user-friendly Unix...as user friendly as Windows for that matter ;P) for a server than Linux.
Microsoft.com on IIS doesn't have nearly as many problems as Neowin does. The only time Microsoft.com or any(MS owned sites) go down is when some childish asshole decides to launch a DOS attack(not really a problem anymore because MS can defend against those now) or launch a devastating worm that attacks IIS only(and is designed to ultimatley attack Microsot).
No it isn't MS's fault nor is it thier softwares' fault that childish people like to wreak havoc on mission critical systems and or regular home user's systems. Why they do it, I don't know. This world would be a better place if people would grow up. What are you trying to prove when you damage peoples' shit? Shit that people paid good money for?
Writing a virus that wipes data off of a hard drive is just a childish and vandalisitic as going and keying somebodys' car, busting out thier windshield, putting dents on the car body intentionally, putting sugar in the gas tank, popping thier tires, etc.
(EDIT)It is obvious that some of your MS haters are really childish(not all of you though). Heck, this thread was made just to brag about how the thread maker trolled a help forum. How childish is that? It is one thing to state your opinion in search of legit answers and legit opinions from different communities. It is another thing to go to a forum and post utter garbage with the intention of annoying people(especially a forum where people aren't there to chat, they are there for help because they don't know what they are doing).
(EDIT 2)Just to poke some fun at my Neowin example. I just did a Googlism on Neowin.
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Neowin&type=1
Look at how many times it says, Neowin is closed, Neowin is back up. It also says Neowin is going down. Neowin is famous for it's server issues. LoL
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Laukev7:
I do agree that OSes like FreeBSD or Solaris are more appropriate for servers than Linux. Also, Mac OS X and BeOS are much better desktop alternatives than Linux (in fact, they're better than Windows, for that matter).
And I say this after using several Linux distributions for three years. It's still a pain to install applications in Red Hat and Mandrake, even with Synaptic. Although Linux distributions have evolved, you have several hundred distributions barely compatible with each other. There are a at least a dozen of different package formats, like RPM, deb, tgz, slp, spk, elysium and many others. Often, you even have to find a package specific to a particular version of the distro. And once you installed it, you have to look for the package in the KDE or GNOME menu, if it's even there.
Also, there are dozens of different windows managers, which can themselves be configured differently from a distro to another. For example, KDE doesn't look quite the same in SuSE as in Red Hat or Mandrake, because one of them has Bluecurve and the other has something else.
I think it would be good if Linux takes the entreprise market. But I hope it never takes over the user desktop market. This should be left to Apple.
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
I do agree that OSes like FreeBSD or Solaris are more appropriate for servers than Linux. Also, Mac OS X and BeOS are much better desktop alternatives than Linux (in fact, they're better than Windows, for that matter).
And I say this after using several Linux distributions for three years. It's still a pain to install applications in Red Hat and Mandrake, even with Synaptic. Although Linux distributions have evolved, you have several hundred distributions barely compatible with each other. There are a at least a dozen of different package formats, like RPM, deb, tgz, slp, spk, elysium and many others. Often, you even have to find a package specific to a particular version of the distro. And once you installed it, you have to look for the package in the KDE or GNOME menu, if it's even there.
Also, there are dozens of different windows managers, which can themselves be configured differently from a distro to another. For example, KDE doesn't look quite the same in SuSE as in Red Hat or Mandrake, because one of them has Bluecurve and the other has something else.
I think it would be good if Linux takes the entreprise market. But I hope it never takes over the user desktop market. This should be left to Apple.
--- End quote ---
Linux just isn't streamlined. Therefore it will never be a viable desktop alternative for most of the world.
I won't slam your opinion of BeOS and MacOSX being better than windows. Quite frankly, I like BeOS. It was ashame to see Be go under. ;( I like MacOS X too. The only thing I don't like about MacOS is you have to have a Mac(made by Apple, and Apple only) to run it. I like having an open computer architecture so I can build and custom configure my system. Speaking of BeOS....I noticed when I used it that it had no trouble with winmodems(I tried Lucent and Rockwell winmodems in it). So that proves that you don't have to have Windows for a winmodem to work. So what is Linux's excuse for winmodem compatibility?
Every OS has it's place.
Windows, MacOSX, BeOS - Able to do everything that a consumer could possibly want to do with thier computer with ease of use in mind. Each of the mentioned OSes can be used for more than just home consumer purpouses. Each also has the ability to be used as an easy to setup server for businesses, enterprises, the government, etc.
DOS - Perfect for removing/modifying protected stuff from a windows system that normally can't be deleted/modified. It is good for disk partationing, fixing the MBR of your drive, formatting a drive with a system on it is good for just deleting an installation of Windows so you can install a clean, fresh copy of it. It is not for the squeamish(your average consumer) because a command line interface is intimidating for most people.
Unix/BSD/Novel - Excellent choice for mission critical systems and servers. Not got good for the average consumer because they are far from easy to use and setup. The advantage is they only need to be setup once then they can be left on for years and years without a reboot.
Linux - A bastard child. It has no real purpose in the OS world. It wants to take on the desktop orientated market, it wants to take on the server market, it wants to take it's place on mission critical systems, etc. It isn't a viable solution for any of the markets though.
It isn't easy enough for the average desktop consumer. There are so many different versions of it that it is a task in itself just to find software and drivers for your certain distro with a certain kernel build for a certain architecture. It becomes a real chore when you find what you need and the time comes to install it and get it working. :eek: It isn't reliable enough to replace Unix, BSD, Novell, etc. What can you expect out of something that has it's source viewable to the entire world? Servers and mission critical systems can't afford the downtime needed to patch a linux system(recompile the kernel w/a new kernel w/bug fixes for the previous one) then you have to update your software and hardware drivers to a new version that works with the new kernel. At least when you patch even a MS system it only costs enough downtime to reboot your system(a minute or 2). You download a pre-compiled patch, install it and reboot....thats it. None of your old software and hardware drivers get broken by the update.
Linux's only real place is on hobbyist computers. It is for people who have all the time in the world to tinker with thier computer. Nobody else wants any part of it. Even software companies who make money from selling software don't care to make software for it(don't care to fuck with it).
[ August 24, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Laukev7:
Do you still follow BeOS developments? Because there are some BeOS fans who are continuing the development of BeOS. Some programmers are making updated distributions of BeOS PE, like BeOS Max, and even new, BeOS-compatible open source OSes like OpenBeOS.
As for the Mac, it IS possible to build a Mac OS compatible PPC box, as long as your hardware is supported. If it's not supported, there are even some projects to port Linux drivers to OS X.
http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/
Just because we don't like Linux doesn't mean that open source in itself is bad. FreeBSD (which I prefer to Linux) is open source, and a very stable OS. The difference is that it's more centralised, more standardised and better organised than Linux.
For many companies, it doesn't make sense to make all their software open source (like Apple). But open source does have its advantages.
Zombie9920:
The last version of BeOS I've used was 5.1d (Dano). I've considered trying Open BeOS when it is released for download. The last time I checked there were no downloads for it.
To this day I still use BeOS 5 Professional and BeOS 5.1d Dano on my old PIII 933mhz 256MB, GeForce 2 Ultra, SBLive!, LT Winmodem box.
I would put BeOS on this box(P4 2.4c ghz O/Ced to 3.12ghz, 512MB Ram, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, SB Audigy 2) if I knew my new hardware would work with it. I like how easy it is to Dual Boot with BeOS. It doesn't take a boot loader in the MBR, it doesn't take a painful process of installing the OSes in a certain order, etc. It is so simple....it is all contained in a folder like a regular app and you boot to it with a boot disk. How conveniant is that?
It doesn't even mess with the partation at all. I love BeOS. ;P
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version