Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: Kintaro on 20 August 2008, 16:59
-
One sure thing that a luser will say to you when you criticize his shitty operating system goes something along the lines of "but at least I don't get any viruses."
Good for you dude. I don't get any viruses from your mom either. I'm protected. So please cease and desist your blabbering. Are you trying to convice me that not getting any viruses is a symbol of high quality of your choice of software? The fact that you're attributing that characteristic to Linux has already earned you a spot on my hate list.
Besides, I can make my computer immune to viruses. Just watch. Pop! Did you see that? I unplugged my network cable.
The luser wretches, "Oh but that makes your computer useless!" Yeah, well so does putting Linux on it. What's your point?
The truth is, an OS's low virus infection rate in and of itself means jack shit. I can write the code for 10 OS's that don't get viruses for you in 3 minutes. Fuck, that's faster than Stanley Jobson.
Macs don't get viruses either. Because like your OS, they're a small part of the installed base.
But actually, what no one talks about is that writing a virus for Linux is really hard. And that's not necessarily a good thing.
The luser whales, "OMG, But how can that be? BBQ!"
You see, a virus needs to make certain assumptions about your platform. Certain libraries existing, with particular ABI's. Certain data being accessible through particular API's. In other words, a common set of core components that are available on every install of your system so that the virus's code can be small and compact and yet infect as many machines as possible.
Wait, this sounds familiar. Oh yea, that's right: real software needs that too. Why is there no proprietary software for Linux? because for all practical purposes DEPLOYMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The Linux market is so small that there's no point going after it unless you try to support all Linux deployments. Hmm, well what does that mean? At least 3-4 major distros, which all have multiple versions of the past few years with different kernels and different libraries and different versions of GTK and different ways to integrate into the start menu, and different broken versions of evolution. Fuck me! Sounds like awesome fun. I'm glad people have all these choices. They can have another choice: FUCK OFF! I DON'T WANT YOUR FUCKING HIPPIE MONEY!
"The web is the future of application delivery." Yea, good one dude. I see Google making fistfulls of dollars with that idea, but what the fuck are you doing with it? Go ahead, cling to your Linux like it's the only thing that might ever give you sexual pleasure... if you could only find the right compilation flags (btw, did you try -fuckme?) Maybe web-apps are the future. But I'm pretty sure it's at least 5-10 years out, so have fun hacking on your ATI drivers until then.
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/at-least-we-dont-have-any-viruses.html (http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/at-least-we-dont-have-any-viruses.html)
-
I don't get any viruses from your mom either. I'm protected.
How are you protected? By anti-virus software I assume? Well I've got news for you, it's a pretty shit form of protection because 1000s of computers need to become infected with a virus before the an update for detecting it can be created.
-
Besides, I can make my computer immune to viruses. Just watch. Pop! Did you see that? I unplugged my network cable.
The luser wretches, "Oh but that makes your computer useless!" Yeah, well so does putting Linux on it. What's your point?
this is the bit that made me laugh. it turns out that the only way a windoid can protect his computer against malicious software is to TURN IT OFF!!! haw!
that's what 33 years of microsoft innovation will get you. In the meantime i'm doing all the things i want for free on an operating system put together by talented amateurs.
-------
PS:
You see, a virus needs to make certain assumptions about your platform. Certain libraries existing, with particular ABI's.
unlike a commercial program, a virus will only have one or two simple tasks. I am fairly certain that any normal virus will be compiled as one static lump purely to avoid the issue of dependencies. Since the virus hasn't got many tasks, it's still going to be pretty small if it just carries the functions it needs, yes?
Having said that, there is a very valid point amongst all this directionless ranting...
Why is there no proprietary software for Linux? because for all practical purposes DEPLOYMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
actually the reasons are more social, and to a certain extent legal, than that, but yes, this is a big issue, and it's not been addressed for years. The many different types of packaging software for linux based systems is simply unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that has stopped linux systems from being the desktop leader. Think of all the many different packaging formats, and even when you do get proprietary software for linux (which is often not as good as community software, and contrary to this ranter, there's quite a lot of closed software for linux if you look), they add still more issues to the concept of packaging. Have you ever tried to install sun Java? Simply downloading it and unpacking it requires a degree in computing! (perhaps i exaggerate slightly...) The Linux market is so small that there's no point going after it unless you try to support all Linux deployments.
again, pretty untrue, many distros have concentrated userbases in particular areas or fields, so a software vendor should aim for their target group first. Still, even if a company only releases, say, rpms, it still has to really test those on multiple platforms if it wants to ensure the package works for as many users as possible. A lot of the time this testing gets dumped on the users, resulting in a worse user experience and lower coverage for the software vendor. This needs to be addressed. Hmm, well what does that mean? At least 3-4 major distros, which all have multiple versions of the past few years with different kernels and different libraries and different versions of GTK and different ways to integrate into the start menu, and different broken versions of evolution.
this guy knows he's making this up. He's overstating his point, but that point is valid. Ironically, the fact that he's overstating the case so much is what will make it easy for pro-linux fanatics to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the one valid point that this guy makes.
-
That is possibly the most immature thing I've read all year.
-
That is possibly the most immature thing I've read all year.
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
-
That is possibly the most immature thing I've read all year.
i'll choose to believe that you meant the quoted article, not my response to it.
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
that's what i come to these forums for, a bit of adult discussion! :-D
-
Seriously, that article has a point. VMware is a pain on Linux because of application delivery problems.
-
Why is there no proprietary software for Linux? because for all practical purposes DEPLOYMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The Linux market is so small that there's no point going after it unless you try to support all Linux deployments.
Hahaha. There's tons of proprietary Linux software. It runs in banks, enterprise servers, flight control towers, and plenty of other places. The desktop is a mere fraction of the world's hardware/software market.
-
Macs don't get viruses either. Because like your OS, they're a small part of the installed base.
Macs don't get virus's for that reason, linux doesn't get them because its safe.
I mean come on, do you really think anyone out there would want to shut down the internet by creating a virus that attacks the foremost server OS? get real.
A mac user is criticizing others for being hippys.
Um I just thought I would point that out...
On a side note, the most a windows user can say is "At least I don't get AIDS"
Unless they use vista.
-
Of course Linux users don't get aids, because they don't get laid. S)
-
If they do, at least it isn't because of a security breach in IE...
So weak you could embed an STD in a page and windows will run it.
-
Why is there no proprietary software for Linux? because for all practical purposes DEPLOYMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The Linux market is so small that there's no point going after it unless you try to support all Linux deployments.
Hahaha. There's tons of proprietary Linux software. It runs in banks, enterprise servers, flight control towers, and plenty of other places. The desktop is a mere fraction of the world's hardware/software market.
Yup, a few video games and video game multiplayer servers come to mind. UT2k4, CSS, etc..
-
I have Windows Vista and get no viruses.
It is funny because I remember the days when Linuxfags (even myself when I deserved the title) would go on about the evils of Microsoft letting an OS with no privilege separation by default on the Internet to ruin everyones shit with ddos zomies, etc.
So Microsoft stick it to their dumb users and throw pretty good priv seperation in Vista. You all bitch about it for breaking everything, despite the fact Linux does the exact same fucking thing. Hell Windows has address space randomization by default, you can't even configure that shit on Linux without grsec (building your own kernel, bye four hours) and breaking Xorg ever having a chance at running on your system (bye GUI).
Yeah, enjoy your cheap thrills faggots.
-
Yeah, linux does the exact same thing.
breaks S)
-
Linux distros were never using admin by default anyway. Thus Linux had nothing to break, however Vista is still pretty compatible with most stuff anyway. I am yet to run into compatibility problems myself. What has the most application support?
-
What has the most application support?
x86 architecture ftw.
For the sake of argument, though, here's some Google search results:
"windows applications" 302 million hits
"linux applications" 18.1 million hits
"mac applications" 21.6 million hits
"vista applications" 52.6 million hits
"leopard applications" 5.3 million hits
"unix applications" 2.4 million hits
"xp applications" 3.3 million hits
"red hat applications" 13.1 million hits
"debian applications" 8.2 million hits
These extremely basic and misleading results may indicate that maybe there actually are more Windows applications than Linux or Mac applications. But so what? Even if there really are 5,300,000 Leopard applications available, I only need like 70 of them. Anything else is, in a way, overkill.
-
Linux at this point natives and wine.
(http://www.hawaiiguide.com/dance9a.jpg)
And song and dance.
-
I have Windows Vista and get no viruses.
I have XP and don't run memory resident antivirus and I don't have any viruses.
The only virus I've ever got was when I stupidly installed a trojan disguised as a Windows theme.
I know some applications break when you try to run them as a restricted user but I don't use those kinds of programs.
It is funny because I remember the days when Linuxfags (even myself when I deserved the title) would go on about the evils of Microsoft letting an OS with no privilege separation by default on the Internet to ruin everyones shit with ddos zomies, etc.
I agree, remember 98, ME?
So Microsoft stick it to their dumb users and throw pretty good priv seperation in Vista. You all bitch about it for breaking everything, despite the fact Linux does the exact same fucking thing. Hell Windows has address space randomization by default, you can't even configure that shit on Linux without grsec (building your own kernel, bye four hours) and breaking Xorg ever having a chance at running on your system (bye GUI).
I certainly don't bitch about Vista breaking everything even though there's no excuse for it to break anything. All software that requires NT (whether this be Windows 2000 or XP) should work on Vista and they could even bundle a crippled version of MS virtual machine running a crippled version of ME for shit that won't work on Vista.
My biggest critism is they're kept too much backward compatability, you must've heard about how shitty the UAC is.
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html (http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html)
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/129268/vistas_uac_warnings_cant_be_trusted_symantec_says.html (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/129268/vistas_uac_warnings_cant_be_trusted_symantec_says.html)
The way Vista has been marketed wasn't at all fair - e.g. the Vista compatable bullshit.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1658249 (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1658249)
Not to mention how overpriced it is and that the hardware requirements are far too damn high.