. . . using Linux on enterprise and end user desktops

Home / Win2Lin MIGRATION STORIES / discussion And again... Linux sucks.

And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Robert I have come to the incontravertable conclusion that the reason everyone uses windows is because they just have better programmers working for them. This is a direct stab and all of you linux users... and specifically this idea of Linux on the desktop. Every 6 to 8 months... I (masacistically) attempt to install linux on one of my systems at home. I guess I just like frustration, and when I haven't got my fix.. I turn to linux to remind me. Suse linux 9.1 personal edition... installs fine... gets your hopes up... gets to the video card detection (Uh Oh 2 video cards... a default MB PoS and a nice Nvidea 64 meg one) and something new to me..... a black screen a screen that turns off ALL video before you can even consider the configuration of the video parameters. Nice.. a fatal error on start up of the x server. AH, thats my linux THATS what I remember. So, since there is absolutely no way to see to continue the install.. I exit out. Reboot and try to just load up... perhaps it will just pick one of the 2 and come up. KDE comes up... fantastic... I get a message that my monitor is not returning a size... My mouse can move across the screen just fine so, the video I have the monitor plugged into is working, since the BIOS is set to load the PCI slot first like it is supposed to be, and even though this message is up.. the interface is working... for about 20 seconds that is before it returns me... and every terminal to a black screen of doom. It really is too bad my work uses a Postgres database and since I would like to work at home on the weekends getting stuff done I must endure and figure a way to get this POS O/S up and running. So I say again. I Hate linux.. the programmers suck... they are hacks that must rely on sympathy money to continue development, and need to learn how to unify their development efforts so something as simple as the choosing of a freeking video card works. --- on to Fedora to give it a try. Thanks. 07-25-2004 14:26:34

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile This is a direct stab and all of you linux users... and specifically this idea of Linux on the desktop. Actually, it's a troll because you feel like an idiot for not being able to accomplish something that thousands of us have enjoyed for years. A trouble free linux desktop. If we're so stupid, how is it that I've used linux on my desktop for 10 years and I have no trouble with it? I'm an engineer designing ASICs for a living. I use SuSE 9.1 at work. My wife uses Xandros 2.0 at home. No problems here. Sounds like your problem is between keyboard and chair. Why not just ask for help rather than lash out like a child at people who have nothing to to with your problem? It's a bit ironic, as much as windows zealots love to claim that it's the linux crowd who is lacking in any social skills the best examples I see are windows zealots like yourself who have an obvious chip on their shoulder about linux. Don't use linux. Save us all from the headache. -kev 07-25-2004 17:58:08

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Wrath I'll repress my first urge to say, "Shoo, troll, shoo," and instead demonstrate that Robert is a paid shill and not an actual troll. the reason everyone uses windows is because they just have better programmers working for them. That statement is just silly. Only a paid shill would dare say that Microsoft has better programmers than the open source community. One only need recall a few hundred headlines from the last few months that demonstrate the extreme security problems Windows and IE in particular possess. Contrast that with the renowned open source projects such as Apache (market leader in web hosting), Firefox (fast growing replacement for msft's diseased IE), MySQL (fast and fast growing SQL database), sendmail (large player for email servers), and PostreSQL (which Robert himself uses). These are a few examples of some of the excellent F/OSS offerings that only get better with age. Though Robert might disagree, I would say Linux is one of the best in this category. Every 6 to 8 months... I (masacistically) attempt to install linux on one of my systems at home. I find it odd that so many people who so passionately hate Linux keep feeling the need to install it every few months. Robert is hardly the first example of this. Maybe he isn't too happy with Windows? It really is too bad my work uses a Postgres database and since I would like to work at home on the weekends getting stuff done I must endure and figure a way to get this POS O/S up and running. Ah. Here's the reason he feels compelled to try out Linux. So he can work from home. I assume he has never heard of Cygwin or that with it PostgreSQL can be installed on Windows. Someone has tried for at least 14 months to install Linux (every 6 to 8 months implies at least one of each and this is at least his third attempt), but can't google for 30 seconds as I just did to find the above link. Hmmm. I Hate linux.. the programmers suck... they are hacks that must rely on sympathy money to continue development So which of the thousands of Linux hackers suck? All of them? Most of them? The one who didn't have an identical setup to Robert's? Hey Robert, let me help you with a letter of complaint. Dear IBM Linux hackers (all 1,000 of you), You guys suck. Your salaries are just sympathy money. Robert Now just change the first line to reflect the Linux programmers from Oracle, Red Hat, the NSA, etc. Now, Robert, I know that what I say next may cause you to stretch beyond your comfort zone and will surely cause a headache, but it's really worth the effort. Here goes: Linux is not Windows. It's built entirely differently. Your home hardware was designed to support Windows. Despite that, I'd be willing to bet Linux could be installed on it. You see, that's what hackers who live off of sympathy money do. They reverse engineer software for hardware that the hardware manufacturers are too short sighted to develop software for. But getting it to run on your hardware requires a different approach than you've shown here. Do you think a little googling or a few bytes on a forum such as this might have helped a lot more after your first installation attempt than your vitriol has here? Please, Bob, get a clue. Or buy something nice with your shill money. I don't care which. 07-25-2004 20:42:03

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile Ah. Here's the reason he feels compelled to try out Linux. So he can work from home. I assume he has never heard of Cygwin or that with it PostgreSQL can be installed on Windows. Someone has tried for at least 14 months to install Linux (every 6 to 8 months implies at least one of each and this is at least his third attempt), but can't google for 30 seconds as I just did to find the above link. Hmmm. LMAO, I forgot to check on that until after I posted. You can't make this stuff up. -kev 07-25-2004 21:03:53

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Wrath Yeah. At least trolls and shills are good for a laugh I don't expect to see Robert again any more than the Russian Lady from another thread who was looking for love. 07-25-2004 22:37:02

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Robert No not a shill, just a frustrated linux "Newb". I say newb because even though I have at times done my best to get linux up and running many MANY times starting with SuSE 5... this O/S still just sucks. It is like in permanent beta. BTW Fedora core 1 installed fine... of course getting postgres up and running only took 5 FIVE !!!! hours. I have a freeking degree in computer science for gods sake and I am reduced to infancy by this OS. Think about how cludgy that is. With SQL server it took me 5... FIVE MINUTES. to install create a database.. drop some data in and pull a query and that was with never using the software before. If you want linux to be sucessful this type of crap cannot happen. Read your own reviews by other people attempting to install linux... An os is basically like a nicue workbench where you put other tools (applications) and use those tools to get the job done. If the workbench is good it will be easy to manage your tools, and get your widget created. Linux is the opposite of this.. the entire framework gets completely in the way and linux zealots refuse to change it. I would (and in some cases do) use linux but seriously.. it sucks still. Anything that completely crashes and writes #### + changes permissions and what not incorrectly because you forget to put in a -i or a -p in a command line tool is just crap.... getting better (KDE is extremely stable now, but needs more applications and functionality) but still too much command line configuration crap. 07-26-2004 09:50:02

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Wrath Rules of shilling: 1. Never admit you are a shill. 2. Say "sucks" a lot. 3. Never, never bring up particulars of why something allegedly sucks. Robert, I have to call bullcrap on you. I have installed several flavors of Linux on several machines. Each time PostgreSQL could be installed during OS install. Total marginal time requirement: zero. It was simply matter of starting the service after the installation was complete. I further call bullcrap in regards to your permissions complaint. These can be set graphically using Konqueror, Nautilus, and other GUI tools. This has been the case for years. Now for the fun part: I have a freeking degree in computer science for gods sake and I am reduced to infancy by this OS. This doesn't say much for your alma matter, does it? If I may quote myself: Linux is not Windows. It's built entirely differently. Your complaints thus far are more about the UNIX way of things, not Linux in particular. I must conclude one of two things from your rantings. One, your degree never required you to learn UNIX, making it a piss poor program; or, you have been less than honest about your education. I have two degrees and they have taught me a very few real world lessons. Want to know them? Degrees aren't worth the debt they will give you and the time you will invest in them. People aren't smart because they have a degree. 07-26-2004 10:07:19

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) misterflibble Profile Of course you'll be reduced to infancy by a new OS, computer science degree or not since all you learned was Windows. The only way this would not happen is if the OS was a dead-on copy of Windows, and then what would be the point of a different OS? I'm no Computer Science Major (having only taken one keyboarding class) and I thought I knew everythign about how computers work....until I installed Linux about a year ago. Turned out I knew very little about 'computers' in general and only Windows/DOS (and some Apple). >>If the workbench is good it will be easy to manage your tools, and get your widget created. Linux is the opposite of this.. the entire framework gets completely in the way and linux zealots refuse to change it.>> Odd that so many using it as a development platform haven't realized how much its holding them back. At least once you get Linux set up (as difficult or as easy as this may be for the user/hardware/distro) it doesn't require complete wiping every few months to keep from getting slow and bloated. Typing two commands (or using a nice graphical interface with three mouse clicks) upgrades all my software daily. Granted, I had to learn about this because it was different from what I was familiar with. Although I will admit Windows is easier to install software remotely on other people's computers. You don't even need to ask their permission anymore! >>Anything that completely crashes and writes #### + changes permissions and what not incorrectly because you forget to put in a -i or a -p in a command line tool is just crap....>> Wow, I've never heard anyone complain before that an operating system did what they asked it to do. This is why you learn a command before blindly typing it in. If you were using a computer for the first time and didn't know what 'delete' meant and you clicked that in Windows Explorer, would you get upset that it did exactly that? Maybe we can write an OS that says "I don't think you want to do that, Dave" every time you give it a command. 07-26-2004 10:21:10

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM.... >>Anything that completely crashes and writes #### + changes permissions and what not incorrectly because you forget to put in a -i or a -p in a command line tool is just crap....>> You actually have to type the correct command or pick the correct menu item for the computer to do what you want to tell it to do? Wow that is a novel concept! There is an old proverb - "A bad carpenter blames his tools". This idiot is so much of an idiot that he hasn't stopped to think that perhaps it is him, not Linux, that is crap. It guess some people just shouldn't go near computers, or maybe stick to Windows. At least when this idiot uses Windows, he can blame viruses or bugs for the computer crashing rather than his own stupidity. No such luck with Linux: it only crashes when you do something wrong. How truly embarrassing this is for any incompetent! Well this is a true revelation. I now know why some people love Windows so much. Remember Microsoft selling point - how if you used Linux you had nobody you could blame? Well this certainly hits the nail on the head. With Windows, you can blame Windows for all the bugs and visuses that everyone is so familiar with rather than your own incompetence. If something goes wrong with Windows, you can just shrug your shoulders and reinstall it, rather than learning to track the cause of the problem, learning how to configure it properly, or learning how to set it up securely. Windows is indeed the last refuge of the incompetent. 07-26-2004 11:02:13

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile I have a freeking degree in computer science for gods sake and I am reduced to infancy by this OS. Was this degree by any chance administered via the postal service? Or could it be more accurately characterized as a Microsoft sanctioned certification? I don't expect most people to have any idea about unix, but everyone I know with an actual bachelor's degree in Computer Science should has no trouble comprehending unix. And I know a lot of people that fit that description. I don't think linux is perfect, far from it. But when I speak to intelligent critics of unix they do not talk about being reduced to infancy by merely copying files onto their hard drive in the correct location and running a few setup tools. A computer scientist would skip straight to the interesting parts: kernel architecture, security model, perhaps even offering qualatative insight into performance comparisons (not using words like 'sluggish' but instead actually measuring performance). You know, computer science. I don't know whether you got this degree of yours from the mail or a university, but it's quite plain that you are not a computer scientist no matter what credentials you wave around. I would (and in some cases do) use linux Do not use linux. Go back to windows. Use the information that Wrath has already given you to install postgres on windows. You have no reason to use linux, don't waste your time. More importantly, don't waste ours. -kev 07-26-2004 11:03:16

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) old guy I am sixty years old, with no degree in anything, much less computer science. I have managed to install and run Linux for the last five years. Also I am proud of myself for installing Gentoo, although it is not the favorite of my operating systems. I thing Robert got screwed out of his money for education on a computer science degree. hehe Should have worked McDonalds instead and read the forums to learn computers. 07-26-2004 12:27:09

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Robert Here was the standard fair for getting postgres up and running last night. It installs by default with redhat... but has no data directories installed. Also, the redhat distro already installs a bunch of system user accounts by default.. one of which is the user postgres. First there is no default directory nor easy way to just get into postgres, which points to another one of my main issues with linux is the beaurocracy that is needed to do a fairly standard task. So, postmaster is started up and you must init a database... ok. I follow the directions in the postgres documentation and initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data. --error /usr/local/pgsql/data does not exist Windows user-> You have got to be kidding me... it doesn't give you the option to create the directory or instanciate the directory when you try to create it.... standard windows fair. Uhg. cd /usr/local/ mkdir /pgsql cd pgsql mkdir data initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data --- error you cannot instantiate a database while logged in as root since you could cause a system wide security breach. ok su robert password: ****** initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data --- Error this user has no rights to use postgres sql you must log in under a user that has the rights (Contemplates throwing the computer out the window) (20 minutes later finds the information about which user would have access since it is not root and is not in the documentation) find the user postgres running in the background under system logins. su postgres initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data error --- this directory is owned by another user and you have no rights to it. su root cd /usr/local/pgsql/ rmdir data cd .. rmdir pgsql su postgres cd /usr/local/ mkdir /pgsql cd pgsql mkdir data initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data OMFG Success I must have done something wrong..... createdb test Created su robert pwd ****** pgsql test -- error you do not have rights to this directory...... etc.... etc.,... etc...... not to mention having to go into the config files themselves to turn on TCPIP connections, configuring postmaster etc.... This is Freeking ridiculous amounts of crap to get started on a database. Lets say I didn't give a damn who had access to the database or its files because it was a test database... nope same crap.. no easy way to jump in and get started working with the actual tool.... Postgres SQL (which I must admitt was 07-26-2004 14:07:35

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM.... >>Someone here please inform me of a completely secure, unhackable (and actually *USABLE*) OS that can be easily connnected to the Internet. If you know of one, I'd be interested.<< Well here is the information you have been waiting for. Linux, FreeBSD and some Unix variants come the closest to this ideal. Windows on the other hand is insecure even with the best knowhow. The proof of this is that Microsoft had to switch their key servers to Linux during the last serious set of worm attacks. It was the only way they could keep their microsoft.com website up. Linux, Unix, Apple, and FreeBSD systems were unaffected. This is not a one-off. Worms and other serious security issues hammer Windows servers every few months, and even the most knowledegable sysadmins are powerless to do anything about them. The actual downtime due to security issues with Linux. Unix, FreeBSD is tiny compared with Microsoft servers. The highly secretive US information security agency, the NSA picked Linux for it's secure computing base (NSA's SE Linux). Doesn't this give you a clue about which OS is the most secure. NSA picked the most secure standard OS (Linux), as a base for developing the most secure OS (SE Linux). Some would argue that FreeBSD (a Unix flavour) is the most secure, because it is more conservative in what gets put into the kernel. Linux is very cutting edge. NSA probably picked Linux over BSD because there are more Linux developers - more eyeballs to spot security flaws. lindows_fanboi - if you are suggesting to us with a straight face that Windows is in the same category as Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, or Apple OSX, in terms security wise, then you are talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy. 07-28-2004 07:46:33

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) w_l_indows_fanboi //lindows_fanboi - if you are suggesting to us with a straight face that Windows is in the same category as Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, or Apple OSX, in terms security wise, then you are talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy.// Not suggesting that, because it's not true. I *am* suggesting that Windows security problems (especially with W2K3) are far fewer than before, and easily manageable. I fully realize that the NSA, FBI, Secret Service, and others wouldn't touch Windows with a Harpoon missle, and rightly so. I'm glad they don't. However ... my business ... and thousands of others ... doesn't need that level of security. Few do, actually. Because of that, we can deal with the Windows issues because, frankly, they're just not that hard to manage. That's my experience, but YMMV. 07-28-2004 08:11:06

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) lindows_fanboi SM said: ///The highly secretive US information security agency, the NSA picked Linux for it's secure computing base (NSA's SE Linux). Doesn't this give you a clue about which OS is the most secure. NSA picked the most secure standard OS (Linux), as a base for developing the most secure OS (SE Linux). // Oh, and I'd bet you a full meal at Ruth's Criss that the NSA doesn't have a single SE Linux box connected *DIRECTLY* to the Internet. 07-28-2004 08:15:37

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) theBlueSmokeBand Here's an interesting article about viruses and hacking: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId;=20040728005158&newsLang;=en And before you Windows zealots go screaming about how viruses are popularity contests -- that is, the whining that kids write Windows viruses ONLY because there are so many Windows machines -- realize that MOST of the big servers in the world run non-MS OSes. And realize that the main vector through which viruses spread is the network interface, to which a normal *NIX user has no access. *FURTHERMORE*: while it is true that viruses and security problems are a PITA with M$ products, there is **A WHOLE LOT MORE** to the significance of running *NIX. One of my main gripes, as a programmer, is that there is only ONE desktop!! How the hell do you people work under these conditions?? Multiple desktops, combined with proper pre-emptive multi-taking is, in my estimation, absolutely essential to a positive computer interaction experience. Windoze offers none of that. Period. Plus those friggin desktop icons. Ohhhh I hate those things. (Ok, now I'm steaming....) Look at your physical desk, the one at which you work. In my case: I have piles of related papers and books and documentation. These piles are analogous to the multiple desktops that I enjoy while running X. I have no start buttons on my desk. It's not strewn with pencils and staplers and crap. If I want to use a tool, I get it from where it is properly stored and use it and put it back when I'm done. This is analogous to *NO DESKTOP ICONS*. For X, I use Fluxbox with five desktops (which I find optimal for my purposes). Contrast Wind-cows: One myopic desktop. In the physical world, this is like working with one pile of papers that I have shuffle through every time I want something different. And those stupid stupid stupid icons are clutter. They destroy the aesthetic, in my estimation. Who cares if I have a lovely background if there's crap slathered on top of it. It's like wallpapering your furniture. Yuck. So anyway, security is one big issue, but there SO much more to the story. I have yet to meet a Windows zealot who can address my basic issues with how one interacts with the machine. M$ just plain old doesn't cut it. Again, my two cents. My apologies for its rant-like nature. Brian. 07-28-2004 08:26:22

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) misterflibble Profile fanboi, even a properly maintained Windows system is not secure. Witness the recent download.ject exploit: http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6264_11-5259044.html . This involved infected (legitimate) Windows servers installing programs via users' Internet Explorer to run keyloggers and steal financial information. Microsoft's solution was to find the server in Russia these were going to and shut it down and then release a patch when they felt like it. Supposedly some 50 financial sites were affected by this outbreak, but no one wants to reveal if they were since it opens them up to liability. I'm also reminded of the multiple buffer overflow exploits involving properly crafted graphics. And yes, the patches *can* break things. It's probably less likely for home users who are using only the newest versions of popular programs, but many businesses who rely on anything developed in-house or older software have to do extensive testing before applying patching. And just wait till XP Service Pack 2 which makes some major changes.... 07-28-2004 09:34:34

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM.... >>Oh, and I'd bet you a full meal at Ruth's Criss that the NSA doesn't have a single SE Linux box connected *DIRECTLY* to the Internet.<< lindows_fanboi - Are you on medication or something? The whole purpose of creating a secure OS is to protect against attacks when connected to an insecure network like the Internet. If you don't connect the system to the Internet, then you don't need a secure computer. Even Windows is OK for security if it isn't connected to the network. Microsoft boasted about C3 security certification for Windows NT a while back - the problem was that the C3 security rating was achieved only if Windows NT wasn't connected to the network. The moment you connect a Windows PC to a network, the security rating goes to zip. NSA created SE Linux to use on the Internet, other insecure networks, and on the US military network of which the Internet is a civilian version. In addition to using it for highest security US government Internet and military network connected systems, NSA also uses SELinux for honeypot servers to catch hackers. This is a server connected to the Internet which has insecure services deliberately installed to lure hackers, so that they can be traced, and arrested. The NSA demonstrated an SE Linux honeypot server where hackers had broken into the trap, got root access to the system but couldn't do any damage or gain access to privileged data, allowing tracking of the hacker's activities without the hacker knowing. 07-28-2004 12:17:44

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) lindows_fainboi //The NSA demonstrated an SE Linux honeypot server where hackers had broken into the trap, got root access to the system but couldn't do any damage or gain access to privileged data, allowing tracking of the hacker's activities without the hacker knowing.// Ok, I admit stupidity, here. I didn't think the NSA would ever connect *any* pc directly to the Internet, without first going through a *hardware-based* firewall, like a Cisco PIX or something. Do you have links to your assertion? I'm not calling you out, I'd just like to read up on that. Consider me schooled, on this point. 07-28-2004 12:52:15

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM.... Of course NSA need to connect to the Internet like everybody else. How do they communicate otherwise, by carrier pigeon? Even the US military has to connect to the Internet, the US military network is limited and the civil Internet is much more difficult to take down in the advent of war because it has far more nodes. This doesn't mean systems that don't need to be connected are connected though. But even in this case, they are connected to networks which can be tapped, and still need to be secure. You can't do very much nowadays with a PC which isn't connected to anything else by a network or a modem. Besides this NSA is responsible for security of all the important government systems that connect to the Internet including non-military systems. I can't find the original link I read, but here are some others. http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/list-archive/0307/4598.cfm http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2004/Mar/0000.html http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/faq.cfm 07-28-2004 13:39:43

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) stoobie Profile Lindows_boi sez -->>Jump through hoops. Hmm. I've had to re-register my copy of XP at least four times, due to hardware upgrades like you've mentioned (*NONE OF WHICH BLEW THE XP KERNEL, btw*). Total time taken to make a toll-free call and get a new registration key? About 6-7 minutes. Popped in the new key, XP's fine. Now, I know my time is valuable, but I can spare *7 minutes*. Maybe your time is worth thousands/hour, I dunno.<<-- Only when I work on Ducatis... but seriously, if I didn't have time to waste, would I bother responding at all? If it's going to be as simple and easy as playing a game of "Microsoft, May I?", then I'll have to remember to give them a jingle just as soon as I get sick and tired of doing what *I* want to do. 07-29-2004 02:54:07

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Mike A lot of talk about security patches and the likes... Just a question, but I'm downloading/burning some ISO's of FC2, Xandros, and maybe a third that I want to try out tonight, but IS there any anti-virus software for Linux? I find it hard to believe it's a completely impenetrable fortress that doesn't need any AV protection at all, nothing's entirely perfect ;) 07-31-2004 10:17:48

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Wrath Mike, I am not aware of any A/V for Linux except for mail servers (to protect Windows machines). Consider this before jumping to your conclusion, though. 1. Of the 40 or so viruses that have ever existed that affect Linux, none are currently in the wild. 2. In order for a virus to infect a Linux machine, the user must download it, make it executable, then run it. Even if a user is dumb enough to do so, the worst that can happen is that all of his or data is lost in his or her home directory. The system will not be affected in the least. The reason for this is that Linux follows the UNIX standards of user permissions. Windows, on the other hand, allows many applications (ie, virii) to run with system level permissions. In summary, you don't need A/V for Linux. Similarly, you don't need a defrag tool either. This comes from superior planning and implementation on the part of Linus and other Linux hackers. 07-31-2004 11:23:55

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Guru1 Profile | Email Well said Wrath. Good explaination. 07-31-2004 12:49:40

A degree ?!?!?!?!? (modified 0 times) JanvL To all of you Now I am out of practice for about 8 years, before that there were PDP's with RSX11, Vaxes with VMS Novell and some other stuff. Unix was not my part only as a decisionmaker, you do not see much of the technical backgrounds then. I cannot beleive that someone has a degree in computerscience and is not able to work with unix-likes OS's. We all know Windows is no highlight but the "standard defacto" and these standards tend to change in time. For IT-personalit means to get educated in other OS's c.q. programms, that is a part of the job. No OS is making anyone look like a fool, you can only make yourself look like a fool by not reading the f.... manual. That was treu wit IBM's S36 and is treu with Linux. However Linux as a community-project asks that you know how to use the internet and the search-engines. It took me time as well and I sometimes get annoyed by linux as well, but if you start looking for the right documentation you can find it. Windows being not "open" has got a very great disadvantage there. The phrase "linux sucks" I consider silly. I agree with Kevin do not use Linux if you like it the Windows-way, no harm done. But please do not insult technicians that build Linux to what it is today for that is a very great achievement if you consider it globally, it gives very poor countries a fair chance that is not there with Windows. My guess Robert is that your age is between 25 and 35 years, my experience is that a lot of these people have no sense for the historical IT grows-path. My advise: read some books or stick with windows. Jan 07-31-2004 15:27:58

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM.... >>I find it hard to believe it's a completely impenetrable fortress that doesn't need any AV protection at all, nothing's entirely perfect ;)<< Nothing is hack free, but compared to Windows which has a terrible record on security any other OS looks perfect. Viruses have been written for Linux, but in order for viruses to survive, they need to spread, and with Linux they can't spread because of UNIX's good security model. Understand the Unix security model carefully and you will see why. The main risk in Linux is trojans, but with Linux you need to hack in manually in order to install a trojan - it doesn't have mechanisms like Active-X, Outlook Express, Internet Explorer to automatically install trojans/spyware for you like Windows does. What's more, with Linux, you can set user mounted drives and home directories as non-executable if you want to prevent the user installing and executing a trojan. The user can download a file and execute it from a shell using the source (".") command even if the downloaded file is non-executable, but it is very difficult to do this by mistake. Linux does have tools to detect trojans (tripwire, aide), and tools to detect root kit file signature. The vulnerability in Linux comes from incorrect configuration, not patching security patches in a timely manner, and user psychology (eg. picking obvious passwords, giving out passwords to people who shouldn't have it etc.). Also if you run Windows applications/MS Office under WINE on Linux, You will have some vulnerability to Windows viruses and macroviruses, although the vulnerability and the damage will be much less than on Windows. Look at this article 78% of developers have never ever had a single Linux machine compromised in any way - Note when the Evans Data Report talks about viruses in the article, they actually mean trojans - there aren't and have never been any viruses on Linux that spread in the wild. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3388181 07-31-2004 18:08:10

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile there aren't and have never been any viruses on Linux that spread in the wild. The key phrase here is "that spread in the wild". I've never heard of anyone having a virus infestation on linux, in fact so many linux users are under the impression that they are 100% safe from viruses that if an infestation did occur I would expect it to hit all the major linux news outlets. However, in the interest of disclosure, according to this page: http://www.f-prot.com/currentversions.html There are 404 actual 'linux viruses' known to F-prot, the virus software maker. You can download a free virus scanner and check for them. The breakdown excerpted from the f-prot summary: Quantity Type of viruses 50329 DOS/Windows 404 Unix/Linux 8159 Office/Macro 220 Java 4 PalmOs 6930 Script (VB & Javascript, Unix shell, IRC, INF) 2884 Batch/Others (AMi, PIF, PHP, WinBat, .Bat) 53361 Destructive Programs Presumeably, the scanner software will scan for all of these viruses on any OS. A quick look down this list and without any other knowledge I'd say the following categories contain some virii that could theoretically attack linux: DOS/Windows: Som virii could attack via 'wine' or 'dosemu', but only if you run those emulators. Office/Macro: I don't know how well OpenOffice supports MSOffice macros, but this could be possible. Java: Once again, theoretically possible. Script (VB & Javascript, Unix shell, IRC, INF): Unix shell stands out But before anyone gets their britches in a twist, consider that the linux security model that Robert hates so much is automatically on your side. I'm not going into a detailed analysis because there are no specific virii listed here (and I'm not a professional security guru). But I seriously doubt that even one single virus in this list is a threat. I'm paranoid. I download linux security patches faithfully. I wouldn't type one ascii character of personal information into a windows machine without giving it a full cleansing with ad-aware and a virus scanner. But I have known about this f-prot virus scanner for at least 6 months and I have not even been tempted to try it out. That's how confident I am that viruses aren't a problem on linux (at least for now). -kev 08-01-2025 11:02:42

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Mike Kevin, SM, Wrath: Thank you for the explination, wasn't aware of such a stark difference in what can run autonomously in Win and what can in Linux. Heh, considering on my 2 XP boxen I not only have to run constant virus scaners, but two flavors of anti-spybot software and a firewall (on top of the routers built-in firewall), that is quite a HUGE difference. 08-01-2025 16:44:31

RE:Hah! As if! (modified 0 times) Liam Hello, In case anyone was interested, I am currently studying computer science. One of my first year modules was titled 'Operating Systems' and the main course text was 'Operating systems with linux' by John O'Gorman... BUT even before I learnt about linux on the degree it was essential to have a working knowledge of unix because about half of the systems at the university run unix. I believe this is reasonably common. for those who want to know, I believe the other half use win2k. Liam. 08-03-2025 09:10:36

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) dash Nice report Kevin, but keep in mind, that said unix/linux. Quoth Lindows fanboi: Same can be said of Linux: http://www.safenetworks.com/Linux/linux.html And that's an old link! I did take a look at that. Now, follow my simple steps. 1) Scroll down to bottom of page. 2) Click on Windows. 3) Rinse and repeat as necessary. Notice, the list for windows is just as old, and longer! So, congratulations for pointing that out. [sarcasm]You sure made a fool out of us[/sarcasm] 08-04-2025 12:08:26

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile Nice report Kevin, but keep in mind, that said unix/linux. True, but even if all 404 viruses can affect linux the point is the evidence is overwhelming that a virus is the last thing you need to worry about on linux, presently. The last serious unix worm that I know of was in 1989. Yes, that is one-nine-EIGHT-nine. 15 years ago. You can read about it here: http://vx.netlux.org/lib/aes01.html And of course I should point out the real reason why virii aren't an issue with unix, but are with windows. When a vulnerability is discovered, Microsoft has always avoided fixing these security holes, because they might interfere with usability or backward binary compatibility. In windows the solution is to develop a program that recognizes "signatures". The same, poorly secured software with gaping security holes still exists, and can be taken advantage of if you can develop a virus with a different 'signature' that exploits the same hole. On unix, they fix the hole. No more viruses can ever take advantage it. Over time, you find all the easy exploits. No virus software required. -kev 08-04-2025 12:56:47

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) SM... >>True, but even if all 404 viruses can affect linux the point is the evidence is overwhelming that a virus is the last thing you need to worry about on linux, presently.<< Just to remind some people who may not understand this - a virus is a trojan that spreads by replicating itself from one computer to another. 404 viruses have been written for Linux. The only problem is that these don't spread on Linux, because Linux security is so good. The only way you can get the viruses to spread is to hack into the computer and manually install it yourself. A virus that can't spread is by definition a total failure, like a bomb that won't go boom, or a gun that doesn't go bang. A more accurate statement would be that although people have written 404 supposed viruses on Linux, none of them actually work - they aren't able to infect Linux systems. 08-06-2025 06:45:57

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) XrayI Sorry I'm late to the party. I first used Linux on a desktop in 1999 (Mandrake). Even back then it was easy to install and detected all my basic hardware (video card, cd drives etc) and I am no computer expert. I stopped using it back then because there weren't that many good desktop application packages available and thos that were out were hard to install. After my Athlon 64 based computer almost ground to a halt one day and I found HUNDREDS of unauthorized enrties into my registry not to mention spyware everywhere despite Norton antivirus I decided to give Linux a try again. It is not perfect but I am impressed by its plug and play capabilities and was able to easily install a Debian based distribution on my PC (DSL 0.7.1 with lots of .DSL extensions. I like things simple) There seems to be plenty of good basic desktop software out there. I think I represent an average user. I am not a developer or programmer. My experience is that if you test Linux with some of the Live distros an average computer user will be able to install and use Linux as a viable alternative to Windows. I do think its easier to install software in Windows but Linux distros come with almost every thing you need. 08-06-2025 13:45:20

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Marty My wife can install and use linux, for that matter she just learned how to cut and past a few months ago. And yes with no help. :) Humm maybe I'll see if my 4yr old can do it tonight. Put the disk in hun, hit this enter key, click on ..um lets make this a desktop.. The only problem I've ever had with installing linux on anything was unsupported hardware. If it is supported it will install just as fast if not faster than Windows. If your having problems try. Redhat Fedora Mandrake Suse 09-02-2025 06:37:38

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) stephen Robert I was a windows xp user self taught. I managed to work things out for myself to install windows, configure, and install other hardware and drivers. I have often installed drivers, marked for xp that caused my computer to crash. I could not even get into safe mode to even uninstall to get the system up and running again. I have lost modem conections to the internet.I have had computer freezing which has caused me to reboot. When XP was released I also battled to get drivers for various equipment. I have reloaded my computer on numerous occasions to restore it back to working conditions. I have spent enourmous amounts on antivirus and firewall software which has still allowed viruses through. And the worst thing about windows that I have discovered is that it seems to slow down more and more as I add different software to it. I went to fedora with no experience what so ever. (fedora core 1) It installed easily. The only problems I had was that my modem would not work. Yes a dreaded windows modem. After trying a serial modem as recomended by many linux websites my problems were solved. I have never regretted this. Try closing closing a program that freezes windows. I have done it in fedora. Fedora is a great software if you take the time to get use to it. There are plenty of books on the subject. I do not use any antivirus software on my desktop, and I have not had a virus to date! I think that fedora is a great software and for the price you pay you can not even compare windows xp to fedora. Well done to the fedora team. Please keep up the good work and thanks for a wonderfull operating system. 09-02-2025 21:52:33

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) BlueSky First of all, I have to say hello to everyone of you in this forum. I have no idea of whos right or wrong in this "case". The reason why I'am in here was/is that I wanted to know more abaout Linux. Couldnt we all just take a nice and long walk in the woods when it becomes like a war out of nothing? or maybe a swim :) $ python Python 2.2 (#11, Oct 3 2002, 13:31:27) [GCC 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)] on linux2 Type ``help'', ``copyright'', ``credits'' or ``license'' for more information. >>> import sys >>> sys.path ['', '/usr/local/lib/python2.3', '/usr/local/lib/python2.3/plat-linux2', '/usr/local/lib/python2.3/lib-tk', '/usr/local/lib/python2.3/lib-dynload', '/usr/local/lib/python2.3/site-packages'] >>> 09-06-2025 18:33:13

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) LinuxLoser janVL has a point though. we have it sooo easy as newbs. we have the internet..and google. and this forum to help us..back when ibm was big dog you had the 99000 page man. pages or the hardcopy and thats how you learned...this should be a snap compared to back then! = ) Rene AKA LINUXLOSER 09-08-2024 11:23:53

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) LinuxLoser But please do not insult technicians that build Linux to what it is today for that is a very great achievement if you consider it globally, it gives very poor countries a fair chance that is not there with Windows. ------------- Janvl....unless the poor countries get M$ newest product XPLITE! = ) yeah i would stick with linux too broke countries beware gates is out to take your little bit of money! 09-08-2024 11:34:56

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) LinuxLoser It is not perfect but I am impressed ... ------ xray you also have made a grand statment. because its not perfect and neither is windows....show me a os that is perfect and ill show you someone who will run microsoft into the ground let alone every other os company on the planet = ) the fact that linux is better or closer to perfect than windows it was appeals to most people who are just tired of having to follow the M$ led trends...they keep the hardware business moving creating more complex and fat programs....if m$ had been doing what the open community has been doing for the last 10 year i dont think that technology would be where its at today...so its good and bad....the fact that 486 is still useful using linux makes it worth while to those who cant afford a amd 64-bit fx rig... 09-08-2024 11:55:21

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) zeek Please don't feed the troll. 09-13-2004 21:14:04

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Tuxi Have u ever thought that may be its not linux that sucks but your MS bull#### oriented brain? 09-17-2004 11:23:35

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) helo There is a legitimate reason why some people do get turned off by linux, and these are the people who should be introduced to linux more. First, the original author doesn't sound like someone who knows computers much. The only reason why Windows works for most people is that it was designed to target the 'average' people. This is what linux should do now, target the 'average' people. I venture to say many linux users were introduced to linux while in college in technical fields, or been in some industry related to technology, or even K12 school tweaking linux. Which means they are the minority in intelligence scale. Why not try to understand the majority, and introduce linux to them nicely? To the original author: Linux is here to stay, as history shows. Better prepare yourself to learn a little more, and be tenaceous enough to hang on to linux. You do seem to try linux from time to time, which already shows some great promise for you in linux. 10-14-2004 14:06:21

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) irlandes Another cry baby who can�t get it to work, then says its linux that sucks. I note 58 responses, am not going to bother to read them. 10-20-2004 17:22:20

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Dreadnaught Profile | Email Wow. Here's my story. No experience with Linux at all prior to May of this year. Mid-May: Dumped WinXP. Installed Mandrake10 Official Edition. Recognized all my hardware, and I have full 3D-acceleration. Didn't like my Winmodem. Winmodems are garbage. Installed serial modem. Life is great. Didn't like SONY USB floppy drive. Even though I have a card reader, I got myself an internal floppy drive in exchange for some candy. Life continues to be great. Record uptimes. Lots of customization options (way more than Windows.) Easy to learn terminal commands. You only need to know a couple of them, mainly the ones to install from source, if you choose to do that. The rest you can do from the GUI. Free programs. Get thins done better and faster than most Windows programs. All progs look like KDE, too. KDE looks better than Windows. Easily. Superior taskbar. Superor child panels and sidebars. Changing around icon themes: point and click. Once. I only use XP for games. Right now it's on a separate hard drive under a pile of garbage. Should I go on?? 10-25-2004 07:12:04

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) BOBBY Silly silly silly people - all of you. Once a man is convinced of his belief regardless of whether it is fact or fantasy he is unstoppable. He will continue on his path until it concludes in vindication or self destruction. Either way, let him get on with it and talk about something more constructive like third world debt or AIDS orphans in africa. Yours sincerly, IT consultant, typing on an windowsXP machine in an X window served from a PowerPC running Debian Linux. 10-26-2004 00:28:26

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) kevin Profile Once a man is convinced of his belief regardless of whether it is fact or fantasy he is unstoppable. He will continue on his path until it concludes in vindication or self destruction. Who cares if Robert never believes a positive word about linux? I don't think anyone ever expected him to do so. In fact I even went so far as to tell him he should stop trying linux, it isn't right for him. I meant that. But he's not the only one reading this forum. There are plenty of people who lurk without posting and read what is going on. Some of those people are trying to make up their minds as to whether linux is a good idea. I don't care if Robert et al gripe in frustration about actual linux problems, but once they start spreading false information it's time to set things straight. Put another way, if windows trolls insist on imposing their opinions on an all-linux forum, it is fully justified and called for to present the other side of the story for the benefit of other readers. -kev 10-26-2004 09:28:58

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) reddawn ok, i am a newbie, and i have never used linux, BUT.... i hear its a nice OS once you get used to it and learn how to use it. so, for the A#$munch robert and me<grinning> someone tell me a little about it. i have an old cpu with like a 550 pent 3 in it, hd is like 8 gb or something like that. so just act like i dont know a thing< to which i dont> and tell me everything. then send all the newbies like me here to read what you have told me. P.S. you time is not wasted, and i thank all that have and will help!!!! 10-30-2004 21:24:17

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) The+MESMERIC Robert - masochist spells like so. And yes you are a true masochist - why on earth do you try Suse ??? It could be also that you are not bright - I never heard of Nvidea cards. But feeling sorry for your state - my advice would be to try *ANYTHING* but Suse. The majority of Linuxers can't go wrong - Mandrake is still known to be the best of all friendly distros. Check out the charts: http://distrowatch.com/ 10-31-2004 04:50:43

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) fthomson Here in the office, we built a firewall in Suse 9.1 pro on an old compaq 3000. It looks like this, hardware wise: Compaq 3000 Dual PII 333mhz 850mb Ram 6 - 9.1gb SCSI conf'd a a raid 5 array with #6 being the hot, online spare. 2 compaq netflex 10/100 ethernet cards: eth0 is 198.162.x.x and eth1 is 172.30.x.x Software: SuSE 9.1 Pro SuSEFirewall2 with NAT from 172.30.x.x to 198.162.x.x and routing between the two networks. Squid Proxy Svr 2.5 DansGuardian for content filtering. SuSE installed without a single problem. I built this box yesterday, today my staff tries to break into it without having syscon access. This is a pre-training exercise before I start sending people out on Linux Admin training. I promised that if someone succeeds, dinner is on me. Mesmeric - don't know why you had such problems with SuSe as I have found it to be very good. Robert - Bad troll, no bisquit. 11-04-2025 23:58:19

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) TheLoneOne I have both windows xp pro and feudora core II installed. I have the latest knoppix, which comes with a working copy of wine. I like both OSes and dont see why windows + linux users always go at it. Once wine gets good enough to add a good amount of windows software to the linux library, i think windows would be in trouble. 11-05-2025 18:57:48

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Gavin19 Profile -- Once wine gets good enough... -- Crossover Office and Cedega are two 'versions' of wine that have improved on it in some way and serve to run hundreds of Win apps. -- ..to add a good amount of windows software to the linux library, i think windows would be in trouble. -- A lot of the 'main' Windows apps, Office etc, can already be run via Crossover or even most Win apps can be run via XP running in VMWare or similar and Windows is far from in trouble. Linux needs its OWN versions of these products ie Office, Dreamweaver, Nero, so it can compete fairly. IMO the lack of 'professional' software for linux, relative to Windows, is one of it's major holdbacks. 11-05-2025 19:36:59

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Ghost I don't think Linux sucks & I am a windows user. I tryed to install & use Linux several times & I am a advanced Windows user, but the only one that I could install was Suse Linux 9.1 & I liked it, but then it started for some reason working kinda buggy, but I kept on and then I finally got tired of trying and plus my tuner card would not work & I use that to record The Screen Savors, so I had to go back, but I do not think that it sucks, I just think that I am a newbie & I do not know what I am doing, but maybe oneday I will learn. That other guy that was talking about Linux is a little missing upstairs,so all you Intelligent Linux users do not pay attention to dumb A**es like him because Linux does not suck,us newbies just need to learn how to use linux. But I do wish that Linux would make a better desktop enviroment. 11-20-2004 00:33:48

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) CrazyPenguin Profile | Email Try a Live CD install like Kanotix and see how that goes. If you like it, then you can install it to your HardDrive. Good Luck!!! 11-20-2004 06:53:42

RE:And again... Linux sucks.(For Idiots & Trolls) (modified 0 times) Keyfitter Suse linux 9.1 personal edition... installs fine... gets your hopes up... gets to the video card detection (Uh Oh 2 video cards... a default MB PoS and a nice Nvidea 64 meg one) and something new to me..... a black screen a screen that turns off ALL video before you can even consider the configuration of the video parameters. Nice.. a fatal error on start up of the x server. AH, thats my linux THATS what I remember. So, since there is absolutely no way to see to continue the install.. I exit out. Reboot and try to just load up... perhaps it will just pick one of the 2 and come up. KDE comes up... fantastic... I get a message that my monitor is not returning a size... My mouse can move across the screen just fine so, the video I have the monitor plugged into is working, since the BIOS is set to load the PCI slot first like it is supposed to be, and even though this message is up.. the interface is working... for about 20 seconds that is before it returns me... and every terminal to a black screen of doom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am still new to Linux (approx.5 months) and didn't have this kind of trouble with SuSe. In fact I am not much of a computer tech either. My 40 - 50 hr a week job has next to nothing to do with computers but have taken it upon myself to learn. Ease of use with Windows is just fine but if I had to choose between XP and SuSE, I would choose SuSE. Why?, because activation is not required and I have become comfortable with SuSE. Microsoft has dropped any support for 3.1,95,and 98. What will happen when they drop support for XP and you have just installed a fresh copy of XP?. No support, no activation. If I decide to upgrade it will be because I want to, not because I was forced to. 12-06-2025 12:30:33

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) stevew Profile | Email The original author of this thread doesn't seem very knowledgeable about computers. I studied computer science in college and I used a unix system as well as windows. I used windows on my home system for 6+ years and just switched to Gentoo linux. Gentoo does not have a GUI installer and does not guide the user through installation. I had to do everything manually on a command line. I now have a working linux system that is fast, stable, and reliable. No way I'm going back to windows. My linux system does everything my windows system did. I had a few problem's but I stuck with it and I got the problem's solved and learned a lot about linux in the process. I am thinking of getting linux certifications; CompTIA Linux+ first, then LPIC-1 and LPIC-2. The place where I work is thinking of using linux and a few open-source projects. 12-07-2024 18:10:40

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) jsjsjs Does anyone remember the line from the Tom Hanks movie, A League of Their Own when Tom Hanks states about baseball -- If it was easy everyone would be doing it? Linux can be difficult to the newbie, but I want to learn just for the joy of learning. Being difficult is what makes it cool. 12-07-2024 20:19:00

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) lnxWarrior Tom Hanks has another quote from a movie about to be released; "The problem isn't deciding where you are going, the problem is deciding to get on!" This applies to a greater extent in choosing which OS to use. The biggest difference between Linux and Windows is that Linux is and is being developed as a "Community" effort. I have found that if I have had a problem with Linux, (which are becoming very rare), the answer is out there after a short google session, or within 24 hours after mailing a user group or forum. Windows is sold as a set piece, with a price tag on everything to do with it, including asking for help. If you are using a computer, or planning to, you have to have some idea what you are going to do with it, that is know where you are going with it. You now have a choice: which OS to use to get there? A corporately run diesel, run as near to cost as possible, with known faults that will be fixed "later"; or a lovingly built steamer. All leaks and faults fixed as they appear. Needs work to learn to drive but there is always a volunteer to help. You may not get there as fast because of the learning curve but you won't be as stressed because you have more control! Personally, I have used Linux more than windows in the past five years. (Bryce 5 has not been ported yet, hint). At home I use it all the time, including for web development. I am still learning, as the new features come out but I am a lot less stressed because the only faults that now appear are when I have been "tinkering" to see what happens if..... ...Better programmers...huh! They are wage slaves. The rules of their market dictates that they release software that is not ready and not fully debugged. The open source programmers do it to impress. They are not prone to release software with their mark on it if it is going to completely fail their prospective audience. Linux is now more than ready for the Desktop. Mandrake is a really good example. Suse is a not so bad one either. If Linux was that bad why is the Eastern hemisphere turning to it by the country? (So are thousands of Local Authorities in Europe.) It can't be the cost. According the MS the TCO for Linux over the short term is higher than Windows. On that line of reasoning it must be the quality of software. ) I can have a fully serviceable system in Linux within an hour. My last Windows 2000 install was THREE DAYS! (What with all the updates and patches and all). BTW thanks for an entertaining thread. Maybe the world will wake up to what is outside Redmond be able to make a real choice. I know what train I'm going to ride! ...enough of these inane drivellings... Chin Chin! 12-21-2004 17:20:18

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Xleon I don't think anyone mentioned the Ubuntu distro (based on Debian). I've often had trouble with installing Linux that has put me off. BUT, I tried the Ubuntu distro only a few weeks ago and EVERYTHING (even on my old stubbord laptop) installed flawlessly. Media players, audio, MYSQL, Apache2, MYSQL, Firefox, Thunderbird, VLC, MPLayer, XVid Codecs, PHP4 etc. etc. In fact, all the things I do on Windoze XP. You should give that a go if like me, you want something more than Windoze. 01-02-2025 02:10:10

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) richie60 I installed Ubuntu about a week ago and not all is good, it won't play my dvd's in either Totem or Xine, by default: how can you install extra plugins for totem when you click the relevant button and get taken to an empty folder on the filesystem...??? Xine is just a pile of crap - it's never worked for me on any distro. The upside is that i have successfully installed extra software and added some more repositories without a hitch, but today, when I went to log into Ubuntu, my Gnome session lasted 10 seconds and quit with some sort of error message over and over again. How the hell can things like this be fixed by Mr. Average? So now all I can do is either reinstall the damn think not knowing how to fix it or move on to another distro or stick to trusty Win XP which is always reliable AND virus free with up to date AV software. And another thing: why is it that when I boot from any distro installation CD, when it gives the option to press F1 for help or Enter to install, pressing F1 makes the system hang. This has happened with a number of distros that i've tried. Windows again works just fine when booting from it and selecting one of the function keys, why not Linux? I admit that I may not be very knowledgable in Linux, but I have a go and try to understand it, but just keep getting dissapointed and frustrated with the experiences that I get with it. It really needs to become a LOT more user friendly and easier to use in everyday situations just to compare with Windows, again these file permissions are a real pain when all I want to do is plug in my external hard drive to use without having to resort to a command line and sort out confusing things like fstab files. I just want it to work properly. I am trying not to be too harsh on linux, as I have an interest in it's progress, but it's too slow to catch up. 01-15-2005 15:10:14

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) TTO1 Profile Will wine get good enough, or is it just interpretting all the time and to slow to ever get good enough.. 01-17-2005 13:53:46

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) assman Linux does suck. You only need to read the Unix Hater's Handbook to see all that is wrong with Linux/Unix. Somebody mentioned Sendmail is good. YOU HAVE TO BE ####ING KIDDING ME. SENDMAIL EXPLOITS WERE USED BY THE KGB TO STEAL SECRETS FROM THE MILLITARY. Sendmail has notoriously unsecure and extremely buggy. Everything in Linux is ####, cold ####. Why is Linux absolute stinky ####? Let me give you a few reasons: 1. It is programmed in C and C is pure ####. It has no security model, no exceptions, pointers, is extremely low level, has piss poor string handling, not portable etc. 2. It is a hacked together piece of garbage having no coheret design philosophy. In fact Unix/Linux is a lot like Perl except for the fact that Perl is actually far better designed and is more sensible and coherent. This is saying a lot because Perl is actually a hacked together piece of ####. 3. The Linux community is full of assholes, stupid geeks, and pimply fat ####s who have nothing better to do than sit around and make Linux even more ####ty than it already is. 4. The bugs of Linux/Unix hardly ever get fixed because pimply fat ####s use the stupid errors to actually do something so fixing the errors breaks code of the pimply fat ####s.; 02-11-2024 14:55:25

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) McClane >> It is programmed in C and C is pure #### ..... Your obviously not a programmer and an idiot. >> It has no security model, no exceptions, pointers, is extremely low level, has piss poor string handling, not portable etc. Oh maybe u r a programmer, just an idiot. Hows the VB going ? >> It is a hacked together piece of garbage having no coheret design philosophy Idiot. 02-11-2024 18:50:41

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) Real life user First, please excuse the typos. I learned to type as a cub reporter with two fingers and I've never been able to reprogramme to ten. Lack of time means I will not correct it all but just try to get a positive message across. I'm a journalist, author and sucessful publisher. I've started several newcos from scratch in new media and satellite and cable TV and sold them for a few million dollars. Those companies have created jobs for a lot of people. I like to support the underdog and the freedom of an alternative. I like Opera and Firefox as browsers, for example. For the longest while I have watched and read Linux forums, and slowly and carefully I have managed with no formal computer skills to install both SUSE Linux and Red Hat Linux on PCs that I have built myself in my "spare" time. But for those like me, who are not really computer systems literate it can be extraordinarily frustrating even given the need to make an allowance for having been "windows spoiled". The majority of us non-specialists, and I guess that excludes most people in this forum, just want something to be installable, useable and reasonably user friendly with a minimum of frustration. To go for Linux you probably have to be interested in the following sorts of things: something that will avoid the semi-monopoly of Windows, something that looks aesthetically different, or is functionally different and more beautiful and fun to use, something which has a different philospohy and is better value for money. If you see computing as a means to an end rather than an end in itself you are probably prepared to devote some time to learning a new system. However, from my own experiences with two flavours of Linux installations I have to say I did not find it easy, and I think the rest of the world whom Linux enthusiasts we are trying to persuade to adopt an alternative systems are not unlike me in their limitations. But they may well turn to a Linux forum like this for advice and help. If the see ongoing bickering, insults, spleen and pure rudeness I personally believe this will put them off. How about more positive stuff? For myself, I would love to persevere with Linux and succeed, but a series of problems have taken me a lot of time to resolve (I have resolved them except modem/internet issues. One category of problem that is difficult to handle is real world mass market systems that just do not cater for Linux in everyday transactions that you need. Buy a BT broadband ADSL connection, for exmaple, in the UK A few million people have) and you just will never get connected by the installation disc for BT broadband which tells you that unless you have a certain MAC or Windows system the solution is to buy a new computer. (They also tell you they can sell you a new one - thanks,so much, BT)So I can only connect via Windows XP. Could all the fantastic amount of energy and dedication in the Linux world not solve this problem? If anyone could be tolerant and patient enough to devise, and post, a user friendly pice of software which replaces the BT installation disc, as a tested method of connecting a (BT broadband) ADSL subscriber on a Linux computer to the Internet, this is the sort of public relations tool provision that would go far to promote the alternative system. Even better would be a piece of alternative software for most major ISPs that do not issue a Linux disc. And providing user friendly slutions to common Linux problems for "the rest" of us would be so much more positive and ambassadorial for the Linux system as a whole, than bickering and insults between Linux experts in IT. Is anyone up for checking out the BT broadband software that BT distirbutes to ADSL broadband subscribers, and compiling an alternative piece of software that allows Linux users to install their paid-for BT Broadband ISP connection and connect using something other than MAC or Windows. I think the application would actually sell - either on the net or to BT. This Linux Internet connection is a product with several iterations, probably be needed 1. in each Linux distribution 2. For other ISPs who have not make Linux subscriber cocnnection discs available. If someone wants to co-operate I would be happy to try and commercialise it, and provide one missing link in the list of necessities for the mass market to painlessly go Linux. Bill.. (Real Life "Dumb Idiot" Linux User) 02-13-2005 05:07:33

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) McClane Is it a USB modem or an ethernet connection ? If its ethernet it should just work. Maybe you have both connection types availible ? I have an ethernet connection and a usb connection of my adsl modem and i just have to choose between them. Obviously i choose ethernet. The BT installation cd (I haven't used/seen it) does in a word, "#### all". I assume its just there to install the drivers for the modem is necessary and make other minor changes which u can do yourself anyways. 02-13-2005 05:43:29

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) renderwhite Hey i would like a lot to change from windowsXP to linux..... but i think its a little bit impossible, i use 3dsMax, AdobePhotoshop, Corel Painter8, Zbrush2.0... haha, don�t think linux support them!?!? and by the way stop insulting people that use windows and have no ideia on how to use that "SO CALLED PERFECT SYSTEM"... the only way for me would to go Mac, but im not just in the mood to roubed for a computer... so you guys just shut the f... up and help who asks for help. 02-16-2005 13:28:15

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) tipseeker renderwhite: "SO CALLED PERFECT SYSTEM" I don't think any sensible Linux user would call linux perfect. There's no such thing. All are evolving into better systems -- which is good. In my experience -- I like using linux for the following(not in order): 1. Far more stable (no unexpected boots, in fact I don't even need to re-boot after installing new software). 2. Better manages system resources 3. Better Performance 4. Secure -- less virus threats. Strong firewall capabilities. 5. Gives the user so much control -- once you're on it, chances are you would not want to go back to Windows again. On the downside -- there's a steeper learning curve: Requires patience and desire to change, at least initially. But I'm not sure if that's a downside -- since knowledge is power. 02-17-2005 11:12:07

RE:And again... Linux sucks. (modified 0 times) eljefe Profile I used to think the same way and often tried linux only to head back to Windows because certain apps were missing... Since that time though we had a Linux Pilot come up at work and I volunteered to take the project on... Well, in building the standard for Linux desktops it has become very clear to me that most people could work just fine with a Linux Desktop even if you had to use Winetools or Crossover Office for a few applications... In work we use Winetools for 2 applications, IE and JINITIATOR and the only reason we use IE is to verify that the websites we build will render correctly with IE... Everything else seems to have a suitable replacement in IE whether it's Oracle's 10G client, JDeveloper, 3270 Emulation, Evolution (connecting to Exchange) or Open Office! Crud, in the finance industry most desktops could get along just fine with X3270, Evolution and Open Office and I doubt that many government organizations would need much more than that. 02-17-2005 18:23:05

Start New Thread | Reply to Thread | Printer | Forward All times are PST Powered by UltraBoard v1.62

- LINUX vs. WINDOWS debate / discussion - LINUX DISTRIBUTIONS: Q&A;, discussion - Win2Lin MIGRATION STORIES / discussion - APPLICATION SOFTWARE: Q&A;, discussion - HARDWARE TOPICS: Q&A;, discussion - TALKBACKS on news and articles - LINUX SYSTEM ADMIN: Q&A;, discussion - DESKTOP/WINDOW MANAGERS: Q&A;, discussion - OTHER (stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere) - wIndependence essay contest winners - Other wIndependence essays - ABOUT THIS SITE and its mission - The Win2Lin FAQ

home  |  news  |  articles  |  polls  |  forum  |  directory  |  about us  |  contact us

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Except where otherwise specified, the contents of this site are copyright © 1999-2005 Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.