- Capitalism and Alternatives -

You don't know what you're talking about...

Posted by: Gideon Hallett ( UK ) on September 08, 1999 at 13:21:16:

In Reply to: When Galt's Gulch becomes a ghetto ... posted by Dr. Cruel on September 08, 1999 at 10:58:43:

: I detest LINUX. It is cumbersome, amateurish, and difficult to work with. SCO is obviously an unfinished product.

And with that sentence, you demonstrate your complete ignorance. OK, so you don't have the first clue about Linux, Unix or computing...

Firstly, Linux comprises some 6 million lines of code; as opposed to 15 million in Windows '95.

Difficult to work with? Not really; the install procedure is no more difficult than that for Windows; you can use Red Hat or Suse or OpenLinux and never go near a command-line interface. In fact, as is shown here, the NextStep-alike Windowmaker GUI is a good deal more simple and intuitive than Windows; as well as being a good deal faster and more capable - try looking at a screenshot here.

Amateurish? Linux has 1/10th of the average downtime of a comparable Windows NT box; that is to say you will spend 10 times as much time trying to repair NT as you would Linux. Uptimes of over a year are common with Linux boxes; try doing that with a Windows PC...

Alternatively, look at the comparable security records of Linux and Windows; due to the openness of Linux and the source code, "security through obscurity" is impossible; this means that bugs and holes usually get fixed within 24 hours of being discovered. Contrast this to the number of known security weaknesses there are in Windows; three major ones came to light last week alone; see this article for one of the most serious; a bug in MS's JVM (Java Virtual Machine) that could make Melissa or WinExplorer.zip look like child's play.

Furthermore, have you ever seen a Linux macro virus? No? It's because Linux is fundamentally more stable and secure than Windows; the user-level user doesn't have the power to alter the OS kernel and the OS doesn't allow macros to make system calls to the kernel, making it much better protected that Windows.

Furthermore, a product that originated as a collective effort to make a webserver for Linux is now the world's most popular webserver by a long way. Apache runs 55% of the world's Web servers as opposed to 22% for Microsoft's IIS. As Steve Ballmer of Microsoft admitted, Apache is simply a better product. Hardly amateurish, Doc.

Now, for the final howling error in your first sentence, SCO isn't software, neither is it Linux. As you can see here, the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc is a corporation that produces the SCO version of Unix.

Linux and Unix are not the same; the OS kernels are different, hence the name.

Please, just admit that you're trying to venture an opinion on a subject you know next to nothing about and are just throwing a few words you've heard around in a vain attempt to seem informed.

(You probably use Windows NT because you have trouble believing that Microsoft can do any wrong...well, guess which OS is ready for Merced first; Linux...guess which OS runs on the 64-bit Alpha chip; Linux...and guess which OS has been held back another month due to a major security flaw; Windows 2000)

: And yes, of course I am grateful for the wretched thing. Communism by capital is almost as burdensome as communism by gun barrel. Why would I think otherwise? Which is why, of course, I always buy AMD processors (the cost, of course, having nothing to do with my most self-sacrificing decision. Of course.)

AMD do actually make the best processors, despite Intel's efforts to kill AMD off by price-cutting. The last time I made a PC I used a K6-2 350, which runs perfectly happily.

Actually, it runs Linux perfectly happily. I kept it going for 60 days solid running RC5 keys; try *that* with Microsloth Windoze


Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup