soulman901
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2004
- Messages
- 642
Guarana [BAWLS];1038846566 said:Really bad troll is really bad.
Dude, seriously, that was beyond weak. You can do better'n that.
Who said I was trolling......
Linux sucks.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guarana [BAWLS];1038846566 said:Really bad troll is really bad.
Dude, seriously, that was beyond weak. You can do better'n that.
People like Torvalds believe everything should be open source and that proprietary ideas and information should simply not exist. That's a reasonable belief if a person is rational, level-headed and empathetic about that viewpoint (even if that seems pretty contradictory). It's not reasonable if your attitude is that of Linus's. If open source software is a religion, then he's the leader of the OSS equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church.
He spends more time damaging public perception of the Linux community than any other single person in the Linux community, in my opinion. Rather than being a positive beacon, he chooses to be the negative beacon, festering negativity and resentment in the community. I don't hold the guy singularly responsible for the way many Linux people act (arrogant to an extreme degree), but he absolutely isn't helping.
--I don't think there is an ideology, and I don't think there *should* be an ideology. And the important part of that is the "an" - I think there can be *many* ideologies. I do it for my own reasons, other people do it for _their_ own reasons. I think the world is a complicated place, and people are interesting and complicated animals that do things for complex reasons. And that's why I don't think there should be "an ideology". I think it's really refreshing to see people working on Linux because they believe they can make the world a better place by spreading technology and making it available to people more widely - and they think that open source is a good way to do that. That's _one_ ideology. I think it's a great one. It isn't really why I started doing Linux myself, but it warms my heart to see Linux used that way. But I _also_ think that it's great to see all the commercial companies that use open source simply because it's good for business. That's a totally different ideology, and I think that's a perfectly good ideology too. The world would be a _much_ worse place if we didn't have companies doing things for money. So the only ideology I really despise and dislike is the kind that is about exclusion of other ones. I despise people whose ideology is about "the one true ideology", and not following that particular set of moral guidelines is "evil" or "wrong". That's just small-minded and stupid, to me. So the important part about open source is not the ideology it's just that everybody can use it for their own needs and for their own reasons. The copyright license is there to keep that openness alive, and to make sure that the project doesn't fragment into people who hide their improvements from each other and then have to re-implement each others changes - but it's not there to enforce some ideology.
Who said I was trolling......
Linux sucks.
Linux on the desktop is free. It's also where it matters least. For enterprise and consumer electronics it is not free. Most definetly not for the former.
Windows is an unholy shit wreck with an 1800s era kernel.
Keep trolling.
Linux all over is free, yes some distro's cost money, but to say all enterprise and all consumer electronics that use Linux have a license you need to buy is completely incorrect. Check your facts, because they are wrong.
Windows is an unholy shit wreck with an 1800s era kernel
But one that doesn't need to be updated every time I update my drivers... Windows has its own flaws, but it is better in many ways than Linux as well. There is no perfect OS, at least not currently or anytime soon.
But one that doesn't need to be updated every time I update my drivers... Windows has its own flaws, but it is better in many ways than Linux as well. There is no perfect OS, at least not currently or anytime soon.
right. so, when will Linux take over the desktop OS market? oh, nm...
"I don't game."
"I like being outrageous at times."
"I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended."
All Linus Torvalds quotes from the end of this video.
And us non-developers are supposed to respect this man? I think he's an arrogant jerk.
Windows changes, browsers change, Adobe flash changes, games change. It's not a linux specific issue by any stretch.
Windows is an unholy shit wreck with an 1800s era kernel.
High-level changes happen all the time and are relatively harmless. We're talking about kernel and breaking API changes. Something Linux does all the time, and Microsoft only does with every major Windows release.
Windows from a user perspective is debatable, but anyone who has programmed a Windows driver can tell their kernel, driver, and plugin architecture is phenomenally stable and sensible. It's light years ahead of Linux's "hard code ALL the things!" and "break ALL the APIs!" system of updating.
A lot of penetration testers, security analysts, and malware engineers would say otherwise.
You don't need to update your kernel every time you update your drivers... If a certain chipset isn't supported by kernel version, you can either add kernel modules for it or update to a newer stable kernel entirely for that specific hardware, this is done once. I've never seen an issue of someone having to update their kernel everytime they update their drivers for any device... obviously you're doing something wrong. The kernel itself supports a vast amount of chipsets that are immutable on the motherboard.
Are we talking about Windows 7/8, or 98?
Okay, you don't need to update the kernel EVERY time you update drivers in Linux, nor vice versa... but fairly often. Drivers ARE tied to at most a few kernel versions. You do often have to update drivers when you update your kernel because of changes in the kernel that seriously happen all the friggin' time in Linux because you have such fragmentation and integration with the video and kernel stuff. And again, it's even worse for developers. Want your hardware to work on Linux? You'd better get in bed (not literally.. well, I mean, I guess you could, but..) with Linus and convince him that your driver should be included in "his" kernel. And then you have to fix it yearly (or more) whenever they break stuff (again - very often).
Hell, I said Windows Vista+7 together have stuck to one driver architecture longer than Linux ever has, but Windows 7 alone - if not having been out longer than Linux ever has stuck with one driver architecture, has at least been out longer than Linux has recently (since 2.6) done so.
right. so, when will Linux take over the desktop OS market? oh, nm...
Using kernel modules does nothing different. The ONLY difference is that the module isn't compiled into the kernel. Aside from that, they still work the same, and they are still subject to the constant breaking changes introduced into the kernel. Your solution is to just pick a kernel and stick with it for a long time? That is not acceptable to me. Businesses may be content running the ancient 2.6.18 kernel, but I would not even consider running such an old kernel. I can just imagine being on the phone with Microsoft, being told to switch back to Windows XP to get my hardware to work as if that were an acceptable solution.
P.S. I have been using Linux 2.6 since 2.6.0-test9 - just not as a desktop (well, I did briefly, but not for a while now). (I did have some 2.2 and 2.4 experience before that, though not a ton.)
Learn my package manager? My preferred Linux is Gentoo and I can all but guarantee you that I'm more familiar with Linux than you are based on your apparent limited understanding of the Linux driver "ecosystem." I've installed and run the majority of the distros of it at one point or another, too. Not that I am the best, but I do know what I'm talking about.
How often are you reinstalling? If you're doing it more frequently than the grace period for activation, then just don't activate.
Well.. the version doesn't really matter. Windows has several fundamental design flaws that are inherent amongst all iterations.
I see Linux advocates post this daily since the first tech web forums, I still have yet to see it backed up with any kind of detailed explanation.
Instead of producing a giant rant like I normally do, I will stay docile and give you just one small example that pisses me off:
Failure to support the basic idea of symlinks that have been around for the longest time on unix-like systems. And before you talk about junction points and the half posix compliant symlinks introduced with Windows Vista, just attempt to use one (dear god the suffering).
Did you miss the part where I spoke about "Half" complaint symlinks? Windows forces you to determine if a symlink is a directory or file outright and only supports a link depth of 31.?
C:\Users\Dan>mklink /?
Creates a symbolic link.
MKLINK [[/D] | [/H] | [/J]] Link Target
/D Creates a directory symbolic link. Default is a file
symbolic link.
/H Creates a hard link instead of a symbolic link.
/J Creates a Directory Junction.
Link specifies the new symbolic link name.
Target specifies the path (relative or absolute) that the new link
refers to.
Symbolic links are designed to aid in migration and application compatibility with POSIX operating systems. Microsoft aimed for Vista's symbolic links to "function just like UNIX links".[4] However, the implementation varies from Unix symbolic links in several ways. For example, Vista users must manually indicate when creating a symbolic link whether it is a file or a directory.[5] Vista has a limit of 31 symbolic links in a single path.[6] Only users with the new Create Symbolic Link privilege, which only administrators have by default, can create symbolic links.[7] If this is not the desired behavior, it must be changed in the Local Security Policy management console.
In Windows 7 and Windows Vista, when the working directory path ends with a symbolic link, the current parent path reference, .., will refer to the parent directory of the symbolic link rather than that of its target. This behaviour is also found in at least some POSIX systems, including Linux.
I see Linux advocates post this daily since the first tech web forums, I still have yet to see it backed up with any kind of detailed explanation.
It's funny because they have one of the best drivers in the Linux world. He is just mad because they are closed source.
They are the most stable and highest performing as well.
The closed and open source AMD Drivers are both equally terrible, and the open source NVidia driver is a joke.
The critical thinking skills of most of the people responding to this thread really make me despair for the human race.
The only person in the thread who has understood the discussion so far.
Umm... a LOT of people, actually.
For real? A link depth of 31 is a fundamental design flaw? First of all, that can probably be corrected if there was any kind of desire whatsoever for it. Second, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say fundamental design flaw, so how am I supposed to ask about an affected system? Here's one anyhow; how about restartable crashed drivers. Last I heard, linux doesn't even support it. A fundamental design flaw in Windows to have such a useful feature I'm sure.
Uptime for my server at work is still 1.5 years and it has only ever been shut off for 10 minutes for a hardware change.
I love this Dunning Kruger forum, apparently nearly everyone not only has more knowledge concerning the issue at hand than Torvalds, but they seem to agree he is wrong!
Nvidia fan boyism? Severe egos? Trovalds might actually be wrong? You decide, I already have.
Not a universal opinion, I prefer not allowing malware drivers.#1 Digital signed drivers can cause problems. Microsoft charges to have them signed.
Linux is garbage.#2 UAC is garbage.
Any benchmarks to corroborate that, or are we to take your word on it?#3 SuperFetch causes more performance loss then it helps.
Google's massive hard drive study showed that hard drive usage doesn't affect life span, you'd gain more by disabling drive sleeping to keep the temps uniform.#4 Massive amounts of hard drive trashing, which just brings my hard drives death sooner then it should.
Don't use it.#5 Readyboost doesn't do anything.
Mind you I can create a bigger list with Linux, but those are the problems that I can think of at the moment for Windows 7.
In the 8 years I've used Linux I've never had a kernel panic during operation.
When did I say fundamental design flaw? I just picked an annoying issue I had recently and one of the reasons I prefer unix like environments. As for the driver issue, In the 8 years I've used Linux I've never had a kernel panic during operation. However for the 8 years I've used Windows I've had more than I can count. I've used experimental kernel drivers in the past with better stability then full fledged windows drivers.
Uptime for my server at work is still 1.5 years and it has only ever been shut off for 10 minutes for a hardware change.