ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com ...just a little comic i found...
Pangloss Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 By the way, a better debate (because it really cuts to the heart of THIS argument) is the subject of whether open source is better than proprietary development. The traditional argument from the "Linux side" (if you don't mind the generalization for the moment) is that open source is better, and in fact a lot of devs in the Microsoft world have recently "come over", developing .NET products the "open source way". But I've actually argued it from the other side as well -- i.e. proprietary does offer advantages to consumers. In fact Microsoft's entire success story is a case in point. The lack of recognition that the second point of view has value as well is a key indicator of how badly we've failed to educate the second generation of computer geeks in this country. It just galls me to see how the current generation goes off shouting about "competition" when in fact what they're demanding is exactly the opposite. I feel like Treebeard trying to figure out hobbits with only Merry and Pippin as examples. ;-) Perhaps it has something to do with the political climate in the country right now, I don't know.
herme3 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Are you sure you have Windows? Yes, Windows XP Service Pack 2. It's very stable, and I've never had it freeze. When a program become unstable, I just press ctrl+alt+del and end the task. I've never had a single problem with the operating system. One time I accidentally deleted some operating system files, but I used system restore and repaired them. I didn't lose any documents or programs. I don't think Linux has anything like that. The only recent Windows operating system that was very bad was Windows ME. Besides the various security holes and other exploits, the fact is that IE is one of - if not the worst browser out there. IE is an excellent browser. Every browser has security issues, but Microsoft has WindowsUpdate.com where you can download fixes. Most companies that make browsers don't take the time to update their browsers. Netscape rarely releases any type of updates, and they are one of the worse browsers. Almost all web sites work perfectly with IE. When I tried Netscape, I was unable to enter a chat room that worked fine with IE. When I tried Firefox, I was having trouble accessing StormPay's claim center. When you try these poorly designed browsers, you will always come across web sites that don't work right. Do I even need to mention all the problems AOL members have? Have you noticed that some links say, "Click Here" and then there is a separate link that says, "AOL Users Click Here"? That is because IE can load the web site, and AOL can't. The same thing happens with all other browsers. I own several web sites, and I don't even take the time to make sure my sites work with other browsers. Web site owners shouldn't have to worry about people downloading other browsers when IE comes with almost all computers. IE security issues' date=' I suggest you do some research. A quick google for: "IE security issues" gave me this link: http://secunia.com/product/11/ hey look it's the current version of IE and covers the UNPACHED security issues.[/quote'] What type of people are running this web site? Why do they say IE version 6.x is the most recent version? THAT ISN'T EVEN A REAL VERSION NUMBER! The real version number is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 and that number is the version with all the security fixes and updates. The site you posted about is complaining about every security issue with any IE6 browser. The first IE6 was released a long time ago, and Microsoft has made many changes. That is why the version number keeps changing. That site obviously doesn't understand that.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 herme3, i have read many of your posts and i have come up with a new rule of thumb: assume everything you say is crap until proven otherwise.
herme3 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I completely disagree with herme3, who said Linux lacks features. This is completely wrong in my opinion, yes, Windows XP or Mac OS X have features that Linux doesnt, just as Mac OS X has features that Windows XP doesnt and vice versa, but you have to understand that linux itself also has features that neither of the other two (or other OS's) have. I think herme3 made the statement with little research into the matter (no offense intended). I do know some Linux facts. The Linux kernel itself is very simple, and does not have nearly as many features as Windows XP. Unless you were talking about the companies that added on to Linux, and sell it for a profit under another name. I've heard that most of those operating systems have tons of compatibility issues. I would still recommend Windows XP.
herme3 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 herme3, i have read many of your posts and i have come up with a new rule of thumb: assume everything you say is crap until proven otherwise. Why? You are the one that wants a crappy operating system. If Linux was so good, they would be installed on new PCs. I think that PC manufacturers would know which operating system is best for their system. Almost all of them select Windows XP. If everything I am saying is crap, it is strange that so many PC manufacturers seem to agree with me.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 you say you know stuff about linux yet almost everything you said about it is wrong. heres the reson for my new rule of thumb: 1)you are a steryeotypical creationist 2)you are a MS fanboy 3)you use your creationist tactics while displaying your MS fanboyness and utter ignorance of Linux. do you even know what linux is? try doing some research before you make yourself look like even more of an utter moron
herme3 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 you say you know stuff about linux yet almost everything you said about it is wrong. heres the reson for my new rule of thumb: 1)you are a steryeotypical creationist 2)you are a MS fanboy 3)you use your creationist tactics while displaying your MS fanboyness and utter ignorance of Linux. The main reason many people hate Microsoft is because they don't want to pay for a nice operating system and computer. They would rather buy a cheap low-quality product, and then complain about the stuff that is better than what they have. Either you don't want to buy Windows XP, or you already bought Windows XP but your computer won't work with Windows XP. When I first bought Windows XP, I installed it on my old computer. It was slow, and seemed to have a lot of problems. However, I didn't go around complaining about Windows XP. I started saving my money, then I bought some more RAM and a new hard drive. Now it works perfectly in my old computer. It is fast and stable. It didn't cost too much money. I paid about $300.00 for everything, and installed everything myself. I don't understand why you seem to have a problem with me being a creationist. I have nothing against you for your religion, so I don't know why you are against mine. I've stated some of my opinions in other threads, but I've never tried to push my religious beliefs on other members. I would appreciate the same respect. The fact that I like Windows XP has nothing to do with my religion. I am a Computer Specialist, so I have had a lot of experience with Windows XP. I have discovered that "Windows XP problems" are usually issues with other software, or the hardware inside the computer.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 The main reason many people hate Microsoft is because they don't want to pay for a nice operating system and computer. They would rather buy a cheap low-quality product' date=' and then complain about the stuff that is better than what they have. Either you don't want to buy Windows XP, or you already bought Windows XP but your computer won't work with Windows XP. When I first bought Windows XP, I installed it on my old computer. It was slow, and seemed to have a lot of problems. However, I didn't go around complaining about Windows XP. I started saving my money, then I bought some more RAM and a new hard drive. Now it works perfectly in my old computer. It is fast and stable. It didn't cost too much money. I paid about $300.00 for everything, and installed everything myself. I don't understand why you seem to have a problem with me being a creationist. I have nothing against you for your religion, so I don't know why you are against mine. I've stated some of my opinions in other threads, but I've never tried to push my religious beliefs on other members. I would appreciate the same respect. The fact that I like Windows XP has nothing to do with my religion. I am a Computer Specialist, so I have had a lot of experience with Windows XP. I have discovered that "Windows XP problems" are usually issues with other software, or the hardware inside the computer.[/quote'] it doesn't matter what you have posted, for you are wrong. now lets get back on topic so far(in no order), we have: Pros: stable freedom cheaper faster updates far fewer viruses, spyware, adware, ... faster far fewer nonresponsive programs nonresponsive programs can't crash your computer superior programs customizable get more work done geeky Cons: fewer games not as compatible as MS(although it is becoming more compatible all the time) What's that button do? Oh, sweet jesus, no! geeky what else?
Dak Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 IE is an excellent browser. Every browser has security issues, but Microsoft has WindowsUpdate.com where you can download fixes. ie has alot of security holes, and it doesnt ship with the security settings configured correctly. alot of the problems with ie stem from the fact that its the most common, and for a long time was virtually the only browser, and so most malware was targetted at it. all the same, it does have alot of security holes, but like i said it *can* be made secure. Almost all web sites work perfectly with IE. When I tried Netscape, I was unable to enter a chat room that worked fine with IE. When I tried Firefox, I was having trouble accessing StormPay's claim center. When you try these poorly designed browsers, you will always come across web sites that don't work right. Do I even need to mention all the problems AOL members have? Have you noticed that some links say, "Click Here" and then there is a separate link that says, "AOL Users Click Here"? That is because IE can load the web site, and AOL can't. The same thing happens with all other browsers. I own several web sites, and I don't even take the time to make sure my sites work with other browsers. Web site owners shouldn't have to worry about people downloading other browsers when IE comes with almost all computers. to a large extent, the impietus is on the website owner to ensure compatability with the variouse browsers, for example the 'aol users click here' button on the websites. the need to desighn websites to be compatble with AOL browsers may or maynot be aols fault (i dont know enough about it), but if you wish for people to be able to access your site with their browser of choice, then you should desighn the website so that it can be accessed with all standard browsers. as far as FF is concerned, most incompatablity issues stem from FFs refusal to use active-x, which most websites have taken into concideration and desighned non-active-x ways of accomplishing things. What type of people are running this web site? Why do they say IE version 6.x is the most recent version? THAT ISN'T EVEN A REAL VERSION NUMBER! The real version number is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 version 6.x means all of the IE6 versions.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 Almost all web sites work perfectly with IE. really? sayo's website worked for every browser but IE and he had to add 3 pages of code or something like that JUST TO MAKE IT IE COMPATTABLE....yea, IE is better.
Dak Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Ok, if i have a specific problem with my xp, i can usually find some documentation of it on the web, i can find replacement system files to dl of the web, i can usually find the exact problem i have (and the solution) documented on the web, and i can usually find the above in every level of technical language (from noob --> geek), so that whatever my level of understanding i can savvy the answre. is the same true for the variouse linux OSs? How easy could i learn about it and fix any specific problem? and whats a distribution? is the difference between one linux distribution and another the same as, say, the difference between windows xp and windows 98?
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 yes, you can do that for linux. distrobutions are all of the different types of linux. any OS with the linux kernal is called linux. http://www.linux.com http://www.linux.org
Dak Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 so more like the difference between windows 95 and 98? (as they use the same kernel). what is a kernel btw, am i right in thinking its the core of the OS?
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 so more like the difference between windows 95 and 98? (as they use the same kernel). what is a kernel btw' date=' am i right in thinking its the core of the OS?[/quote'] We should point out here that the focal point of any operating system is its 'kernel'. Without going into great detail, the kernel is what tells the big chip that controls your computer to do what you want the program that you're using to do. To use a metaphor, if you go to your favorite Italian restaurant and order 'Spaghetti alla Bolognese', this dish is like your operating system. There are a lot of things that go into making that dish like pasta, tomato sauce, meatballs and cheese. Well, the kernel is like the pasta. Without pasta, that dish doesn't exist. You might as well find some bread and make a sandwich. A plate of just pasta is fairly unappetizing. Without a kernel, an operating system doesn't exist. Without programs, a kernel is useless. does that answer your question at all?
Pangloss Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 First of all, yourdadonapogos, you haven't demonstrated that you're qualified to answer technical questions. All you've demonstrated so far is that you're capable of being a jerk to people who don't like Linux. On the subject of browser compatibility: Sayo's situation is the exception, not the norm. In most cases IE is more compatible than Firefox/Mozilla, and you're more likely to run into display errors in Firefox/Mozilla than you are in IE. That's not because IE is a superior product, it's because IE is more common. This is well known to the Mozilla team and they're improving compatibility with each release, which proves the point. But it's not unusual for Mozilla users to have to stop and pop up and IE window to display a site correctly, less they miss content or features they need to complete a task. This happens to me frequently on my school web site, for example, when I go to turn in assignments. It's also something I run across frequently in my work as a web designer (I've done quite a few professional sites, going back to 1995). On the subject of security holes: This is a function of market share, not engineering. As we have SEEN, Mozilla and Firefox are arguably also "riddled with security holes", and if they had Microsoft's market share they would likely see the kind of attacks by hackers that Microsoft is dealing with today. Does that answer YOUR question at all?
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 why would i be able to answer technical questions? i came here asking the questions.
Pangloss Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 why would i be able to answer technical questions? i came here asking the questions. Really? Let's see..... really? sayo's website worked for every browser but IE and he had to add 3 pages of code or something like that JUST TO MAKE IT IE COMPATTABLE....yea, IE is better. it doesn't matter what you have posted, for you are wrong. now lets get back on topic you say you know stuff about linux yet almost everything you said about it is wrong. ....you are a MS fanboy3)you use your creationist tactics while displaying your MS fanboyness and utter ignorance of Linux. herme3' date=' i have read many of your posts and i have come up with a new rule of thumb: assume everything you say is crap until proven otherwise.[/quote'] Yeah, you're the soul of open-minded inquiry alright.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 yea it is open-minded. if you would look, all of that is in response to herme3's incorrect information. and you are almost strawmanning. for someone that hates fanboys so much you are acting quite a bit like one.
Dak Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 put your handbags away, you two anyway, (to get a propper handle on the fundamental differenses 'twix linux and windows), am i right in thinking that the kernel handles basic things like talking to the processer, talking to the hdd, stuff like that? does it also encompass handling the data from running prosesses (passing it to and from the ram and processsor for example)?
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 i don't have much technical knowlege of Linux.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html
Rakdos Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 That is because IE can load the web site, and AOL can't. Can you please explain why that is because the AOL Browser is designed off of the IE5.x Browser AOL 9 for Windows is based on the IE engine.
herme3 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Can you please explain why that is because the AOL Browser is designed off of the IE5.x Browser I'm really not sure. I don't have AOL, but I see separate links for AOL users all the time. I did use the AOL browser on somebody else's computer before. I don't remember which web site I was trying to access, but I was unable to access it with AOL. I had to minimize it, and use IE.
Recommended Posts