Hitchhiker-
Just out of curiousity, why do you think linux sucks ass? Do other unix flavors suck too? My only experience is with Linux, though I''m curious about all the BSD varieties.

I''m curious why you think Linux sucks if IBM, Sun and Novell are going full steam ahead with Linux (although Sun somewhat more reluctantly)?

I''m not one of those "Linux rocks and Windows blows chunks" kind of person. I do despise M$ business practices, but I think their OS are actually not half bad...considering that Unix has a good 10+yr head start (based off of Unix vs. DOS, not Unix vs. Windows version 1). And from what I''ve heard, Windows AS 2003 seems very competitive and far more secure (though somewhat incompatible with older products, though I have a hunch M$ designed that as a feature rather than that being a "bug"). So I give credit where credit is due....I just can''t abide by M$ business policies. And apparently from some proprietary Unix companies...I''m not too keen on their business practices either.

Just wondering why you have a hatred against Linux, and apparently against Linux users. I have nothing against Windows users even though I don''t like M$.

I use Linux, but it''s not consistent. It changes between releases, moves quickly and relies on customization. As a result, my version of Red Hat probably differs than yours. Even between Red Hat version releases the admin tools and software, libraries, often change radically. Still it''s a great idea and it''s bringing new energy to the market.

That energy has made Linux a huge buzz word. People want to use it, without even trying to understand what it is, how it works, or if its the best choice.

I''m holding my opinion about SCO. I think they''re claims are ridiculus, but I wouldn''t be suprised if proprietary code they did buy did make it into Linux. I find SCO''s message to other companies regarding Linux to be a joke, but it''ll scare enough people to cause a bit of pull back to Linux.

Technically, the BSD license is more free than the GPL, but BSD never got the buzz. It was that freedom of BSD that prompted Apple to select BSD over Linux.

We''ll have to see how SCO does once it reveals the code involved. Doesn''t look like IBM is going to deal before seeing it.

I also found the MS support of SCO interesting. Already the conspiracy wheels are turning. Just have to wait to see how it shakes out.

quote: Original post by Hitchhiker90
I''m 3 years old now because I have my own opinions and don''t follow the whole "LINUX IS THE 1337" crowd. Your an intelligent one. How very "How very "I AM THREE YEARS OLD!" of you to call people dolts and trolls, yet you post anonymously.

Oops, I posted anonymously. noticed right when i tried to edit it to fix the quotes, too. oh well.

Step back and look at your posts in this thread.. summed up:

#1, "I wanna see the linux weenies cry!"
#2, above
#3, "Linux sucks ass. You linux people need a reality check"

Gee, and you''re not trolling? this is a constructive addition to the thread?

Open your own thread about how linux sucks, this one isn''t for that. (oh, and see just how long before it''s a closed flamewar, too...)

Everyone: JUST IGNORE THE TROLL. Trolls die if ignored.

quote: Original post by Hitchhiker90
Your an intelligent one.

This is my favorite part.

Mine too.

Forum FAQ. Read it.

Rule #1 states no intentional flamewars. Saying that "Linux sucks ass" is okay so long as you substantiate it. Failure to substantiate constitutes trolling and is not permissible. Hitchhiker90''s dislike of Linux is well known, and it''s not a problem in and of itself. Everyone is free to harbor their own personal convictions with regard to OS merit.

Furthermore, Interim''s point that the BSD licenses are more free than the GPL are accurate when you consider that the GPL restricts your use of the software in a commercial context by mandating the opening of your own code; BSD does not, instead merely requiring proper attribution and notice display.

Hitchhiker90 is correct, Linux is not Unix (in the sense of being completely representative, though Linux is Unix in the sense of system philosophy and structure), so disliking Linux doesn''t make you anti-Unix.

Now, back to SCO''s claims: I consider it quite unlikely that code SCO owns the rights to is within the Linux kernel, except where they acquired the rights to code that was previously in the public domain - but that''s not possible in the US.

SCO is going down, no doubt. They''ve never understood the Linux community philosophy, even when they were Caldera, and it has shown in virtually all of their decisions. UnitedLinux, for example, was developed to combat the dominance of RedHat in the marketplace, but of the four collaborators (the other three are SuSE, TurboLinux and Connectiva) SCO is the only one without any significant code contributions to the public domain. UnitedLinux uses YaST2, which is freely available from SuSE anyway. TurboLinux gave a lot of Asian character internatialization and UNICODE work to the community. Caldera didn''t even give away its Lizard installer. UnitedLinux has not seen the US penetration it could probably in large part due to SCO''s reputation and tactics. All the endorsements and support we''re seeing is from commercial entites (nothing wrong with that), but since the UnitedLinux''s specifications aren''t open (UL piggybacks on FHS, LSB, L10N and I18N, but no other distro can do the same to UL''s work) it''s not exactly inviting to Open Source developers to target the platform.

It''s a shame really, because UnitedLinux could spearhead a desktop and workstation standardization effort if they''d donate even some of their work to the LSB or other appropriate entities.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
It''s a shame really, because UnitedLinux could spearhead a desktop and workstation standardization effort if they''d donate even some of their work to the LSB or other appropriate entities.

United Linux has yet to offer anything of any value at all. It was vaporware.

As for the desktop part... freedesktop seems to be a start

quote: Original post by C-Junkie
United Linux has yet to offer anything of any value at all. It was vaporware.

Actually, SCO Linux 4 is out right now. It''s a United Linux-based distro and features some SCO-specific stuff (the United Linux "agreement", for lack of a better word, allows each distro to add extras beyond the base distro). While I don''t see any particular value to it yet, I can''t categorize it as vaporware, especially considering that TurboLinux (Asia) and Connectiva (Brasil) don''t get much local hype.

quote: As for the desktop part... freedesktop seems to be a start

Yeah, I know about FreeDesktop.org. Problem is, there isn''t enough cooperation between WMs (GNOME and KDE, for example, famously pay a lot of lip to interop but their communities spend more time fighting each other), and it places the burden on them rather than making the functionality intrinsic to a lower-level toolkit.

LOL,

SCO has been doing this retarded stuff for years, it''s nothing new at all. Does anyone even need to comment on Microsoft tipping their hat to SCO in this context ( hint: lol, no )?

Not to mention SCO had the absolute worst *nix OS I''ve ever had the displeasure of administrating and writing code on.

I think the Iraqi Information Minister has more credibility in his left nutsack than all of SCO and Microsoft combined -- past, present and future.


lol,

.zfod