heheheh, I love getting reactions.. poke... people are such suckers..

I have an NT 4.0 box at work that sat on my desk for a little over a year running our companies webserver and never once crashed. Then I have a Sun box, Ultra 5, that we test our companies application on which has been up and running for 2 years now.

Another reason people need to be aware of when judging *nix servers is that a lot of the time the OS is built around the proprietary hardware (or vice versa) making it so much more stable.

2 good things about Linux: (i''m sure there''s more, but these are what popped out)
1) very stable
2) just about all the software is FREE

that''s why you''ll starve as a linux developer, no profit, too bad . Unless you''re doing server side stuff on Unix, that is.




"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka

i am also a hardcore microsoft supporter. I am artisic so I like a GUI that doesn''t look similar to what the toilet looks like after i took a BIG diareaha. At my house I am running a 4 computer network, each running windows 2000 professional and windows 2000 server. The only time i reboot my computer is to change hardware. The server DOES NOT reboot. It is as simple as that. I also run a 6 computer windows 2000 network at my CO-OP. Microsoft is constantly inventing new technologies such as .NET, the NT kernal, SQL Server, Active Directory, DirectX, XML, XSL, DHTML, VBScript, active server pages, and I could sit here for another 19 years naming things that microsoft invented that linux didn''t. All those faggos complaining that windows has memory leaks is because your ram sticks are on welfare. Buy nice ram and then watch windows in action. And dont go saying "well linux doesn''t need good ram to run nicely" because you know that is complete bullshit like the rest of the linux community. Windows 2000 is hands down the best operating system ever created, and Microsoft is hands down the best company ever. I hope they take over the world, we owe it to them.

The only reason somebody would run linux is because they feel like they REALLY know lots about computers. "Im with linux cause i really know what it is all about". It makes them feel like hardcore geeks. Windows was built by 1,000 trained professionals. Linux was built by 1,000,000 unemployed cowboy coders.

I rest my case.

There are so many inaccuracies in your post Psionic, that I don''t even know where to begin.

Let''s look at the technologies MS has "invented". SQL is an industry standard specification for relational databases. It was not developed at MS; SQL Server is their implementation of the standard - they did not develop it. XML was developed by a group of industry leaders including MS, HP, Sun, Netscape, Xerox and probably a few more - they played a part in its development but I''d hardly call it their invention. XSL is developed by a group at W3C but thats all I remember. The NT kernel... Linux has a kernel too (obviously). In fact I''d go so far as to say that on the average desktop computer its probably at least as efficient as the NT kernel. Don''t know if any of the rest of them are lies as well, but I think thats enough to show what kind of source we''re dealing with.

Memory leaks have nothing to do with bad "ram sticks". A memory leak is a software problem in which memory allocation is not properly managed. While its true that bad RAM can cause a computer to crash, Windows'' problems go well beyond dealing with faulty hardware. Anytime an application in user space can crash another application or the OS itself, there is a bug in the OS. Period. Its not always a system call that does it, but by not properly protecting memory, the OS is at fault. And no Linux doesn''t need good RAM (though its obviously recommended). There is a kernel patch that allows the kernel to scan for bad memory at boot and mark those pages invalid (http://home.zonnet.nl/vanrein/badram/ for the nonbelievers).

I hate being dragged into this, but I have to point out how wrong PSioNiC is about the Toilet comment. Have you been to www.themes.org? To say that all linux desktops look like diareaha toilet is to suggest you meant "autistic," not "artistic."

Umm... What the hell does this have to do with this forum? Not to mention, this is clearly a troll. So, i urge all you Linux coders out there, not to add to this, just suck it up, and go back to coding other development.

Besides, the best way to prove these people wrong is not to argue, but to instead write the next Killer App that makes Linux that much better place to be. Total World Domination, baby.

-ben.c

OH god. Another MS vs Linux flame war

we should get nes8bit in here. Chances are that he would go balistic

Anyways, in my experance it is extreemly hard to get these narrow minded Windows dudes to look wider than their pritty little Active Desktop.

For anyone with the smallest little bit of rationality:

Reasons Windows is good:
- Large support for new hardware
- Easy of use
- DirectX (good idea)
- Alot of stuff runs on it.


Reasons windows is bad:
- Less and less support for older hardware with each version (ME and 2k)
- Crashes almost contiusly. Don't you dare tell me otherwise, it does, I chalenge you to find two machines with windows that dosn't crash, without ever seeing any that did, chances are you would find about 10 or so that did.
- Crushes developers and stuff, to increase monopoly, etc.
- Direct 3D (MS ignored industry standard (OGL) in order to add their inferior monopolistic D3D)
- DirectX (bad implemntation)
- DirectX (not portable to other platforms)
- Monopolistic. (ever tried to do a dual boot, and you will know what I mean. The support for other OSes is non existant)
- To make WinME and Win2k stable, they had to disalow a whole lot of stuff. They should have given it the re-write that it needs. I read somthing about someone who installed a new parallel port into their WinME box, and needed to change a line in Config.Sys, Bad luck. To make the OS stable they had to make these files uneditable. Only programs with entries in the regisary can edit them?! They are just a likely to stuff it up, as someone following a manufacturers instructions.
- IN GENRAL: DISABLING USEFUL OPERATIONS IS BAD
- all those pritty effects that take up processer time
- those dissaperaing menu options, that are a pain in the ass to turn off


-------------------------------------------------------------

Reasons Linux is good:
- Support for hardware comes within a few months of the hardware and stays there
- Stable, Linux is extreemly hard to crash, the only OS that I have seen that is stabler is BeOS.
- Support for odd hardware configurations: Will run on nearly anything. From Computers to Palmtops to !DISHWASHERS! to Gameing consoles (has any one got/seen/heard about that new linux console)
- Supports other OSes, can access their HD partition, etc.
- Developed by a wide number of unpaid people, yes this is a good thing
- Most things are configurable. Everything is configurable if you want to do a recompile.
- WINE - lets you run windows programs nativly

Reasons Linux is bad:
- Many hardware dudes don't make drivers for the OS (but the comunity dows so it is not that bad)
- Complex. Harder to use than Windows, but then again, not as hard as you are makeing out. Just diffrent. Some of your windows/dos things must be re-learned. typing "dir" into bash just won't work, but typing "ld" into dos won't work either.


--------------------------------------------

Just rember, if the GUI or whatever is diffrent from windows, dosn't mean that it is bad. Remember you once had to learn windows, maybe now you will have to learn KDE or Gnome, etc.

Linux may be for the power user, but it is not as dificult as you are makeing out. REMEMBER: You had to learn windows once, linux is not a copy of windows, you will have to learn how it opperates, just like you learned windows.

Also, ask any computer science studant. An OS should not crash that often, And a applications should not be able AT ALL to bring the system down.

Go ahead and use windows, I often am forced to do it as well. But don't you go badmouthing us Linux fans, we have extreemly good reasons to be pissed with MS.



Oh, and NeHe, I recomend booting this one over to the Lounge


Windows is a 32bit GUI and extentions on a 16 bit patch on an 8 bit OS, designed for a 4 bit processor, by a 2 bit company, who can't stand 1 bit of compitetion




ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Web site coming soon...

Edited by - Andrew Russell on December 21, 2000 3:07:03 AM

I''ve got one more thing to say on this argument. Linux is crashable!!!!!!
I hate to burst the buble of every linux person that reads this but I''ve had a linux system crash on me on not one but two occasions!!!!
Both os''s have there good side and bad side. Does Microsoft suck? Yes! Does Windows suck? NO! Some people seam to want to keep bashing Windows because they don''t like Microsofts policies. And as for this supposidly open comunity of people that want to help there os and any that want to learn it? It''s a fable! I spent 6 mo. trying to get a decent linux system set up with all the stuff I needed and every time I went on the web and started asking questions all I got was snobish, arrogant remarks about how I must be such an idiot because I was haveing trouble writing my first X program and all it was supposed to do was create an empty window. The linux comunity is populated by a large bunch of selfritous butmonkeys (there are a FEW exceptions).
So do I like Microsoft? NO! Am I gonna flame windows and stop using it just because bill gates sucks donky dicks? NO!
Do I like the majority of the supposidly open and friendly linux community? NO! Does that mean I''ll give up learning linux and give bill all my money? NO! In fact I''ve been prepairing to reinstall my linux system for a few weeks and start working on some more linux stuff if I can solve a couple of small problems. (btw: any of you linux guys that haven''t been to insulted by this and could answer a few questions for me please respond to avian@prairie.lakes.com)
What does this all mean? The vast majority of the world is populated by selfritous, egomaniacial twit''s that can''t consider the posibility that someone else might have a slightly different oppionion than them without acting like spastic 2 yr olds!

Uhm, PSioNiC, "Microsoft is constantly inventing new technologies such as .NET, the NT kernal, SQL Server, Active Directory, DirectX, XML, XSL, DHTML, VBScript, active server pages, and I could sit here for another 19 years naming things that microsoft invented that linux didn''t."

Hmm, lemme think.

.NET - From the sketchy details it sounds like they''re trying to set things up like old dumb terminals back on old unix boxes. Just like telnet but with a windows UI. :/

NT Kernel - Every OS needs a kernel... what''s so special?

SQL - SQL has been around for a while. MS didn''t make it.

Active Directory - Surprisingly like Novell''s NDS

DirectX - They NEEDED some kind of API to get graphics at any kind of speed. It wasn''t something really creative. Linux has its own video libraries too. Big deal.

XML - MS didn''t make it

XSL - Again didn''t make it

DHTML - yet again, not made my MS

VBScript - So they made one scripting language. There are many many many many different scripting languages.

ASP - If that doesn''t suit your taste, there''s always PHP.

"I could sit here for another 19 years naming things that microsoft invented that linux didn''t."

And for those 19 years there would be people who could name comparable, or the original copies of these technologies. You seem to only see the one side of the wall. You also fail to mention the fact that the internet was developed on Unix boxes. Or that OpenGL was. Or C/C++ was. etc. etc. I guess those don''t count either, since I guess VBScript was so much more important an invention to you. Every main OS will have its own technologies, but in the end it seems, if anything is worth any note, it''ll be used as inspiration to make a comparable service.

Linux is not without it''s flaws though. Especially the windowing system which crashed the system every couple of days when I was running it.