Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Why do people still use Linux???

  • Thread starter Thread starter dballer
  • Start date Start date
D

dballer

Guest
why do people choose to use outdated crap?

why did microsoft come out with XP and ME when NT was the best OS they ever made.

people who do not use NT are commies.
 
Linux's free, simple as that. Easier to modify the source code when you have many willing people to help out. Plus, there's some people who has in it for MS. ;)

I read an article that China has begun to adopt Linux as OS for their computers so they wouldn't have to purchase license fees from MS and save themselves some money. Forgot which newspaper it was from, though.
 
Some people get used to it never crashing and like it's reliability. I personally think it is obtuse and a pain to configure.
 
I use NT.. my machine has been on (at the office) for 6 weeks without being turned off.. or re-started.

NT is the best OS... trust me I use all of them.
 
Linux is a great and cheap alternative for the server end. It's nice to have options. It has a long way to go on the desktop side.
 
I agree with you that nt is very stable for a windows os (remarkable up time as long as you are not doing anything to funky). Windows 2000 is nearly as stable, and it is easier to configure in a lot of ways (many wizards for functions that are only available via the command prompt in NT)

BUT... it really depends on the software you need your system to run. Sun's web server is not very stable on NT, and on Solaris or Linux is much more stable. Which makes sense, considering it is java based. But, that is one example, I am sure there others.

The majority of computers in the business world are used like large palm pilots... heavy use of ms office and crap like ACT. For those types of uses NT is great... though I would use windows 2000 when I migrated my office suite to 2000 or 2002.... but anyway I am rambling... for the most part I agree with you.

Win 98 is also VERY stable assuming the service packs are all maxed out, etc...

Windows xp crashes on me every damn day, but when compiling software and running 3 versions of Netscape navigator and several instances of internet explorer at the same time in debug, you have to expect that...
 
Puc said:
I agree with you that nt is very stable for a windows os (remarkable up time as long as you are not doing anything to funky). Windows 2000 is nearly as stable, and it is easier to configure in a lot of ways (many wizards for functions that are only available via the command prompt in NT)

BUT... it really depends on the software you need your system to run. Sun's web server is not very stable on NT, and on Solaris or Linux is much more stable. Which makes sense, considering it is java based. But, that is one example, I am sure there others.

The majority of computers in the business world are used like large palm pilots... heavy use of ms office and crap like ACT. For those types of uses NT is great... though I would use windows 2000 when I migrated my office suite to 2000 or 2002.... but anyway I am rambling... for the most part I agree with you.

Win 98 is also VERY stable assuming the service packs are all maxed out, etc...

Windows xp crashes on me every damn day, but when compiling software and running 3 versions of Netscape navigator and several instances of internet explorer at the same time in debug, you have to expect that...
Click to expand...

Do you test sites?

We designed our own OS for hand helds that is about to be sold soon. It is in Beta.. but it is stable. I would NEVER use a hand help PC.. this job is enough for me.. I am not a computer person.. If I did not have this job I would be working outside somwhere.. or as a hitman... or some kind of secret agent.

but......

98 is VERY stable. but NT is the ONLY one that allows me to run AOL 3 versions of Netscape.. and 2 versions of IE.
 
one of my clients is a rather large steel company with a very convoluted setup... an NT server running a 4 time upgraded version of iPlanet (once Netscape enterprise Server). The server is essentially an intra/extra net thin client. It uses a massive as400 running both cgis and odbc connections to the nt box to serve data to users.

Most of there workstations are nt (most), which do not have the power to upgrade beyond netscape version 4 browsers. A long time ago a corporate memo was sent out dictating Netscape would be the browser of choice, but over time, users began accessing the site using all versions 4 and up of ie and netscape... so now any developement I do requires me to test in a shitload of browsers. most of my work is on the back end, but not a damn day goes by that i am not trying to bridge the gap between netscape 4.x, ie, and netscape6.x/7 on the dhtml side of life... fuck at least i bill by the hour...
 
i have always been interested in handheld development, never had the chance... i should soon because some personal trainer management software i am working on is hopefull (if i ever get the time) going to integrate with palm pilot...

are you competing with windows ce?
 
I've worked on pretty much all of them and like Puc said, it depends what you want to do.
If it is my GF or my grandparents, then win98 or XP home is good enough for them - they don't need uptime since they only turn on their computer, use it for a few hours at best, and then turn it off.
I never turn my computers off.

the last time my computer crashed, it was a Win98 machine about a year or more ago.
well - not true - actually my winXP server with the nvidia drivers in crashes - but that isn't the fault of winXP - it is the fault of the VIA chipset and the nvidia drivers fighting. windows can't be blamed for other companies writing buggy drivers.

I've run RedHat, Mandrake, and Slackware Linux. RedHat is generic, and Mandrake is based off of that. I've run Solaris on both Intel and Sun boxes - it sucks on Intel (it is basically as good as a slow linux on intel).

if you want a stable server that will have amazing uptime, run FreeBSD and strip out anything you don't need (which you should do on any machine).
if you want a stable workstation - I had far more success with the most recent patches and stripped down win2K pro than I have with anything else (but I run xp now - it is plenty stable for me - months of uptime so far).

it all depends what you want to do - also, if you are getting many crashes - you are likely doing something wrong. either you have hardware that is failing (RAM, video, hard drive controllers, etc), or you are running buggy code - perhaps even your own. again, it isn't the fault of windows if there is a memory leak in the program that you are running (which is the case in many of the Netscapes)
 
I use NT.. my machine has been on (at the office) for 6 weeks without being turned off.. or re-started.
 
dballer said:
I use NT.. my machine has been on (at the office) for 6 weeks without being turned off.. or re-started.
Click to expand...

COOL ! There's an Echo in here..

Hellooooooo hello hello hello
 
Never used Linux, but I'll take 2000 or 98 over NT.

NT is fairly stable, but can be a pain in the butt to deal with when it comes to hardware.

I'll take an OS that can at least recognize it has new hardware any day.
 
Agree with you Dballer: no reason to install Linux. Cause its free ? Wow go on Kazaa or ask a friend and you'll get a free version of either win2k pro or XP pro. I know many here are "anti-microsoft" but honestly I found win2k pro pretty stable.

Also If you wanna play games forget about Linux. I need my computer for my job but I'm also expecting it to be used for gaming.
 
Fuck................

If Linux managed to run and support even a QUARETR of the shit ANY MS product supposrts out of the box it would be worth a shit.

I ran Linux a while back and as soon as I started installing games and hardware and using the "Linux" drivers it started crashing.

Linux crashes... just try and make it do anything useful and you can get it to crash.

I actually got the Windows version of Quake 1 to work in Linux but it was a HUGE pain in the ass (this was before they wrote a Linux port)

Linux may work well as a specialized server OS but for general functionality....Nothing beats MS products
 
lol - I suppose it is all relative in what you are trying to do.
I see no reason at all to run linux for games - it doesn't support directX, so while it does have strong open gl abilities, the sound libraries aren't caught up yet.
it is an os for servers, so to complain that you can't play games on it is akin to the same complaint about solaris (sound drivers for solaris are a pain in the ass).

if you want games, use MS.

if you want office stuff, there are macs and pcs, windows, and linux. there are plenty of apps that they have (open office, or star office, whatever they are calling it now) that works interchangably with ms shit.

you are saying things suck when you are using them for the wrong purpose. that is like buying a ferrari and then complaining that it sucks for hauling a boat.
also, you only have exerpience with the MS world, therefore that is your point of reference - so you are limited already in what you are comparing.

but like I said, if you want to play games - don't use linux. if you want to do graphics, don't use linux (although it is good for 3d and for automated purposes, but GIMP, while it is a cool product isn't done yet)
 
HappyScrappy said:
lol - I suppose it is all relative in what you are trying to do.
I see no reason at all to run linux for games - it doesn't support directX, so while it does have strong open gl abilities, the sound libraries aren't caught up yet.
it is an os for servers, so to complain that you can't play games on it is akin to the same complaint about solaris (sound drivers for solaris are a pain in the ass).

if you want games, use MS.

if you want office stuff, there are macs and pcs, windows, and linux. there are plenty of apps that they have (open office, or star office, whatever they are calling it now) that works interchangably with ms shit.

you are saying things suck when you are using them for the wrong purpose. that is like buying a ferrari and then complaining that it sucks for hauling a boat.
also, you only have exerpience with the MS world, therefore that is your point of reference - so you are limited already in what you are comparing.

but like I said, if you want to play games - don't use linux. if you want to do graphics, don't use linux (although it is good for 3d and for automated purposes, but GIMP, while it is a cool product isn't done yet)
Click to expand...
so in other words Linux is only worth for server purposes. Thats it. But remember the main argument people give for Linux is the fact that its free. Sorry but if I can afford a server I guess I can afford the OS too. Also from what I've been by some tech. win2k server can do the job too while being more compatible.
 
I didn't finish my last thing b/c I got pulled away here at work.

but yeah - there are a group of people that say linux should be the new desktop, but for the most part, it isn't there yet - MS had several years of a head start and lots of money to throw at it.

linux is unix - and unix is a workstation - there is no need to use it for games.

as win2k for a server - sure, windows can be used for servers - depending on what you want to do they might even be good for it. but so far, I've never seen a real business use where the MS solution was the best one. it is often the easiest one, but then you pay for it later on in the time you spend fixing the issues, rebooting, and patching security holes (MS ships their products pretty much wide open - although to be fair, so do many of the linux distros).

I personally don't use the "because it is free" reason for linux. linux is open source, which allows many people to review the code - so holes get patched very quickly, and found quickly too.

in the end, it is whatever you feel is approriate for the task at hand and what you are comfortable setting up.
there are a group that prefer linux simply due to the fact that it is a bit hard to get setup (depends on the distro), and so if they say they run it, they are saying that they have accomplished something.
whereas a retarded half-blind chimp could install windows all day long. which for the most part, is a good thing.
 
he is poking me in the ribs because he knows that I hate macs.
moreover, I hate people that are fanatically devoted to macs and try to convert you.
to be honest, I don't really like the zealots of any attempted revolution, whether it be political, religious, or some stupid ass computer shit.

that said, they make some shiny stuff. and shiny stuff is cool.
 
I use a mac.. well 3 of them. I run OS8, OS9 and OS10.. I use them for testing. I used to like Macs.. never tried to convert anyone.. I mean it is a fucking computer!!!

I did not like Windows per se until I used NT. It is more than fairly stable. Like I said.. my machine has not locked or crashed in 6 months. I NEVER have turned it off or re-started it. I keep at least 6 programs running at once. I DO NOT GAME... EVER. If I want to play a game I will play Tomb Raider on a play station.. but not here.. this is where I work and post on elite. I also trade mp3's .. so I am dowloading somthing constantly.

NT has been the best OS so far. I have 3 other machines with 98/95 on a partianed HD, ME on a dell and XP on a compaq.

I want to throw the Compaq at a wall everytime I see it. I hate XP with a passion.
 
you hate XP? you mean the interface or what?
XP is essentially Win2K with new font management built in and a stupid UI change (that is all skin based, so you can make it look exactly like the "old" windows).
Win2K is essentially WinNT with better hardware recognition and smarter memory control, and some new graphics changes.

So to say you love NT, but hate the newer stuff leads me to think that you aren't fully using the newer stuff in the way that you can - which is perfectly fine - if NT is working for you, no need to change. but to say the others are crap simply because you aren't using them right seems a bit daft.

As for Ma
 
lol - I hit tab return apparently and submitted that...

anyway, as for Macs - I have used all kinds of systems, and I personally hate them. to each their own.

of all the various computer geeks I know, the hard core ones are into Unix, the midstage ones know windows in and out and play with linux to look cool, and then the people that just want to get shit done and don't mind paying for ease of use get a mac. they can't do all the things that they can on the others, but that doesn't bother them, because they never need to do these things anyway.

the point is, if it works for you, rock on - but to say shit sucks when you aren't even using it right... well, that is amusing.
 
HappyScrappy said:
lol - I hit tab return apparently and submitted that...

anyway, as for Macs - I have used all kinds of systems, and I personally hate them. to each their own.
Click to expand...

could you be more specific ? why ? :mad: ;)
 
Using linux on a public network is quite possibly the dumbest, least responsible thing someone can do.

Unless you think you're the top dawg linux guru, there will always be someone out there who can trash your shit.

And since it's free *and* the OS of choice for black hats, it means they know your machine better than you.

Also, it's open source. Last I checked there is no MACing or digital signatures attached to binaries to ensure they haven't been tampered with....

I use SuSE at work, on an intranet to act as a content encryption box. And I have a honey pot linux box that accepts all protocols, hell it even has a PO box :)
 
manny78 said:


could you be more specific ? why ? :mad: ;)
Click to expand...

LOL
hmmm, yeah, I guess I could.

They aren't cost effective. Sure they look cool and they claim new engineering prowess, but in the end, you are paying too much for the performance that is available.
The Ti laptop is cool looking, but only has one mouse button. Sure, you can plug in a million button mouse and go nuts, but that's not the point of a laptop - the point is to have it all right there so you can go around with very little.
The Ti looks cool - have I said that? well it does, rounded edges, brushed Ti, sleek look. Great - but they don't insulate the processor or video card (mainly b/c you can't really and expect the thing to stay even remotely stable) - so the heat transfers wuickly to the chassis and then out to the body - so if you have the Ti on your lap, it is hot as hell. So... a laptop... that is too hot to have on your lap. Sounds good to me. That is just bad engineering.
Another example of bad engineering is the cube. It was cool looking, so cute, so little - and hey - it doesn't have a fan! Wow, it must be so quiet. Sure it is, but in order to get away without the fan to get rid of the heat, they had to cut back the heat that was put out? How did they do this? They reduced the power consumption - how did they do this - the processor in it was crappy to start with, and then they tuned it down. Same goes for the video card. Even then, they are known to crash due to overheating. Sheer fucking genius.
The claim that their processors are blazing fast and do this and this and this and this. Great - but I never need to do the things that they claim it is good at. So what do I need to do and how good is it at those things? Oops, it turns out it is really much slower in those things because they have optimized their processor to do things like "opening Photoshop 75% faster" (that is really one of their selling points - how fast it can *open* Photoshop... fucking fantastic.)

The fact of the matter is, I can get something that is really not that great to look at - but I don't give a shit - I never even have the cases on my computers - they are just exposed skeletons. When I get that, it is cheap, and I can do more of what I want, and do it faster.

So in the end, I don't like Mac users that prance around telling me how fancy pants they are with their overpriced shit and how cute it looks. All they are telling me is that they care more about the thing as an accessory, and I care more about the thing from a practical standpoint.
I drive a Saab, they are engineering sweetness. 90% of the heavy Mac users I know drive a VW Beetle. That right there sums up how I feel about them. I couldn't possibly ever hit them hard enough up-side the head.
 
HappyScrappy said:


LOL
hmmm, yeah, I guess I could.

They aren't cost effective. Sure they look cool and they claim new engineering prowess, but in the end, you are paying too much for the performance that is available.
The Ti laptop is cool looking, but only has one mouse button. Sure, you can plug in a million button mouse and go nuts, but that's not the point of a laptop - the point is to have it all right there so you can go around with very little.
The Ti looks cool - have I said that? well it does, rounded edges, brushed Ti, sleek look. Great - but they don't insulate the processor or video card (mainly b/c you can't really and expect the thing to stay even remotely stable) - so the heat transfers wuickly to the chassis and then out to the body - so if you have the Ti on your lap, it is hot as hell. So... a laptop... that is too hot to have on your lap. Sounds good to me. That is just bad engineering.
Another example of bad engineering is the cube. It was cool looking, so cute, so little - and hey - it doesn't have a fan! Wow, it must be so quiet. Sure it is, but in order to get away without the fan to get rid of the heat, they had to cut back the heat that was put out? How did they do this? They reduced the power consumption - how did they do this - the processor in it was crappy to start with, and then they tuned it down. Same goes for the video card. Even then, they are known to crash due to overheating. Sheer fucking genius.
The claim that their processors are blazing fast and do this and this and this and this. Great - but I never need to do the things that they claim it is good at. So what do I need to do and how good is it at those things? Oops, it turns out it is really much slower in those things because they have optimized their processor to do things like "opening Photoshop 75% faster" (that is really one of their selling points - how fast it can *open* Photoshop... fucking fantastic.)

The fact of the matter is, I can get something that is really not that great to look at - but I don't give a shit - I never even have the cases on my computers - they are just exposed skeletons. When I get that, it is cheap, and I can do more of what I want, and do it faster.

So in the end, I don't like Mac users that prance around telling me how fancy pants they are with their overpriced shit and how cute it looks. All they are telling me is that they care more about the thing as an accessory, and I care more about the thing from a practical standpoint.
I drive a Saab, they are engineering sweetness. 90% of the heavy Mac users I know drive a VW Beetle. That right there sums up how I feel about them. I couldn't possibly ever hit them hard enough up-side the head.
Click to expand...

For the record:
I drive a GMC Envoy, ride a Hayabusa and use Calaphon pots and pans.

And Macs beat the hell out of PCs when factoring large primes.
 
OpenBSD.

and code, the Mac runs a processor that is good (IIRC) at left shifts... or right - whatever it is, the buffer it allows is better sized for certain ranges of floating point calculations. that is why in some of the distributed.net contests the macs are better suited to crank out pure performance.

Does that mean that a Mac is going to kick ass at rendering? hmm - it should since rendering is nearly all floating point calculations - yet nobody uses Macs for that (largely becuase they didn't have OpenGL for crap until just recently, and they are too expensive to be building farms of them).
Does that mean that a Mac will be able to run my neural net code faster? My Java apps? etc etc?
Not really - there are definitely cases where it is faster - but for the things I want to do - it is either slower, or not a big enough difference in speed to justify the large jump in price.

As for what you drive and what pots you have, thanks for sharing - but it still doesn't refute the concept that most Mac owners are dipshit pompous jackasses - hell - Apple even puts them in their television ads.
It is like they are proud of being incompetant.
Sure, there are those that know what they are doing, maybe you are one of them, and they are in the Mac crowd - but for the most part, it is morons with large wallets.
 
HappyScrappy said:
OpenBSD.

and code, the Mac runs a processor that is good (IIRC) at left shifts... or right - whatever it is, the buffer it allows is better sized for certain ranges of floating point calculations. that is why in some of the distributed.net contests the macs are better suited to crank out pure performance.

Does that mean that a Mac is going to kick ass at rendering? hmm - it should since rendering is nearly all floating point calculations - yet nobody uses Macs for that (largely becuase they didn't have OpenGL for crap until just recently, and they are too expensive to be building farms of them).
Does that mean that a Mac will be able to run my neural net code faster? My Java apps? etc etc?
Not really - there are definitely cases where it is faster - but for the things I want to do - it is either slower, or not a big enough difference in speed to justify the large jump in price.

As for what you drive and what pots you have, thanks for sharing - but it still doesn't refute the concept that most Mac owners are dipshit pompous jackasses - hell - Apple even puts them in their television ads.
It is like they are proud of being incompetant.
Sure, there are those that know what they are doing, maybe you are one of them, and they are in the Mac crowd - but for the most part, it is morons with large wallets.
Click to expand...

You know what they say about men with large wallets...

Yeah, I know why it's better at factoring large primes. I don't use it to render anything except occasional porn, which works for me.

I can't agree with Apple's ads, it does make mac proponents seem like the PC is too complex.

Mac's are pricier because they make their machines as well as the OS. Unlike MS, which just makes the OS and lets cut-rate thieves build shitty machine with grey market chips and lame mother boards run their OS.

I like that mac makes all their own machines. It means they're obligated to support all aspects of the machine including the OS, firmware and quite a bit of the middleware.

I also like them because it means my friends won't bother me to check their e-mail while at my house because PC user's aren't smart enough to figure out how to adjust to a single (more efficient) buttoned mouse. :)
 
lol - I just bang on them until they are broken into little tiny pieces and then go home. the mice that is.

as for saying "Mac's are pricier because they make their machines as well as the OS. " - I have to have a laugh there.
did you ignore my previous description of their retarded engineering?
They have excellent designers in terms of "is this pretty? yes? good." but in terms of "oh, you mean that makes things catch on fire on contact... oh" well - they are retarded (they have a *large* distribution of power supplys that start fires).
 
HappyScrappy said:
lol - I just bang on them until they are broken into little tiny pieces and then go home. the mice that is.

as for saying "Mac's are pricier because they make their machines as well as the OS. " - I have to have a laugh there.
did you ignore my previous description of their retarded engineering?
They have excellent designers in terms of "is this pretty? yes? good." but in terms of "oh, you mean that makes things catch on fire on contact... oh" well - they are retarded (they have a *large* distribution of power supplys that start fires).
Click to expand...

Those fires have helped keep me warm through many a long winter!!
 
Code said:


Those fires have helped keep me warm through many a long winter!!
Click to expand...

dude, you could save all the damage and just get one of those Ti laptops - they look cool and you can use them as a radiator
 
HappyScrappy said:


dude, you could save all the damage and just get one of those Ti laptops - they look cool and you can use them as a radiator
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'll have to check them out.
 
geek.jpg
 
My server has 12 processors, 16 Gigs of memory and 2 Terabytes of disk space.
It's been up and running continuously for about 2 years except for one thunderstorm that disrupted power to the entire city.
Try managing that with linux. or NT.
I love AIX.
 
hey john937 - what is the main purpose of this server? how old is it (curious what each processor is). That sounds very similar to some of the AltaVista servers from '96-98 or so.
yeah - there is no way NT could do that - it was only efficient up to 4, 8 was pushing it - and even though they claimed like 32 with a special patch, it would lose a lot of that power just because it isn't optimized for many processors. I haven't checked to see what the current Win systems can do, only know about NT. Linux can do more than NT in terms of memory and number of processors, but I don't know how good it is if you actually try to implement it, never had the chance.
As for 16 gigs memory, I'm not sure there are any PC MBoard companies that allow over 4 gigs - I could be wrong, I'm just not aware of them.
And disk space depends on what you are doing with it - many servers end up feeding out to a dedicated shared array anyway - that is more for filesystems, less so if you are doing a lot of crunching on that machine itself.
 
john937 said:
My server has 12 processors, 16 Gigs of memory and 2 Terabytes of disk space.
It's been up and running continuously for about 2 years except for one thunderstorm that disrupted power to the entire city.
Try managing that with linux. or NT.
I love AIX.
Click to expand...

No one even distributes AIX anymore do they?

I think you need that much power to compile cobol in AIX anyway :) :D
 
AIX isn't a bad flavor once you learn all it's nuances...
Works great on IBM hardware for automated Failover
 
Y_Lifter said:
AIX isn't a bad flavor once you learn all it's nuances...
Works great on IBM hardware for automated Failover
Click to expand...

I know, I'm just stirring up shit.

It's always the guys on one-off flavors of *nix that get all pissy about their OS.
 
It's an RS/6000 7017-S7A used for DB2 queries to supply data to two application front ends:
1 Apache web graphical display
2. PC client java app
pSeries_680.jpg
 
Last edited:
Code said:


I know, I'm just stirring up shit.

It's always the guys on one-off flavors of *nix that get all pissy about their OS.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Mine works. Stable as a rock. What a bitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
why do people use steroids for a few years then quit?
Replies
18
Views
2K
25homes
25homes
Macedog24
PuritySourceLabs Jump-start your summer w/ Clenbuterol - ride the lightning!
Replies
28
Views
2K
Macedog24
Macedog24
dylangemelli
Video Why do people use huge doses of steroids? A new video by Dylan Gemelli
Replies
16
Views
1K
MasonicBodybuilder
MasonicBodybuilder
4
FAKE Pfizer Genotropin Napsgear
Replies
16
Views
2K
jasonhill800
jasonhill800
S
puritysourcelabs question on using winstrol vs. masteron
Replies
19
Views
2K
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
Top Bottom