Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student coincidentally named Linux Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows. While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network - correction by bc) server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Linux.

Linux Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux. Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image" from the Linux web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for me in the "required configuration" section of the manual. I was shocked to learn that Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their chosen operating system and deride the "bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are blatantly incorrect. Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Linux. To add insult to injury, there is no Linux version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Linux, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

The shortcomings of Linux are obvious. Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Linux would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Linux user must ask himself is, "Why bother?" After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs and there simply isn't a need to replace it, particularly not with a product of inferior quality.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Windows XP will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that those Adequacy readers who are hoping to upgrade their operating system patiently wait for the release of Windows XP, rather than foolishly wasting their time, effort and money on Linux.

	a request (3.50 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:09:31 AM PST

	can some l33t adequacy editor extract the user-agent from the server logs and post what miserable percentage of geeks masturbate to Linux on web boards while browsing with a useful operating system such as Windows? My excellent theory is that geek sexuality manifests itself through the classic "playing hard to get" mating strategy normal people sometimes adopt with other humans but which geeks, thanks to their unattractive status among humans, have sublimated for use with machines. I'm not saying all people who obsess over fat Finns are necessarily sluts, but I think an introspective recognition of this possibility would heal a lot of open sores and make webboards altogether nicer places to visit. I hope this makes sense.

	Who's sublimating? (2.00 / 2) (#4)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:29:17 AM PST

	Excuse me, but you obviously have a very deeply troubled sexuality yourself. It may come as a surprise to you, but "playing hard to get" is not normal human mating strategy. In fact, "playing hard to get" is a euphemism for "I'd prefer to never see you again". It seems that you yourself have some very deep psychological scars vis-a-vis your sexuality. Obviously, you have sublimated frequent cases of rejection by the opposite sex, convincing yourself that abuse and humiliation leveled at you is somehow "normal". In real life, (as opposed to the sublimated virtual construction you have created for yourself) people who like each other have no problem communicating. I'd suggest attacking your problem at the root; first of all, you need to take a hard look at yourself. There is no point in keeping the cycle of self-delusion and humiliation going; try to improve your attitude and your outlook on life, try to connect in a more meaningful, non-consumerist way with members of the opposite sex. Start anew with small things -- like chatting about the weather and going out to luch together. Eventually you may break your malignant cycle and establish a meaningful relationship. Best wishes and good luck to you. -- Peace and much love...

	Re: a request (none / 0) (#292)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:27:47 AM PST

	Why is it that people who spread around FUD always resort to childish methods to get their point across? Your post was unnecessary and inflammatory. Why not learn how to argue with actual facts and knowledge?

	Fuck you. (1.40 / 5) (#3)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:20:09 AM PST

	I don't trust "Commercial Software" and will never trust it. You can take your "user-friendly" bullshit and shove it up your ass. Excuse me for the rudeness, but I'd prefer if people didn't put words in my mouth. I can use whatever goddamn software I want to use, regardless of your insinuations. Have a nice and non-intrusive day. -- Peace and much love...

	Why _not_ trust commertial software? (4.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 12:59:46 PM PST

	I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures! I cannot trust their 'skillz' to power my business. I will always trust Microsoft and Windows based software more than the crap that is churned out of the free source movement. Microsoft may be a larger price to pay at the beginning, but it pays for itself over and over within months. Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc. Most of them do not even hold jobs! Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.

	Whatever. (3.33 / 3) (#7)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 01:16:43 PM PST

	Look, I don't care. It's an ethical and philosophical choice for me; it's like a choice between one piece of poetry and another. Trying to argue with me that commercial software is more "professional" is akin to trying convince me to listen to Britney Spears because her music is more "professional". It's simply not a rational decision for me, sorry. -- Peace and much love...

	Choosing poetry through ethics (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:58:04 PM PST

	I much prefer the poetry of W.H. Auden over T.S Eliot. Eliot's poems may be more beautiful, and more meaningful, but he was able to get quite rich from his poetic work, and this offends my morality. I believe that people who charge money for things that I can copy easily are morally wrong. Also, I hear that T.S. Eliot did not willingly accept advice or contributions from other poets, or even strangers. For this reason, he is morally unacceptable to me, even though his poems are superior.

	Yawn .... (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:18:41 PM PST

	<em>Who knows what those college students put into their software -hidden bugs, backdoors, etc.</em> Read the source code. It's open to public review and criticism. <em>Microsoft cannot do this - they would not dare, for fear of a lawsuit by the federal government. that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines.</em> The crackers and script kiddies must love you!!! Windows 9x is the least secure Operating System on the planet. <em>I'd rather trust a group of professional, paid programmers, versus the information technologies college student majors who are writing the 'free' software such as GNU/Linux. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even follow simple licensing measures!</em> As the Young Einstein said, "If we can't trust the politicians, who can we trust?" That was just after he discovered a way to split the beer atom ... And as for "following simple licensing measures", give me an example. Come up with some proof before you defame. If you're alleging that their source code is the result of stealing someone else's, you'd better have rock-solid, iron-hard evidence, I'm afraid. And if you are alleging that in effect because of the Microsoft licensing agreements, that Microsoft products are the only software that have any right to go on a PC - and believe you me, I have met such nutters - you're even less of a capitalist than Lenin - Lenin at least tried to moderate his monopolistic statist theory once he found it didn't work in the early 1920s.

	you sound stupid (2.00 / 1) (#179)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:43:57 AM PST

	<<that's why I run windows 95/98 on all my servers and desktop machines>> I hate to tell you this but you can't run 9x on a server. It's not a server OS/ What you ulimately have are networked PCs with file/print sharing. I'm a Network Amdin. I use Linux. I don't mess with source code. Therefore I am not a hacker. Linux is not a kiddy OS. I guess in your dindled minds the IGM Linux Labs emply kindergardeners.

	Stand back! We're scientists! (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Coward on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:28:49 PM PST

	Hi. I'm a professional programmer. A senior one, even. I am well paid and write the code that makes the whole world sing. I am glad you appreciate our fine work and choose our products. But I do need to set you straight on some things. I went to college once where I was one of those Unix hackers. (Linux wasn't invented yet nor was the PC) We wrote great code back then just as now. Better, even, because we were young and eager and not busy going to soulless business meetings. And better, because software design is really a young person's skill. That's why mathematicians (I was a math major) are considered over the hill by the time they're 25. I was also more trustworthy back then, having the ideals of the young and not the pressures to sell out that comes with having to come up with a mortgage payment every month. And so I say, trust that code of the young. It's a lot better than what "teams of professionals" turn out in most cases. I'll bet you were young once too. -- Support the home page homeless.

	Legally fallacious (5.00 / 2) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:11:45 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology.

	Correction (1.00 / 2) (#98)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:59:26 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Since your argument is predicated upon the definition of software as equivalent to novels, essays and great works of art, it is clear from a legal standpoint, that your GPL flies in the face of US law. Hence, Linux is un-American; an outlaw operating system, by virtue of it's anti-corporate ideology. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. The only difference between a political essay(which is strongly protected by the courts) and source code is that source code has a much much more fuctional porpose. This makes it worthy of less constitutional protection, but it's still speach. Free software is no Anit-American. It's sharing of ideas. If you want your own source code to be closed source. Nothings stoping you.

	Freedom (1.00 / 1) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:10 PM PST

	Agree. Is freedom un American? I don't think so. Way to go First Amenment. You say we should think how many MS stocks we have in our 401K. You should think of how much the other companies stock depend on Free Software. About half of all internet sites are powered by Free Software.- <i>GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter. </i>

	I see (none / 0) (#363)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 3rd, 2001 at 02:35:34 PM PST

	>Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible....Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America.< I see. So you'll be advocating interment camps then?

	Bleah (4.50 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:02:49 PM PST

	Especially in light of recent events, using Linux is quickly becoming indefensible. It amuses me to see all of these MS-haters who probably have a ton of indirect Microsoft stock in their 401(k) mutual funds. The recent terrorist attacks on America's economy and laissez-faire capitalism in general have severely hurt Microsoft and the country's economy. Linux bigotry in this context essentially equates to hatred of freedom and America. I didn't use Linux before the attacks, though I was always curious about it. I now know that I will never use it, nor will I associate myself with those that do (whenever possible.)

	How can linux be un-American? (2.00 / 1) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:00:28 PM PST

	GPL licensed software (of which the linux kernel is an example) is based on the ideas of free and open communication. That is why linux users say their software is free, where the word "free" takes the meaning of the kind of free we associate with speech. This is the freedom we as Americans enjoy under the protection of the 1st Amendment. The internet has allowed the software to become available without a monetary price, thus it is also free as in the kind of free that college students look for (free beer, etc). It is easy to confuse the two, but make no mistake: it is far more important to linux users that their software be the former kind of "free" than the latter.

	You are `correcting' the Supreme Court? (4.00 / 1) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 08:03:10 PM PST

	The American courts have repeatedly ruled that software is NOT a form of speech. Thats not entierly true. Software is by definition a sort of speach. I believe that, within the jurisdiction of the US, we all would be better served by heeding the rulings of the US Supreme Court than your opinions...

	Re: Legally fallacious (none / 0) (#295)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 10:01:21 AM PST

	If Linux is so anti-corporate, why are companies like Mandrake and RedHat making money off of selling Linux? Linux is anti-monopoly, not anti-corporate. And just because the government says so, Linux is not speech, and is thus un-American? It is not the courts that decide what is American and un-American. It is the people who decide. If the supreme court decided that blacks should be re-enslaved, would you call anyone who disagreed an un-American? If so, then I think that you need to go reexamine the history of the United States, and its ideals. Is software speech? Many people believe so, and I believe so too. Microsoft tried to ban Linux on these grounds, but the courts ruled in favor of Linux. Capitalism doesn't equal America. Capitalism can just as well happen in totalitarianism, and most often does. While the leaders swim in wealth and knowledge, the masses are in poverty, and often ignorant. The Taliban regime is one of them. This is what Microsoft represents. They keep the knowledge from the masses, while they get filthy rich off of it. But how many nations are about individual freedom, community freedom, the right to knowledge? A very few, and America is the leader of the pack, and has been since 1776. This is what Linux represents, ideals and freedom. Both America and Linux are about individual choice. Both are about community empowerment. America is not entirely about capitalism. America is about democracy. It is about ideals. You are elevating the idea of making money over freedom and democracy, and that is un-American.

	Re: Bleah (none / 0) (#294)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 09:47:40 AM PST

	Oh, I get it. You are saying that being a monopolistic power that does nothing but eat more wealth to make themselves fatter is what America is about? This is pure FUD!!! I would say that Microsoft is closer to Stalin's Soviet Union than a democratic republic. Do you own the Microsoft software that you are using? No, you don't. Microsoft owns it. you are only allowed to use it because of the EULA. What happens if there is a bug? You send a bug report, and wait months for Microsoft to fix it. Are you allowed to modify the software? No. What happens if Microsoft finds out that you installed Windows on your brother's computer? They will take legal action against you. Microsoft is very paranoid, even to the point of requiring to request Microsoft's permission to install new hardware on a computer running WindowsXP. Does this sound democratic? No. Does this sound capitalist? No. Capitalism rests on the foundations of free enterprise. Microsoft tries to kill free enterprise by stifling competition and innovation. Microsoft is a monopolistic power that is more akin to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union owned the industries, and Microsoft owns the OS. Read the UTICA agreement, and you will see. Linux, on the other hand, is American. It is a truely free operating system. If something goes wrong, you are free to find the source of the problem and fix it. You are free to see what goes on in Linux because the source code is there for everyone to see. If there is a bug, it is not uncommon for there to be a bug fix within hours of a report. The reason is that people who are enthusiastic about programming work hard to fix the problem. Unlike the Microsoft paradigm, you own the specific copy of the software you are using. So I can give a copy to my brother without fear of action. Not only that, I am free to "look under the hood" and make changes. You can take Linux and make it your OWN operating system. You can create scripts to make you system VERY powerful. Imagine if you are not allowed to open the hood of your car, and if you did, you faced legal action. Linux allows you to do that. Not only that, but you can create you own distribution of Linux and sell it. You can modify the Linux Kernel, and share it with everyone else. Linux is founded upon the ideal of freedom for computer users. These people hold ideals like the nation's founding fathers did. Read these documents by GNU. The philosophy is akin to the American Revolution. The intention is to bring freedom and democracy to the software world. The intention is to bring the highest ideals of both individual and communitarian freedoms into computing. These people are Americans are the very root. To say otherwise means that either you hate freedom, or you possess ignorance.

	Why is Microsoft evil? (4.00 / 5) (#5)
	by Starship Trooper on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 11:43:00 AM PST

	The reasons for the Linux community's unending hatred for Microsoft (or Micro$oft, as Linux "haxors" often call it) have oft eluded me. How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system? How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity? How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly "superior" alternatives from Linux and Macintosh? The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy. These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth. They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan. Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that. --- A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

	Why is Microsoft good? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
	by Observer on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:23:04 PM PST

	Microsoft produces a relatively easy to use operating system. It is easy to use simply because it is ubiquitous and a great amount of research has been focused on the user interface. There is a highly standardized development model which makes programming under the Windows platforms very straightforward. Much of the development layer is documented in a clean and professional fashion. Multimedia aspects work wonderfully, as evidenced by Windows Media Player 6.4 on up and the automatic downloading of appropriate codecs. Business and productivity software are at the top, though there aren't many more new features which can be packed in. Alternatives are rapidly approaching the level of Microsoft Office. Those are the major points that initially come to mind. Now for the rebuttals: "How can a company be evil that is wilfully giving away free computers preloaded with free copies of their excellent Windows XP operating system?" Simple - there's a catch. Market dominance, allowing practices of monopolistic abuse, evidenced by everyone else's subsequent requirement of paying through the nose for an upgrade which has skyrocketed in cost since the government turned a blind eye after the antitrust investigation. Besides, those who receive a free computer will end up having to upgrade it again down the line with more hardware to support the next generation of Windows which will be equally as exorbitant. As for Windows XP being excellent, you're probably right. I've no interest in it, but for average users, there's no reason to take the time to understand exactly how their computer works any more than they would need to take the time to fully understand how their automobile works. For those whom are not content to remain ignorant (this isn't a bad thing, necessarily, as we all rely on each other due to ignorance or inability in some aspect of our lives), learning about the tools we use, no matter how advanced, is an irresistable lure. "How can they be the "Borg" (an obscure reference that only Linux nerds seem to "get", alas) when their chairman donates billions annually to charity?" Donations do not excuse arrogance, greed or intimidating actions. Put Bill Gates in a middle class position and he would be stepping on his coworkers to get to the top. These kinds of people make good executives, and we all know what dregs of the world they tend to be. For all the intelligence in the world, it can't redeem one from being an asshole. "How can their software be called bloated and crashy, yet still hold 90% of the market share in preference to supposedly 'superior' alternatives from Linux and Macintosh?" It is a rare occassion that a superior technology is chosen over a less desirable one. The MP3 compressed music format exploded as several significantly more advanced formats were being released. MP3 is a mediocre technology by comparison, yet by chance and popularity, it has reigned as king of the digital music formats. The Apple Macintosh does not need file extensions - those awkward '.txt', '.mp3' and '.doc' style additions to a file name. Apple's usage of metadata was far superior to Microsoft's almost two decades ago, and still is, yet the popularity of Windows took off and eventually exceeded that of the Mac due to extremely aggressive business tactics which Apple refused to take part in. Apple is certainly no saintly entity itself, but the world could have been dominated by Apple instead and there would be enough complaints about it to make it a Microsoft, as it is seen by many even today. The top dog can be an evil bastard. The underdog can entirely good and yet it can be trampled. Corporations are the epitome of everything undesirable in human nature - greed, arrogance, hate, etc... therefore, the corporate world is essentially the battle to be the worst of the worst. "The answer is clear: it is sheer jealousy." The people who work on Linux have little concern over the success of Microsoft. They are simply disgusted with the myriad problems in Windows which most users never encounter because they use it for everyday activities, such as email, browsing the internet and games. When a developer needs to get something done and has to end up working around the operating system, it is painful. When workarounds comprise half of a program, the developer is inclined to fix the operating system himself. When the operating system can only be fixed by a cabal of egotistical, money-driven businessmen, the developers who know their asses from a hole in the ground throw their hands up and look for a way out. The good are always outnumbered, as the ignorant can be swayed without their knowing. It pays to learn exactly how your car works, otherwise you'll end up being raped without even knowing it. "These people are somehow disappointed in the fact that a million pasty-faced 15-year-olds with no job experience are unable to engineer software of the same quality as some of the best minds on this earth." I'll only point out that you obviously have no comprehension of the places where most research occurs. Universities across the country are filled with thousands upon thousands whom are as intelligent, if not moreso than anyone at Microsoft's research centers. There are other research centers as well. Xerox PARC, for instance, where so many technologies have arisen and been incorporated into the fabric of today's society that it can be difficult to even keep track of them. "They are enraged that giving your software away fails to make you rich. They can't accept that banner ads are not a business plan." Banner ads have never been a business plan, no matter how many may have tried to use them as such. You'd do well to point your finger at the dotcom failures before you accuse those who simply follow their interests and create for the greater good because they like to do so. If the world were filled with more of these people, it would be a far better place than the one we have; filled with cutthroat businessmen. Do you think that physicians and surgeons always enter that field of work simply for money? There really are people in this world that realize the futility of monetary aggrandization. Of course, there are plenty of those at Microsoft whom are enjoying their jobs, especially with the lure of financial wealth. The company blinds them, though. I've seen it firsthand. When a person is making a six figure salary, it's hard not to rationalize away the blatantly vicious actions of your employer. "Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. This is the sharing of ideas, not material. You who jump so quickly to accuse the Linux community of communist properties would do well to first examine the scientific community. Linux is branched from computer science, which is still a very raw field. Being a science, it is focused on abstracts - ideas. These ideas can be applied to the material world to create products. The product brought forth by the Linux community is an abstract and therefore an idea, built from other ideas. Some in the Linux community make money, most do not. Still, the ideal behind Linux is still very strong. The jealousy you mentioned earlier is simply the over-zealous segments of the community. You misinterpret their calls for change as jealousy because you are blind to the shadows which Microsoft has cast upon a promising industry. There has been much damage wrought on the computer industry, and much to correct. However, this is changing. Linux was the poster child and there are others. Microsoft may have 90% of the user market, but the infrastructure of the industry is akin to a living organism and is rejecting the foreign object that threatens it's stability. If you've read through this entire rant, I'm impressed. Now, instead of watching TV or playing a video game, go and learn about the world around you.

	Gnu Apartment License (GAL) coming soon? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
	by Logical Analysis on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:30:08 PM PST

	"Sorry, Linux heads, communism doesn't work, and no amount of zealotry can help that." Sorry for what? This isn't communism. If it were, they would be offering up their apartments and houses for everyone to use. In the words of Richard Stallman: "I did live in my office for 12 years, and I liked it. I was even registered to vote from that address. My situation was unusual because, for the first half of this period, the office was not officially my office and I had no official connection with the lab. I was a squatter in the AI Lab! The very idea is romantic." [...] "Unfortunately there was a new lab director in September 1997, who forced me to stop living in the lab. So I rented a room in Cambridge. At that very time, in October, the MIT student newspaper reported that a many MIT students were still unable to find any housing. The lab director's interference was not only inconvenient and wasteful for me; it also denied one student a possible place to live."

	Still not Communism (1.00 / 1) (#457)
	by Observer on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 01:14:42 AM PST

	If I choose to live on the street, it does not mean I'm a Communist. Stallman was not forcing anyone to share their residence. The man is dedicated, intelligent and obviously cares little for frills. Granted, there are parallels due to both concepts being idealogical, but enforcement becomes radically different in consequence. On one hand, the decimation of human rights by taking away the capacity of individuality. On the other, there is the continual sharing of ideas and knowledge, basically forcing honesty. Where lies the danger of free software, aside from that posed to business which tend to stifle research in general?

	And you know where all that cash comes from? (none / 0) (#505)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:29:26 PM PST

	It comes from doing illegal business, boy! comes from forcing people to spit out more money or else blood, but what would you know...

	linux (4.00 / 5) (#8)
	by error27 on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 02:23:54 PM PST

	When ever you say anything remotely objective about Linux, Linux users get very upset and start cursing at you. Tkatchev is a perfect example in this respect. The smaller minority of Linux users who don't just start cursing at you will try to make all kinds of excuses like, "You should have tried Slack Ware instead of Mandrake because the older versions of Linux are better." Or they will say something like, "Right now Linux isn't very good, but in four years we will have Internet Explorer for Linux and then everyone will only want to use Linux instead of Windows." These excuses don't cut it for people who have got work to do right away. In the end, I think the question Linux users need to ask is: Is there any free lunch? Throughout history people have come to realise that, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

	Yeah. (1.33 / 3) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:05:57 PM PST

	Like I said, the choice of Linux is not a rational choice for me. Let is be known that Linux does indeed suck, it just sucks infinitely less than Windows. Linux is a labor of love, a work of art (though a crappy one) whereas Windows is just a two-bit hack job by the industry equivalent of ghostwriters. I support individual creativity and initiative over mind-numbing corporate plus-plus-good double-think every time. -- Peace and much love...

	Not throughout all history. Just during... (4.50 / 4) (#11)
	by elenchos on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 03:07:59 PM PST

	...the history of reading Robert A. Heinlien books. Prior to that, everyone believed that lots of things could be had for free. Like love. Or sex. Or software. Or freedom. Now I know you're going to say "freedom isn't free." But I charitably assumed that when you said "there is no such thing as a free lunch" you were leaving out the possibility of stealing your lunch. If you allow for taking what isn't yours, then of course you can have lots of things for free. Now, since we are not considering that possiblity, on the assumption that we are speaking only of relations among honorable people, then no honorable person would infringe on your freedom for anything. Thus, you have your freedom for nothing. It's free! But as I've said before, free software is much more like sex than anything else: you get as much as you want for nothing. Sure you could pay a profesional for it, but why? If you are capable of giving up as good as you get (again both with sex and software) then you will get better than anything a whore could give you. Now you could be a lousy lay. Then you will probably not get much good sex for free. Then, yes, go to a pro. Absolutely. Maybe this means that ironically, geeks are the ones least able to beneift from free software. Just a thought. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	thanks for thoughtful reply (4.66 / 3) (#171)
	by error27 on Mon Oct 1st, 2001 at 01:09:06 AM PST

	It's always good to read a well considerred reply. Even though I can't agree with your conclusions, you do bring out some good points that I hadn't considerred. One thing I've noticed is that Linux users make comparisons to free speech and free sex a lot. This is not necesarilly a bad thing but how far can you take those metaphors? For example, what about the various positions? How do they fit in with software and programming? Is there a Karma Sutra of software that is officially endorsed by the FSF? As I said before, it's always pleasant to read a well reasoned reply even though it may espouse views that one does not hold himself. Especially in a forum like this where too often the posts are simply irrational rantings and cursing without any redeeming value.

	Uninformed people make bad writers (1.00 / 2) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 04:45:37 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it.

	lies and half-truths (4.75 / 4) (#23)
	by cp on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 05:17:56 PM PST

	1. There is no Linux anti-virus software because there are no viruses that attack Linux. Only if you ignore the viruses that do in fact exist for linux. 2. I would personally be happy to be able to run IE on my Linux box, but that's up to Microsoft. IE doesn't run on Linux because MS doesn't offer Linux version. What of the reasons underlying that decision, which range from the technical merits and marketing viability of Linux as a platform? 3. MS Office doesn't run on Linux for the same reasons. ditto 4. Windows doesn't come free with new computers. You pay for all of it. When MSWindows is bundled with all computers everywhere, there is no meaningful difference between these two statements: I payed $600 for this computer, of which $500 went towards hardware and $100 went towards MSWindows. I payed $600 for this computer, of which $600 went towards hardware and $0 went towards MSWindows.

	nope (1.50 / 2) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 06:20:06 PM PST

	However the way that Linux operates, unless virii are run as a root process which is very unlikely in any half-competant user, they can not deliver an effective payload. The reasons for microsoft not placing IE on linux is because Microsoft is known to not support Linux in the least, because it is the antithesis of what Microsoft is trying to do. It is also, with other forms of free Unix, taking a substantial amount of the server market from Microsoft. Don't be so quick to say that if Microsoft doesn't support it, it must be flawed in some horrible way. And finally, if Microsoft wasn't bundled with that system, the computer would cost $500 as opposed to $600.

	IE (4.00 / 2) (#93)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 07:47:31 PM PST

	Actually IE has been ported to linux. But no one uses it.

	solaris not linux (1.00 / 1) (#134)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:04:22 PM PST

	They are different operating systems with completely different philosophies. Solaris is made by Sun and is used as the basis for many of the BSD operating systems out there. Linux is made by various communist groups including China and Cuba.

	Wha? (4.00 / 1) (#150)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 30th, 2001 at 09:49:52 PM PST

	Their philosophies are irrelevant because the issue is that the Solaris version of IE will not compile under linux, atleast not without a bit of work on the code (I haven't heard of anyone doing this though). Also for reference the Solaris version of I.E. is horribly old, so you would probably be better off using another browser under Linux such as Mozilla, its spawnchild Galeon, kmellion, or the horribly unstable Nutscrape Navigator. Furthermore, BSD is it's own operating system, their relationship is that they are both nix which branched from Bell Labs' original efforts. BSD was developed in UC Berkeley while Solaris evolved from System V, Sun's and AT&Ts effort at unix. Finally, I don't really see why you think its insulting that you make the connection between open source and communism, as communism (or more specifically, socialism) was just too utopian to work. What resulted of attempts at implementing it was* quite negative however. Can you really bash them for attempting to achieve a utopian concept? --FlatLine