Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Review: Linux Mandrake 8.2

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 18, 2002
 Comments:
Today saw the release of the latest and greatest version of the Lunix operating system, Lunix Mandrake 8.2. Although "alternative" operating systems are not usually of interest to Adequacy's readership, who prefer to trust user-friendly commercial software, this release is noteworthy. For the release of Lunix Mandrake 8.2, aggressively timed to coincide with the UK launch of Microsoft's much vaunted X Box, marks the start of the final battle for domination of the computer industry. Make no mistake, the next few months will either see Microsoft tighten its stranglehold on the marketplace or will be a coming of age for the upstart Lunix operating system.

Considering the enormous significance of this release, we at Adequacy are proud to bring you the first ever review of Lunix Mandrake 8.2.

[editor's note, by iat: Please let's not have a repeat of the unfortunate incidents that followed my last review of Lunix, in which various death threats and legal threats were made, together with attempts to hack the Adequacy.org server. Thank you]

diaries

More diaries by iat
Millennium
Mandrake 8.2 : "a fucking disaster"
World Cup Update #1
World Cup Update #2
World Cup Update #3
The Lunix operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student named Axl Torvalds. Since these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to exploit the commercial potential of Lunix, but until recently Lunix has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Lunix 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 server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Lunix.

Lunix Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Lunix. Previous versions of Lunix 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 Lunix release hint at its renegade nature.

My foray into the world of Lunix began by downloading a "CD image" from the Lunix web site. But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Lunix is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Lunix is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students, criminals 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 Lunix 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 Lunix! Although the advocates of Lunix 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 Lunix requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really a sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

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

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Lunix! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express or Lotus Notes will not work under Lunix. 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 Lunix. Although a wide range of software is freely available for Lunix, these are mostly unfinished and 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 Lunix. In these times where hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Lunix. To add insult to injury, there is no Lunix version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Lunix, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

The shortcomings of Lunix are obvious. Without even installing Lunix Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Lunix would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Lunix 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 such as Lunix.

Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Microsoft's X-Box will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that all Adequacy readers rush out to buy an X-Box, rather than foolishly wasting their time, money and effort on Lunix.

       
Tweet

You are lucky (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:37:54 PM PST
Allow me to relate my experiences with Lenix:

About a month ago I attempted to install the latest release of Devian Lenix on my Compaq iPaq desktop PC with a 1.2Ghz Intel Pentium 4 processor, 256k of RAM, a Logitech web camera, and HP laserjet printer. This machine is my only PC, but I though I would take a shot at turning it into a dual boot system. I got a great deal on this computer from CDW. My employer buys quite a bit from them I guess, because they offer all of our employees hefty discounts. I think I paid around $1300 for the whole kit and caboodle maybe six months ago. It really is a great computer, looks good, nice and compact, legacy free, came with the web camera and printer. I wanted all the bells and whistles and I'm pretty sure I got them. Top of the line all the way.

Now, I'm not a full blown geek, but I know my computers. All of my friends come to me when they have a computer problem and I'm always able to figure out exactly what they should do (even if its 'Take it to the experts at Best Buy's'). For some reason, I was totally lost with Lenix.

I think it installed properly. I put the CD (that I downloaded and burned with my Windows 2000 operating system mind you) in and followed the few on screen instructions that came up. Incidentally, why is the installation so boring? I have installed Windows 98 before, it shows me all sorts of pictures and tells me all about what Windows can do for me, Devian Lenix did none of this. Anyway, it installed, I think. When the machine rebooted it asked me for a name and password, which I dutifully provided. Things were looking good at this point. Nice security, asking for a password (although it did not require me to CTRL-ALT-DEL like Windows 2000, which keeps my password secure, points off for that).

After that, things went downhill.

I was presented with a prompt, something that looked very DOS-like. I think it was \root or something. I figured that I could type something like DIR to see what sort of files I had access to. Nope. Nothing. The operating system did not function as it should have. No file list, no disk information, no nothing.

To make a long story short, my MBR was totally destroyed and one my my memory cards was corrupted. I found this out when I reinstalled Windows 2000 (which the Lenix installation broke). My Compaq Recovery CD informed me that my MBR was ruined but that it could fix it, thanks to Microsoft tools provided with the CD. Luckily, I escaped this disaster with having to replace only a memory card. You might have to replace your entire PC! Never again will I mess around with any sort of Lenix, at least until it comes with some sort of guarantee, backed up by a solid company that I can trust.


gee uhhhhh (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 12:24:49 AM PST
I was presented with a prompt, something that looked very DOS-like. I think it was \root or something. I figured that I could type something like DIR to see what sort of files I had access to. Nope. Nothing. The operating system did not function as it should have. No file list, no disk information, no nothing.

Maybe because DIR is DOS specific. Next time try ls

To make a long story short, my MBR was totally destroyed

Using a bootdisk or the utilities on the CD you burn simply type FDISK/MBR. Of course you could just reinstall Windows because it overwirtes the MBR evertime it installs.

and one my my memory cards was corrupted.

Then don't stick Playstation memory cards into your computer. Use memory modules dummy. Also memory does not become corrupted. It's temporary storage that clears when you turn off the computer. If it was damaged it would have been a hardware fault. Software no matter how bad does not do this. Simply reinstalling Windows wouldn't have fixed it. If the module was bad no software can fix it. It's hardware and must be replaced.

Try again later


 
:D (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 02:24:52 AM PST
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

that is the most uninformed, unsubstantiated, shallow and retarded "experience" of Linux I have ever read!!! You make out that it totally screwed your PC over.... Linux didn't damage your PC, you are just too stupid to sit and work out what it did do. If I was one of your so-called "friends" I certainly wouldn't come to you for any computer advice....

lol!!!!

flame away...


OMFG, look at things objectively! (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:33:12 AM PST
Just because someone does not know the commands for the o/s that they JUST installed means they are stupid? Now go back to your right hand and save the sense of superiority because you know how to use an operating system that will never be mainstream or even close to being usable for the common pc user.


Your trouble is... (none / 0) (#21)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:49:11 AM PST
that you didn't take the time to learn a thing. You just assumed that Linux was going to work like Windows. Well, get this: Linux is as like Windows as an apple is as like a small furry rodent. They're just as good as each other though, and each has big advantages over the other.


Not surprising. (none / 0) (#31)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:22:30 AM PST
The Plebs resists learning anything. Give them a manual to read and they scream bloody murder. (Maybe they can't read and need an interface built on pictures?)

Multibillion dollar industries are built on stupidity and laziness.


bah (none / 0) (#32)
by nathan on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:30:15 AM PST
Why should I have to piss hours of my life away reading arcane, contradictory software manuals in order to be able to use mail and http clients?

I spend 16-18 hours a day at school. I don't have time to learn Linux. End of story.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So... (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 05:34:48 AM PST
because you dont have time for Linux, it must the devil. I agree fully, it just makes perfect sense.


apparently you confuse me (none / 0) (#57)
by nathan on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:32:14 AM PST
With someone who said that Lunix is the devil. My comment history is a matter of public record. Please show evidence supporting your statement.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Yeah yeah. (none / 0) (#55)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:03:03 AM PST
I spend 16-18 hours a day at school.

Richard Stallman lives in his school, too. I suppose it's one step better than living with his parents.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

unlike Stallman, (none / 0) (#59)
by nathan on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:37:14 AM PST
I have a very nice apartment. I'm just too busy to spend time there unless I'm actually sleeping or something.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
But... (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 05:32:34 AM PST
I like McDonalds


 
I think... (none / 0) (#11)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:39:54 AM PST
that you're a dirty great fibber, Mr Reader.

Your exceptional level of computer awareness and training - detailed in your article - shows you up as a dirty, unclean geek of the "B1ll g4t3z b1+cH" variety. You could not possibly be such a geek and yet not know how to use Linux properly.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
You are wrong, NAWL (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by jvance on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:47:50 PM PST
I just thought I'd get in a preemptive strike.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
rrrrrrrrrrrright (none / 0) (#3)
by JimBobWay on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:50:28 PM PST
Tards


jalsfjal;fa (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:19:43 PM PST
you guys are really good at this.

whenever someone makes a good point, you get a computer illerate person who is completely biased by your fake pro-micro$hit pro-intel views. or you accuse them of "hacking" your slow "windows" server - seriously i know it's running unix - how is it that slow???


 
Are you retards? (and I say it with no anger) (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 11:33:43 PM PST
Linux is not designed to be another window (although Lindows now runs windows apps). Like UNIX, which is the most trusted, and secure software in the server market, Linux has a different code base, there is no reason for it to run MS Office or alike, it has its own versions, like star office (SUN), which must be inferior, especially since the British Government has left MS Office, for it. And one of the only reasons MS is not compatible, is because they want to eliminate all competition, and make their software that way.

Also whilst Linux is daily becoming more user friendly (distros like Red Hat), it is still designed for more advanced computer users, if you have problems running/installing this software you are clearly not in this category.

If you look at specialty computers, and power computers alike you'll see very few of them run Windows. Windows is an OS for the masses, if you do serious work with computers, be it programming, graphic design, or 3D animation you chose a MAC, IRIX (SGI/Unix), or Linux (now also used in SGI's comps).

Also it is a fact that *nix OS's are less system intensive than MS OS's (which is why they were used in the making of movies like Shrek). You compare your latest version of Linux to a 7 year old version of Windows. In reality 32 MB of ram is tiny these days, I'd like to see you get XP to work on your stone age 486, or on a Pentium 1 for that matter; wait even better a Pentium 2. By the way what are the requirements for XP. Also Linux is free, how is it being exploited? And there is plenty of anti-virus software available for Linux, however unlike windows; it is rarely needed, as it is far more secure.

You find proof of your beliefs about Linux, because it's what you want to believe. If you took a step back and looked at things rationally, and as they are, you'd see that while Linux may not be the OS for you, it still is a worthy contender for MS (unless you like being under the eye of big brother), and like the rest of the MS alternatives, for those who know what there doing it has many advantages.



the cream rises to the top (none / 0) (#15)
by derek3000 on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 06:54:19 AM PST
Also whilst Linux is daily becoming more user friendly (distros like Red Hat), it is still designed for more advanced computer users, if you have problems running/installing this software you are clearly not in this category.

There you go with your elitism again.

And there is plenty of anti-virus software available for Linux, however unlike windows; it is rarely needed, as it is far more secure.

Then why is there a kernel patch every two days? Microsoft won't ship their products until they are fine-tuned and have met the standards of the quality-control department. I've never had to patch any MS software.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

I see (none / 0) (#22)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:54:15 AM PST
I've never had to patch any MS software

So you honestly don't mind all the security holes in Internet Explorer and MSN Messenger then?


What holes? [n/t] (none / 0) (#25)
by derek3000 on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:02:51 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

the ones MS are always releasing patches for (n/t) (none / 0) (#26)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:10:54 AM PST



I've never seen any patches; mine works well [n/t] (none / 0) (#28)
by derek3000 on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:56:04 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

try this (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:15:09 AM PST
Why don't you actually run Windows Update. Maybe you're just new to Windows so XP is your first OS. I suppose you just let it automtically download the patches. Check the system tray. It likley is waiting from you to confirm installation of these patches.


 
You stoop too low my friend (none / 0) (#37)
by theantix on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:00:02 PM PST
Are you retards? (and I say it with no anger)

You may say it with no anger, but your words are evil. "Retards" is a hateful term, and you are sick and twisted bastard.

Linux is not designed

You see, that is the problem with Lunix and other open source programs. They aren't designed and innovative like the alternatives from the world's most successful company. Good programs require intensive design, while open source programs lack any sort of design.

if you do serious work with computers, be it programming, graphic design, or 3D animation

My work is very serious indeed, yet it involves none of those things. I am a consultant that works with Microsoft Access to provide flexible and modern solutions to my clients. No need for Lunix hacking... I'd rather get work done.

In reality 32 MB of ram is tiny these days

You are incorrect sir. 32mB of R.A.M. is exactly the same size as 64mB of R.A.M.

Linux may not be the OS for you

You're damn straight it's not. Perhaps it's more suited to someone who writes in crazy code words like MAC, IRIX, comps, *nix, distros, and "Lindows". For an educated person such as myself, I will stick with a time-tested computer system based on Microsoft's advanced XP technology.


propaganda (none / 0) (#38)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:14:23 PM PST
I will stick with a time-tested computer system based on Microsoft's advanced XP technology.

XP isn't time-tested! half of the XP technologies are barely out of the door! Linux, on the other hand, has been around for 11 years. It's far more stable than any Microsoft OS I've used, and its apps are faster and more stable than anything I've seen running on a Microsoft OS.

They aren't designed and innovative

Give examples, please? I can't think of any.




re: Your Ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by theantix on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:34:34 PM PST
propaganda

For your information (F.Y.I.), a proper title should be capitalized. Otherwise it tarnishes your entire comment and makes you appear less educated. However this is unlikely to be a problem for you because after reading your comment it becomes clear that you are unintelligable at the best of times.

XP isn't time-tested! half of the XP technologies are barely out of the door!

You are overusing the exclamation mark (!). When reading your comment it appears that you are nothing more than a rabid Lunix hacker foaming at the mouth.

I can't think

Sir, you have demonstrated the problem with your comment, and likely your entire comment history as well. You lack the capacity for rational thought, and it shows when reading the inane drivel you continuously spit out. I'm suprised the frothing drool coming out of your mouth hasn't yet damaged your keyboard.


Selective quoting. (none / 0) (#49)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:26:50 AM PST
I. [...] appear less educated. [...] this is [...] because [...] you are [...] best [...]

Sir, [...] I'm [...] coming


Well, you said it. Isn't quoting fun?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
I think not (none / 0) (#73)
by DG on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:33:13 AM PST
you know it would help your side if you attacked what he is saying and not how, other wise there is no point posting, becuse you have nothing helpful to say. feel free to disect this since this seems the only thing you can do
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Do you ever get bored of Lunix advocacy? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by iat on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:43:04 PM PST
XP isn't time-tested! half of the XP technologies are barely out of the door! Linux, on the other hand, has been around for 11 years.

That's a fallacious argument. Microsoft have spent years developing and testing the XP codebase, and XP builds upon the experience that Microsoft have gained while producing all the previous versions of Windows (and from producing software since the 1970s). By your logic, I could claim that Linux has been rushed out of the door, since the 2.4.18 kernel has only been around for a month.

It's far more stable than any Microsoft OS I've used, and its apps are faster and more stable than anything I've seen running on a Microsoft OS.

Let me ask you a question, which I'd like you to answer honestly: Have you used Windows XP (or even Windows 2000) for any significant length of time? Or have you just seen screenshots of XP on ZDnet and formed a negative opinion based on your prejudices and the propaganda of the Linux community? If you had ever used Windows XP properly, you'd know that it's a fast, stable, secure and user-friendly operating system.

>They aren't designed and innovative

Give examples, please? I can't think of any.


I can think of several pieces of poorly designed open source software that have no innovation other than that "borrowed" from Microsoft, Adobe and other commercial software manufacturers. Almost every piece of open source software is a poor imitation of popular proprietary software. It's a much more difficult task to think of a single piece of open source software that is both well designed and innovative.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

Borrowing (none / 0) (#46)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:40:28 AM PST
I can think of several pieces of poorly designed open source software that have no innovation other than that "borrowed" from Microsoft, Adobe and other commercial software manufacturers.

Hey - it's apparently okay for the commercial software manufacturers to "borrow"! Microsoft's only original invention is the Paperclip. So if the Big Players can "borrow" freely from the small players, what's wrong on small players "borrowing" back from the big ones?

Almost every piece of open source software is a poor imitation of popular proprietary software.

Case by case. If I like something and can't run it as I want to, I rewrite it or port it. Simple.

It's a much more difficult task to think of a single piece of open source software that is both well designed and innovative.

Well-designed is more important than innovative. I have no problems with devices - both software and hardware - that are built in borrowed ideas or are copies of something other - as long as they are reliable and dependable.

Sendmail was innovative for its time, but became a monster. Then qmail came, copied the functionality that was essential, threw away obsolete parts like UUCP support, and became a well-engineered "knockoff". Guess what one I run. Four servers, half year, not a single problem.


MS doesn't innovate, it copies (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:03:40 AM PST
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish -- MS ideology

Hey - it's apparently okay for the commercial software manufacturers to "borrow"! Microsoft's only original invention is the Paperclip. So if the Big Players can "borrow" freely from the small players, what's wrong on small players "borrowing" back from the big ones?

BASIC. When people think of it they general reach 2 conclusions. One is that Bill Gates is a programming genious and the Microsoft innovates. Both are incorrect. PAul Allen did most of the coding for BASIC while Gates handled the marketing. Everything from DOS to Windows is built using licensed, licensed then made incomptible, stolen, or existing code.

I don't have to remind you of how MS licensed QDOS and licensed it to IBM as their own for 2 or more years before actually buying the rights to it. I probably don't need to remind you of how Internet Explorer was built using licensed Mosaic code with incompatible extensions. Even the name Internet Explorer was a copyright infringement. Let's examine some more shall we?

1. Apple successfully sued MS for ripping them off. Through interpretation of the language used in the contract negotiated between the two parties MS continued to copy Apple.
2. Quarterdeck developed QEMM. Microsoft used the step in its own memory tool for DOS. They convinced Quaterdeck that they should develop a smaller shell for Windows 95. Unfortuantely MS already had contracts with PC manufacturers forbidding them from loading any such product. Windows also had a bug in which if there was a directory on the hard drive called QEMM Windows would crash and become unusable.
3. STAC Electronics developed a hard-disk compression scheme that allowed PCs to store 1.5 to 2.5 as much data on a hard drive. Microsoft copied this code and embedded it into MSDOS 6.0 as "DoubleSpace." Microsoft was found liable in civil court and later paid $83 million in damages, according to reports on the case.
4. Tiny company Go Corp. invented pen-based computing in the early 1990s. When invited to consider selling its technology to Microsoft, Go gladly agreed to have a "marketing guy" from Microsoft examine the product. Instead, several Microsoft programmers -- who many say were pretending to be marketers -- spent three days poring over every detail of the source code for Go's flagship product. Then they pronounced it a dud and left town. Six months later, Microsoft began offering a similar product using Go's approach -- and dared Go to sue them. Next thing you know, Go went bankrupt and disappeared.
5. Sun Microsystem licensed Java to MS for use in Windows. MS modified the Java code and develop an incompatible version of the RE. Microsoft called this the Microsoft Java Runtime Environment. Sun sued MS for $1 billion. They have launched another case against MS for continuing to offer and market the MS JavaRE which it is forbidden to do as they dropped Java support after the case ended. sun had offered them a choice. MS could continue utilizing Java in Windows according to the license or not at all.

We could list hundreds of similar cases -- the strangling of Netscape via product giveaways, the disappearance of applications for Mac OS and OS/2 when Microsoft refused to provide development tools it had sold to independent developers, the booby-trapped code in Windows 3.1 to target DR-DOS, using BSD code or developing incompatible extensions to Kerberos -- but time does not permit a full list with descriptions of all the alleged wrongs.

Now I'm not going to solely attack Microshaft here. Most of the software today is simply imporvement on open source or public domain software. Not all of it is innovative. Sometimes you just need to scrap the old one and rewrite it all over again (Sendmail/qmail). The true innovators have long since faded from public view or passed away.

Most people will never know of the innovative hackers from the 60s and 70s.


you're a fool (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:50:21 AM PST
MS is the most innovative s/w company out there. You are intentionally confounding the innovative use of technology with entirely new and patentable technology. Open Source is not responsible for any of the latter, unless you consider research open source. But why would you do that, read your myopia back into the contingent facts of history? Innovations from research are usually privately funded and almost always pursued to satisfy some corporate strategy. Let me make this clearer for you: no one *using* Lunix has ever innovated and certainly nothing in Lunix or under the GPL is innovative by your definition of innovative or mine.

NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Richard Stallman and the FSF/OSS talking heads could have easily never been born for all the difference they've made. When will you realize that actual software is IRRELEVANT compared to the academic ideas that eventually find expression in software (much to the indifference of their original academic authors), and that the word 'innovation' appears nowhere in any software license?

Shut up, NAWL.


oh well then (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:24:19 PM PST
Please name one piece of Ms software that was stolen, licensed, or bought. Please name any Microsoft product. I or someone else will be more then able to tell you who they copied, stolen from or bought out.

Not even .NET is immune.


okay (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:21:40 PM PST
let's just have you post the words you Lunatix DO understand, and I'll try to express myself that much slower from then on.


problems? (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 09:06:49 PM PST
Are you having difficulties finding a piece of software which can actually be lebeled a Microsoft innovation?

There is nothing Microsoft has ever done that hadn't been done before.

Bill Gates:
"With Windows95 you can use long filenames. Yes we know that Mac users have enjoyed this feature almost from day one and we could have implemented it in earlier version of Windows. However, we're going to market the hell out of this "not that big of a deal" feature. The younger generation will remember it as a Microsoft innovation!"


I agree (none / 0) (#74)
by DG on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:45:11 AM PST
i've never read about MS making any innovations i've read many things where they have copied borrowed or stole ideas.. the best from 2k is the active directerys they claimed they came up with, nope novell came up with it, while you could say skinning xp was new, it's not, you can go to any site with xwindow managers for skins, or windowblinds for that, big deal xp is a purty version of 2k, makes me sad
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

a new innovation? (none / 0) (#78)
by William Sargis on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 11:11:18 AM PST
Microsoft just announced a database-like new file system for future versions of Windows. In referring to this feature, Rob Helm, Microsoft's editor-in-chief, was recently quoted as saying, "This hasn't been done in a commercial operating system."

Try 10 years ago, Rob.

BeOS -- the OS you'll never know




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

 
Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:13:58 AM PST
By your logic, I could claim that Linux has been rushed out of the door

I wouldn't say so. Microsoft may have spent years testing XP technologies within their own walls, not on the people who would actually be using the software. With Linux, it's almost the opposite. Rigorous testing IS performed before each kernel release, but the real feedback comes from the users themselves, who find the unforseen bugs that are fixed for the next release.

Have you used Windows XP (or even Windows 2000)

Yes. The majority of workstations at this university run Windows 2000. Almost every day I suffer at least one lockup while doing the simplest tasks (word processing, web browsing, a telnet session to the central server). I have Linux and Windows 98 on my own computer, and while Windows 98 is extremely flaky at its very best, Linux is, for the most part, rock solid, and lockups are extremely rare. Server problems at this university are also very rare. Why? because the servers almost all run some variety of Unix, either SunOS or IRIX.

This doesn't all mean I hate Windows. I don't. It's just that I happen to like Linux as well, and I don't like it when people spread lies and falsehoods about it all the time.


 
LOL (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 05:22:28 AM PST
It is your words which are evil, you condemn what you do not know.

Your work may be serious to you, but as far as computers go, it's not at all. And you prove this because Micro$oft don't even encourage Access for professional databases, for that you must buy another program called Micro$oft Fox Pro.

Building databases and solutions (something I'm well familiar with) hardly requires any computer power, unlike graphic design, so no it is not serious computer work.

Clearly I was not talking about the physical dimensions of the RAM chips, I'm sure you can understand that.

"crazy code words like MAC, IRIX, comps, *nix, distros, and "Lindows". "

How can you say something like this, just after claiming to do serious work with computers, and just before calling your self educated? Clearly you think more of your self than you are, which is a bad habit. A wise man knows he is not wise, for there is always much he dose not know.

I also use both XP and 2000, and I have compared them to various distros (which I have taken the time to learn properly), I am sure you have not, so how can we possibly see you as an authority. Because someone told you?


Also why dose everyone on this site refer to people as Sir, and friend? Is it a way of faking intelligence, through trying to sound sophisticated?


P.S.
MAC = Apple Macintosh
Another computer company, also partly owned by our friend Bill. MAC's have for years been the standard for graphic design. You also might note that there new OS (unlike there older ones, which were coppied by Micro$oft) has a UNIX base.

IRIX = a UNIX OS created by SGI (I assume you know who they are given your intelect)

Comps = computers (I feel free to use abreviations, as I don't feel I need to prove my own intelect to anyone, unlike your self)

Distros = Distrabutions (the different types of Linux)

Lindows = a Linux distro, this one will run all your favorite MS products, including Access.



Sir, your response (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by theantix on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:03:52 PM PST
It is your words which are evil, you condemn what you do not know.

It is no fault of mine that I am not familiar with your technical hacker jargon. One does not have to sleep with the devil in order to discern that she is evil. I know that certain things are are wrong, and don't desire to embrace them in order to prove it to you. Doing so would make me no better that the criminals that offend me.

Micro$oft don't even encourage Access for professional databases, for that you must buy another program called Micro$oft Fox Pro.

I did an internet search on the internet for the product in question, and it produced no results. Stop lying to me, trying to get me to purchase products that don't exist. Is that S.P.A.M.? You sir, appear to be nothing more than a S.P.A.M.mer, which is evil. And you have the nerve to call my truthful counterarguments evil. You disgust me.

A wise man knows he is not wise

Your words are nonsensical. By your logic, if a man is wise, he know that he is not wise. But if he knows he is not wise he is either (1) not wise, or (2) incorrect. Your faulty and circular logic won't stand here on Adequacy.org, I guarantee it.

Also why dose [sic] everyone on this site refer to people as Sir, and friend?

You sir, are obvisously new to Adequacy. If you were more familliar with a web forum that wasn't full of trolls, you would realize that such language is a way to discuss something in a non-controntational manner. Plus, it's more polite.

I also use both XP and 2000, and I have compared them to various distros [sic] (which I have taken the time to learn properly), I am sure you have not, so how can we possibly see you as an authority. Because someone told you?

Well, my clients pay me good money, and consider me an authority -- is that not good enough for you? Besides, as I've already told you, I don't need to do an in-depth examination and delve into the world of hackers and criminals. Further, I can rely on the experts at Adequacy.org to do the investigation for me.

How can you say something like this, just after claiming to do serious work with computers, and just before calling your self [sic] educated?

The answer is simple my friend: instead of wasting my valuable billable time on computers programs thrown together by hackers, I spend my time learning and building valuable business solutions for my clients. I don't bother myself with abbreviations and acronyms that are useless. I have read your translations despite the difficulty of correcting your poor spelling. Is English your first language sir? I dare hope not! Regardless, I have discerned the truth hidden behind the tangled mess of words.
  • MAC: You are no doubt referring to the toy computer systems produced by Apple Computer Corporation. No serious professional would be caught dead with a lemon-lime flavoured computer.
  • IRIX: A version of Lunix from a now-defunct dot-com hacker company? I'm not really clear about this.
  • comps: A shortened version of the word "computers"? I'm sorry that I'm not familliar with your "l33t" computer lingo, I'd rather be working then chatting with hackers.
  • Lindows: This appears to be yet another version of your infamous Lunix. Except with this "company" it seems that it has undisputably infringed on Microsoft valuable Intellectual Property. I suppose nothing more could be expected from a group of hackers, but I'm disapointed that anyone would dare suggest that an honest business professional like myself would consider using it.

    In closing, here is a partial list of the spelling and grammatical errors found throughout your comment: words which (should be words that), Micro$oft, Fox Pro, your self, dose, there (should be their), coppied, intelect, abreviations, intelect, your self (again!), and Distrabutions.

    I would suggest that you use a legitimate word processor such as Microsoft Word to correct this. Amongst its many features is the ability to automatically correct your spelling and grammar while you type. Further, you must cease with using hacker lingo such as LOL. If you hope to continue this conversation, I expect a higher standard of quality.


  • She ? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 02:02:32 PM PST
    One does not have to sleep with the devil in order to discern that she is evil.
    hmmm!


     
    Ok....... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jonothan on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:27:55 PM PST
    "technical hacker jargon"

    What jargon, you clearly know little about computers. "my clients pay me good money, and consider me an authority", they are stupid, in the literal sense, and if you encourage this, I consider you a Conn artist.


    "One does not have to sleep with the devil in order to discern that she is evil."

    How do you know that the devil is evil? or that it even exists? or that it is a she? Are you prone to making your own facts. Or do you believe blindly in anything written.


    "I know that certain things are wrong, and don't desire to embrace them in order to prove it to you."

    You are scared to admit defeat aren't you? So, how is it that you know, open source is "wrong"? From the trust worthy members of this site by chance.


    "Stop lying to me, trying to get me to purchase products that don't exist."

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/ but hay maybe Microsoft are lying, and only pretending to make software.

    This shows you absolute lack of knowledge about computers. You clearly don't even know how to use a search engine.


    "Is that S.P.A.M.? You sir, appear to be nothing more than a S.P.A.M.mer, which is evil. And you have the nerve to call my truthful counterarguments evil. You disgust me."

    If you were to research your assertions, I would need not make a mockery of your intelligence, and your made up comments.


    "Well, my clients pay me good money, and consider me an authority -- is that not good enough for you?"

    I've already explained the nature of your clients to you. So NO it is not good enough for me, the masses are easily conned, and in general ignorant.


    "I've already told you, I don't need to do an in-depth examination and delve into the world of hackers and criminals."

    Why do you assume open source and *nix to be directly linked to hackers and criminals? I suppose most of the largest organizations in the world must be hackers and criminals then. Since SUN is the server software of choice.


    "computers programs thrown together by hackers"

    Like IRIX, and Solaris


    "I spend my time learning and building valuable business solutions for my clients."

    who are gullible, and you build your solutions on 2nd rate software.


    "MAC: You are no doubt referring to the toy computer systems produced by Apple Computer Corporation. No serious professional would be caught dead with a lemon-lime flavoured computer."

    Once again you have proved your ignorance where computers are concerned. Do you know how stupid you sound?


    "IRIX: A version of Lunix (you mean Unix) from a now-defunct dot-com hacker company? I'm not really clear about this."

    Oh, so your referring to SGI (www.sgi.com), the company who used to make computers for NASA, and the company who make most of the computers for the 3D graphics work in Hollywood (who also must clearly be hackers), and also designed all the computers used to create Shrek.


    "comps: A shortened version of the word "computers"? I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with your "l33t" computer lingo"...WTF


    "I'd rather be working then chatting with hackers."

    And I must be a Hacker, because I do know about computers.


    "Lindows: This appears to be yet another version of your infamous Lunix. (you mean Linux) Except with this "company" it seems that it has undisputably (indesputably) infringed on Microsoft valuable Intellectual Property."

    Actually Linux was just criticized for not running MS programs. And it infringes on no intellectual property, they just won a court battle against Microsoft.


    You have proven your self a fiend, you make judgments on thing you don't understand or know. Do some research next time, and then you might actually pull off trying to sound intellectual.

    Whilst you may be able to Conn your clients, you can't Conn me.




    Learn to write (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by theantix on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:32:10 AM PST
    Your arguments are comical in the context of your poor spelling and grammatical abilities, my friend.
    1. "Conn" is an improper spelling of "con".
    2. "your self" should be "yourself". I have pointed this out to you in the past.
    3. "the company who make most" should be "the company who makes most"
    4. "trust worthy" should be "trustworthy"
    5. "? or that it even exists? or that..." should be corrected to "? Or that it even exists? Or that..."
    Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even construct a proper sentence? Please, come visit Adequacy.org when you are finished with High School.


    Deal with it -you're sure grasping on short straws (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 03:19:44 PM PST
    So you accept defeat and have nothing more to comment on than spelling. Thats Low...

    I can't belive you actually sell solutions with a VB base.

    And is there anything wrong if English isn't my first language?


     
    The Guys at Adequacy... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:04:10 PM PST
    You guys really can't take being wrong... You need to learn to deal with defeat, without becoming offencive. Learn when to give up, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


     
    Ah.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by DG on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:52:30 AM PST
    i feel sorry for your clients, unless you are using "I have clients! i must know what i am talking about becuse i have clients" to try to trick us, you must not be in computers then? most computer experts know about linux/unix and if they don't they shouldn't be called experts since i know people who have no clue about computers who know about linux, not from me telling them about it though, please try to realize saying things like "my clients pay me good money, and consider me an authority" means nothing if you sound uninformed about this stuff
    2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    not quite and just plain silly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 12:20:09 AM PST
    [editor's note, by iat: Please let's not have a repeat of the unfortunate incidents that followed my last review of Lunix, in which various death threats and legal threats were made, together with attempts to hack the Adequacy.org server. Thank you ]

    Well posiibly if you could write an intelligent review you wouldn't have to worry now would you? Let's examine some points of interest shall we?

    For the release of Lunix Mandrake 8.2, aggressively timed to coincide with the UK lanuch of Microsoft's much vaunted X Box, marks the start of the final battle for domination of the computer industry.

    You comparing the realease of an operating system to the release of a video game console!?! And why does your link point to WindowsXP? The XBox has nothing to do with XP. Microsoft has stated many times that it uses the W2K kernel. Can you say Duh? This just throws off your entire review and makes you look extremely stupid and uniformed in the process.

    The Lunix operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one man, a Finnish student named Axl Torvalds.

    Don't you mean Linus Torvalds?

    However, due to the recent economic downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing policy, Lunix is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft Windows.

    Finally some intelligence, yet....

    While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the same level of media attention as Lunix.

    I believe you have that back-asswards. Solaris is based of BSD. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are also based on the original BSD (Berkeley Systems Distribution).

    Lunix Mandrake is just the latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Lunix. Previous versions of Lunix 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 Lunix release hint at its renegade nature.

    Not this again? Linux is a kernel. Versions of Linux are expressed numerically (ie 2.5.xx). Think of the Windows kernel (kernel32, NTkernel, etc). Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake are ditributions put out by different entities. Some of them are commercial such as Red Hat Inc, Mandrakesoft (MacMillan) etc. Is it that difficult?

    My foray into the world of Lunix began by downloading a "CD image" from the Lunix web site.

    I believe you mean Mandrake's website as their is no Linux website. well, at least no official website as Linux is not a company nor is it owned by any company or organisation. Not even the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project own Linux.

    But don't worry, this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Lunix is shareware, meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Lunix is a major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students, criminals and self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

    Linux is not shareware. Shareware is not open source nor does it include source code either. Shareware is also limited in the ability to use the product without payment or activation. One more thing. It's not freeware either.

    I was shocked to learn that Lunix Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed.

    It seems you simply did a cut a paste from your last review which was picked apart for being completely WRONG. Unfortunately, there is not CD images available from non Pantium processors. If you want one however, you should have considered a different distribution. Might I suggest Red Hat 7.2 (see above if you still haven't got that version thing figured out yet). I mean you're pretty stupid to have downloaded and the i586 for use ona 486 system. Hell, you could always grap Mandrake 7.0 for your old 486. Duh.

    Furthermore, a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Lunix! Although the advocates of Lunix 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 Lunix requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware. Is this really a sign of a lean, mean operating system? Of course not.

    Linux itself requires very little to run. Combine that with various utilities and applications you need more. You could always limit what you install as you likely will not need everything. You're compare a complete OS with a kernel. Again the kernel requires very little. Hell the Windows kernels would likely not require that much. Wanna see how much bloat is in Windows? Download a different shell to replace explorer.exe then run the resource agent in Windows. DAMN! Another thing. You're comparing a full feature recent OS to an outdate one (Win95). Wow! The bare minimum runs slower than crap requirements for WindowsXP are 64MB. Think about that.

    Sadly, not even being able to install Lunix is just the first of my many complaints about Lunix.

    Whose fault is that? Yours for not downloaded the correct CD image or choosing a different distro with one availble for you system.

    A brief perusal of the features of Lunix Mandrake reveals that Lunix is sorely lacking many crucial productivity applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Lunix?

    Gee I dunno, probably the same reason iTunes (MacOS) doesn't run on Windows. Use your head and think about that some more. Besides if you want standards get Mozilla.

    Despite the best efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of Lunix seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to recognised standards, Lunix is simply undermining its own credibility.

    If you wanna talk more about standard you don't go to the IETF. You go to the big boys. That's right the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). They have continually spoken against Microsoft for taking standards and applying incompatible extensions. If you want a standard we browser certified and developed by the W3C then get Amaya from their web site.

    Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used software is completely incompatible with Lunix! It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express or Lotus Notes will not work under Lunix.

    Kind like how your copy of MS OfficeXP won't run on any other platform like MacOS. No, you have to buy MS Office v.X. And you are limiting your argument to desktop software. What about server software? All Unix apps and utilities can easily be ported to Linux with little to no modification.

    Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked by the developers of Lunix. In these times where hacking and viruses are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software is available for Lunix.

    Symmantec (Norton Anti-Virus) readily makes virus discovery and removal tools availble for Unix/Linux. It has for quite some time.

    To add insult to injury, there is no Lunix version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall. By using Lunix, you are issuing an open invitation to the hordes of ne'er-do-wells on the Internet.

    Because ZoneAlarm sucks. BlacICE is much better. However, why would you download these if say WindowsXP includes a built in firewall? Most Linux distro include their own firewall or are configured solely as firewalls.

    The shortcomings of Lunix are obvious. Without even installing Lunix Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws. Surely it is not too much to expect that, after ten years of development, the creators of Lunix would have addressed these problems? The real question that the prospective Lunix 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 such as Lunix.

    Blah blah blah. Your last review was picked apart for stupidity and now this one has been too.

    Although it is always tempting to support the underdog, Microsoft's X-Box will be the deserved victor in the battle ahead. I recommend that all Adequacy readers rush out to buy an X-Box, rather than foolishly wasting their time, money and effort on Lunix.

    Yes, and I will laugh when you try to load OfficeXP on your new game console. Duh!


    Quite right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:41:45 AM PST
    Well posiibly if you could write an intelligent review you wouldn't have to worry now would you?

    Death threats and hacking are utterly justified against all idiots... If only I could be bothered to read the rest of your post to make sure you are one, I might be tempted to fire off a few myself.


    Yes, I agree. (none / 0) (#24)
    by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:57:39 AM PST
    In fact, one death threat has already been made against iat, though I'm not sure whether it was sarcastic or not.


     
    Earth to dumbass (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fon2d2 on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:54:06 AM PST
    iat and others of the Adequacy website create reviews and articles that are obviously full of falsities as a jest at the Linux community. They do so because of the lack of social graces and emotional intelligence that are associated with Linux. Predictably, here comes your rebuttal dripping with elitism and closed-mindedness. You, my friend, are a victim of irony.


    slander is almost as bad as trolling (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:03:49 PM PST
    iat and others of the Adequacy website create reviews and articles that are obviously full of falsities

    For instance? Or is this an example of how the cadres of fawning lunatix misdirect honest criticism against their hobby OS by imputing sarcasm and jest?


    would work.. (none / 0) (#76)
    by DG on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 01:56:28 AM PST
    if he could have gotten it installed, not much of a review if you don't see the product now isn't it? most of the thing was a big whine about how there is no windows software on it
    2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    This site's view of Linux (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:21:09 AM PST
    Whatever one's view of the operating system linux, not being able to correctly spell it at least one time, is not exactly impressive. On the contrary, it is childish and undignified.


    nope (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 06:59:12 AM PST
    Correctly misspelling it every time shows dedication and attention to detail, and thus deserves respect.


    true lunix (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:36:55 AM PST
    it deserves a kick in the bullnix!


     
    *laughs* (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 02:13:54 AM PST
    The review is funny, but the comments people posted are even funnier. :D To those of you who understand the article, and are enjoying the silly comments people are posting, I apologize for ruining it for you, but I just have to point and laugh. ;)

    Obviously some of you guys have *no* sense of humor at all, and can't tell when an article was written to be funny. It was *satire*! Duh. Are you sure Lunix users are so much smarter? ;)

    Lunix = a joke. WinXP has Luna, remember? Linux GUIs copy Windows, remember? Thus, Lunix. I guess that went over your heads, eh? :D

    Some of y'all take things *way* too seriously, and act like a southern baptist getting all self-righteous when somebody makes fun of a Catholic priest.


    It is very kind of you ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:50:51 AM PST
    To try to explain this piece of shit. It has nothing satirical, it's just the same stinking bait as always, and since it always work, why stop? And Lunix has nothing to do with Luna (but with lunatics I'd bet), it is bait too. Those articles appear regularly on the site just for the newcomers.


     
    don't think so (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:29:24 AM PST
    Lunix = a joke. WinXP has Luna, remember? Linux GUIs copy Windows, remember? Thus, Lunix. I guess that went over your heads, eh? :D

    I seriously doubt that. These guys aren't that smart. Mention Luna or Aqua and you'll end up reading through anti-hacker rhetoric. Most of these guys think Luna and Aqua and such are nothing but hacker tools. At least until you explain it to them. The whole Lunix thing started before the release of XP and before the GUI was officially name Luna.

    So you wanna do the who copied who. Very well.

    Windows GUIs copy Mac (and OS/2, see below). Apple used ideas from Lisa and reasearch team at Palo Alto. Douglas Engelbart went to work for Palo Alto. Engelbart developed first advanced windowing system and GUI. Unix had a windowing system. Linux combines everything from all of them plus some new features. You don't see virtual desktop in Windows do you? Well, at least not without third party software.

    Microsoft is regularly credited with the innovation called the taskbar. However, you must remember a couple of things. Windows 95 was delayed giving OS/2 a nice little break. So it released first. It had a taskbar, but in OS/2 it was called the WarpCenter. Take the OS/2 Desktop Tour. The idea of the TaskBar isn't really innovative. Most Mac users can tell you that.


     
    Dear IAT: (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:11:42 AM PST
    I cant believe yur stupidity.

    Luckily some of us in this world stand up for what it right. I have a General Electric minigun, a 12 bore double barreled shotgun and some grenades.

    Because of your offense against LINUX I am going to hunt you down, wherever you may be, and shoot your head clean off. I will empty all my bullets into your carcase and then rip your head and arms and legs off and distribute them on spikes to all 5 corners of the USA as a warning of what happens when Linux has false rumours spread about it by Microsoft employees like yourself.

    You suck and I will see to it that you regret this.


    I want to see it! (none / 0) (#33)
    by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:46:34 AM PST
    Luckily some of us in this world stand up for what it right. I have a General Electric minigun, a 12 bore double barreled shotgun and some grenades.

    Surely the General Electric XM-214! That beauty rocks!

    Because of your offense against LINUX I am going to hunt you down, wherever you may be, and shoot your head clean off. I will empty all my bullets into your carcase and then rip your head and arms and legs off and distribute them on spikes to all 5 corners of the USA as a warning of what happens when Linux has false rumours spread about it by Microsoft employees like yourself.

    I want to watch! I want to watch!

    The gun is 30 lbs. The ammo (I suppose you will want about 1000 bullets) is 35 lb. The battery is additional 7 lb.

    When fired at only 1000 rounds per minute, the recoil is 11 kg of continuous push. Increasing geometrically with fire rate (the XM is capable of rates up to 10,000 per minute).

    In short, watching a man trying to handle such thing would be a spectacle well-worth of the risk.

    Personally, I'd suggest a sniper rifle instead. It's cleaner, it's safer both for you, the target, and the civilians, and it's easier to acquire. I'd suggest ie. Heckler & Koch PSG-1 if you want accuracy, or Magnum 96 Destroyer if your target will cowardly hide behind up to an inch of steel (even at 1 km distance), or if you want something lighter and low-caliber, pick Accuracy International Super Magnum.

    Machine guns on short distance are unnecessarily noisy and bloody and ammunition-wasting. On the other hand, you may prefer them for their amusement value.


    My diary has turned into a freak show (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by iat on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:55:09 PM PST
    I really don't know who you think you're impressing by demonstrating your knowledge of guns here on Adequacy. Let me clarify things: guns are not cool, guns don't make you more masculine and guns won't make you popular with women.

    Gun "enthusiasts" are without exception social misfits who have a complex about their masculinity and penis size. Most normal people have grown out of any interest in firearms by the time they hit puberty.

    Please stop boring us with your bravado and second-hand insight into firearms. At the very least, please don't do it in my diary, which is rapidly degenerating into a freakshow.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

    What!?! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:54:35 PM PST
    Why is it that you think that he is presenting his knowledge solely to come off as cool? He is simply clarifying the parent post.

    As someone with an expertise in weaponry, served in the military and is currently a highly trained sniper for SWAT I found his post to be informed and rather interesting. Does it make him cool? I wouldn't know as I don't know him outside this shitpile of a website.


    Social leper (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:18:06 AM PST
    Does it make him cool? I wouldn't know as I don't know him outside this shitpile of a website.

    That's only because you don't know anyone outside this website, Billy No-Mates.


     
    No (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Right Hand Man on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:32:18 AM PST
    I know his post was composed entirely of information gleaned through reading the second search result returned when 'general electric minigun' is typed in to Google, almost word for word. He is a damn site far from informed. He has watched too many movies, or played to many games, starring minuguns and they have tainted his understanding of their purpose.

    In the Navy I fired a small GE minigun from the back of a patrol boat and I can assure you that they are not intended for shoulder carry nor are there any US military provisions for doing so. As for his sniper rifle examples, the Technika Destroyer is a joke, it does not really exist. Accuracy International makes a fine rifle but it failed to survive hostile environment testing and the M70 and Barrett 50 cal were adopted in its place.

    Anyone who is actually a SWAT sniper would be aware that there are much better sniper systems available at a much lower cost than any of the examples he provided. The Winchester Model 70 Stealth, the Remington 700 PSS, the police badged Savage 110, all would be far more accurate out of the box than any non-duty slotted sniper could shoot them, they all cost less than half of a PSG-1, and are available at your corner gun shop.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Miniguns (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:55:52 PM PST
    In the Navy I fired a small GE minigun from the back of a patrol boat and I can assure you that they are not intended for shoulder carry nor are there any US military provisions for doing so.

    Guess why XM214 never became M214 (X in this notation means eXperimental).

    However, nothing can change that XM214 is one of my "pet" weapons. Despite of - or maybe because of - its drawbacks. I like it. I like it a lot. But I wouldn't pick it if I'd have to face a heat. (Actually, I'd prefer to stay somewhere safe and service the weapons of my comrades who would take the heat instead of me.)


     
    Oh? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:14:26 AM PST
    At the very least, please don't do it in my diary, which is rapidly degenerating into a freakshow.

    I thought it began as a freak show?


     
    Ignoring the blatant trolling... (none / 0) (#20)
    by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:43:14 AM PST
    including BSD which is based on Sun's server-grade Solaris operating system

    No, sorry. BSD is one of the original Unices, from which FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD (in no particular order) evolved. I've heard of no Unices based on Solaris.

    it seems that Lunix requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer hardware

    Wrong again - it's pretty much distribution-dependent. Linux DOES work better with more memory, but it's not a necessity. Mandrake will require more because it's been built around user-friendliness rather than sheer efficiency and support for near-obsolete hardware. If you want to run Linux on a 486, look into a different distributions. I've seen some that fit into no more than 25MB and are quite usable (including Win956-like GUI). True, a lot of software is missing, but can be easily downloaded and installed.

    why isn't the industry standard web browser, Internet Explorer, included with Lunix? Ask Microsoft. Or, if you want a full, standards-compliant browser, use Opera. It adheres to standards far better than either Internet Explorer or Netscape.

    It may surprise you to learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express or Lotus Notes will not work under Lunix.

    I point you at KOffice and the countless mail clients available for Linux.

    If you must use the awful Outlook Express, I recommend you have a glass of wine. A nice vintage is available at codeweavers.com.

    for almost all of the most popular games are unavailable for Lunix

    I point you to Loki games. The games run a damn sight faster under Linux than Windows, too.

    there is no Lunix version of the popular ZoneAlarm firewall

    That's because the firewall functionality is built right into the kernel. Use iptables directly, or get a configurator.

    After all, Microsoft Windows comes free with most PCs

    No it doesn't, it's included in the cost of a PC.

    I get the feeling you're just looking for excuses not to install Mandrake through sheer ignorance. You seem unwilling to learn. What's worse, you want to try and put other people off installing what is perhaps one of the better distributions by spreading propaganda. Are you sure you don't work for Microsoft?


    two quick points (none / 0) (#27)
    by jvance on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:13:57 AM PST
    I point you at KOffice and the countless mail clients available for Linux.

    Most of which are broken steaming piles of shit. I don't expect to have to hand-debug source code so that my email client can open attachments without taking a dump. I don't expect it to leak so much memory that it locks up a Sun Ultra Enterprise 450. As in the console was no longer responsive. As in power-cycle.

    I point you to Loki games. The games run a damn sight faster under Linux than Windows, too.

    "Loki is closed. Thanks for your patronage."
    --
    Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

    But (none / 0) (#36)
    by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:43:43 PM PST
    "Loki is closed. Thanks for your patronage."

    Which doesn't preclude one from buying a Windows version of $game and downloading the game engine (complete with installer) from ftp.lokigames.com, or failing that, from the original creators.


    why bother? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:32:38 PM PST
    if new games arent important to you, you can also play snakes and ladders on the carpet with your little sister.


    Snakes and ladders with little sister (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:40:39 PM PST
    Oddly enough, normal people would find that much more pleasant than the antisocial pseudo-violence in video games. It probably has something to do with not hating our families and the entire human race.


     
    ffs (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:56:06 AM PST
    At least learn how to spell linux you muppet
    L I N U X.
    Secondly you are using the Windows XP of Linux in Mandrake I think you will find that a distrobution of Linux that is as old as Windows 95 or even nearly as old as it will run at much the same capacity as Windows 95, so how can you campare an operating system that was written seven years ago?
    I might just as easily say that Windows XP does not run on a p133, but a version of linux written in 1995 does, there is no comparison.

    Secondly just because 'you' can't install Linux does not make you or it different to the thousands of people who cannot install windows without spending hours on end on the phone to technical support people. I mean how hard did you try to install it ? Couldn't have been hard if you didn't even learn how to spell the name of the operating system right.

    Also the creator of LINUX was LINUS TORVALDS NOT AXL TORVALDS.

    GET YOR FACTS STRAIGHT.


    arsewit (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:38:47 AM PST
    At least learn how to spell "you're" you muppet Y O U ' R E.


     
    DUMB PEOPLE (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 10:42:10 AM PST
    Man you people are stupid.. Like the above reader said, it is obviously satire. DO YOU GET IT? YOU PEOPLE ARE BLOODY STUPID. Your IQ probably matches the Mandrake distro version.

    TAKE OFF YOUR TRENCHCOATS, GET OUT OF YOUR BASEMENT AND LAUGH FOR ONCE, JEEZUS.




    Satire? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anonymous on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:59:15 PM PST
    I don't think it qualifies as satire, it'd be hard pushed to make it as burlesque, let alone satire
    Blarty


     
    Therefore... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 05:31:53 AM PST
    So wait, because you don't have time for Linux, we should all claim Linux as the devil?


    therefore ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:50:26 AM PST
    No, it is not satire, doesn't even come close, may just qualify as Burlesque (in the "English" sense, we're not talking naked ladies here!) but not very good burlesque even then


     
    Mandrake Review etc (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 10:59:37 AM PST
    Man you must have some lovely roses in your garden, 'cause you sure ain't short of Manure


     
    You're not very good at looking (none / 0) (#64)
    by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:14:51 PM PST
    Microsoft Foxpro, at your service.


     
    I love it... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 09:28:42 PM PST
    I love people who have a high opinion of themselves in some way or another, but when they come across somthing which slightly requires the use of a brain, they compleatly flunk. These guys are so scared of people not thinking there the self proclaimed geniuses, they think they are, that now there pretending Linux has a problem of some kind, or that it's poor software. I bet half of these guys havn't even been able/tried to install a *nix of any sort.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.