Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Aragorn] on Sunday 15 January 2006 01:55 \__
On Sunday 15 January 2006 02:51, Technomage Hawke stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Roy Culley] on Friday 13 January 2006 01:16 \__
There seems to be a lot of repetition and overlap across points.
Nonetheless it's a good collection of Linux benefits.
It also contains the lies and immaturity that are
the hallmark of Linux "advocates".
you make so much of this that I begin to wonder where your loyalties
I don't understand.
His loyalties lie with Microsoft, as everyone on this newsgroup already
Having seen some pathetic habits of his, I wouldn't bother with him. I am
more inclined to verbally challenge Windows 'power users'
What is it you think makes someone a Windows power
(very few of them exist),
Many millions exist.
whose knowledge of Linux extends beyond a 5-minute spin with Red Hat
9. Notice that the challenger here did not confute anything in the article,
but targetted personality instead.
If you insist:
(1) Linux is free of cost.
(2) Source code is available and can be modified.
True. But so few people can or want to futz with
the source that it's not at all a reason to switch
(3) High quality support for Linux is free
As it is for Windows.
(4) There is little possibility that support for
Linux will be discontinued at some future date.
This is bullshit. Suse dropped official support
for 8.0 after only 2 years. On the other hand, MS
is still officially supporting Win98 nearly eight
years after its release.
For many Linux apps, death of the developer would
mean death of the app. There's little to no
guarantee support for a given OSS app will be
around tomorrow, let alone a year from now.
(5) No major obsolescence, planned or otherwise,
This is laughable, really. Not only does Linux
have planned obsolescense in those distros on a
fixed-release cycle, the amateurish nature of
Linux/OSS development means apps are constantly
being updated and previous versions are dropped
(6) There are no forced upgrades for Linux users.
Nor are there any for Windows.
(7) Linux upgrades are free.
But there's no guarantee that an upgrade will be
forthcoming. So it's meaningless.
(8) Don't have to keep track of Linux licensing.
This is a silly non-issue. It's no more difficult
to keep track of Windows licenses than it is Linux
(9) Linux features superior security.
(10) Linux is highly resistant to system crashes
and rarely needs rebooting.
I haven't used it enough to confirm this, but I do
know Linux apps crash very frequently. Even in my
limited use of Linux, I see sigseg faults very
often. I had Kubuntu 5.0.4 running on my P3-800,
512 system, and Konqueror sigseg faulted at least
every half hour when I was using it heavily.
A program called Quantas would raise a sigseg
fault each time I tried to close it.
My WinServer2003 system is very solid. It has
only ever crashed due to an issue with Half Life 2
and the onboard video.
(11) ...users often find that all the applications
that they want are freely available on the
Internet and that it is no longer necessary to
purchase any commercial software.
Probably true for some home users. Users with
high multimedia requirements and gaming are going
to be left out in the cold with Linux. And every
large business has desktop computing requirements
for accounting and business data analysis that
Linux apps cannot satisfy.
(12) Linux has hundreds of distros.
True. Linux nuts call it choice and diversity.
(13) Linux features a high degree of flexibility
True. This is a very attractive feature of
Also, it's not difficult to configure
WinServer2003 as a file server, print server, app
server, mail server, terminal server, VPN server,
domain controller, DNS server, DHCP server,
streaming media server, etc.
(14) Linux and other free software uses open file
The world has gotten along fine with closed
formats for 35 years, which shows it's a non-issue.
(15) Linux is generally faster for a given set of
hardware specifications. This is due to greater
optimization of the source code, including far
less code bloat.
While Linux code sizes are smaller than Windows,
the apps do NOT run faster on the same hardware.
They're usually significantly slower.
(16) Linux features a high degree of compatibility
with other operating systems.
(17) Linux/OSS vendors and developers have very
high ethical standards.
As long as 'ethical standards' don't include the
shameless copying (blatant ripoff really) of
features and designs of MS and other closed-source
products, including other operating systems (like
BeOS), I would tend to agree.
(18) Linux has lower hardware requirements.
Depends on the distro.
(19) Linux runs on lots of hardware platforms.
Another non-issue. People that are going to
convert from Windows are going to be running x86
systems. And before you start wailing about
Sparcs and IBM zSeries, the article is about
converting from Windows.
(20) Linux is a superior choice for use in
For teaching OS design and C programming, anyway.
(21) For governmental agencies, Linux and other
free software allows for transparency of data
because it stores the data in formats consistent
with industry-wide standards.
Same as #14
(22) With Linux and other free software there is
little reason to fear the existence of backdoors,
in large part because all of the source code is
available for inspection.
I wrote a cola post in 2004, entitled
GNU\Linux\OSS might as well be closed source...
"... for all you cola bozos know about it.
Linux morons always brag about having the source
code to your kernel and apps - as if you've ever
examined it and know it's 100% safe. Sure.
How do you know the binaries included with your
distro are built with the source files that come
with it? You don't.
How do you know the code doesn't have back doors
and trojans in it? You don't.
You just blindly trust your OSS vendor. Now I
know it's not OK to trust Microsoft, but blindly
installing anything from Mandrake or Suse or Red
Hat is fine. This is typical Linux hypocrisy.
Even if you're a C\C++ master and Gentoo user, and
compile every app. from source and specifically
for your machine, you haven't read the hundreds of
thousands of lines of kernel code and code for
every app on your machine.
So, for all you nutcases know about the
GNU\Linux\OSS software running on your systems
right now, it might as well be closed source code,
and may be vulnerable to an "NSA back door" right now.
(23) Using and advocating Linux helps foster a
healthy diversity and increased competition
throughout the software industry.
True, and this is, to my mind, the most important
reason to use and support Linux and other MS
alternatives. But using and advocating isn't
enough; you need to be spending and purchasing and
donating. The economic world generally doesn't
share OSS ideals; it's all about money. And
marketing Linux costs money.
(24) Linux and other free software have not only
caught up with, or some cases surpassed, their
proprietary counterparts, but they are also
developing at a faster pace.
I think Apple is eating MS' and Linux' lunch in
terms of creativity and innovation.
(25) Linux and other free software provide the
opportunity for users to contribute to the advance
of software technology because the source code is
freely available to study, improve, extend and
Same as #2
(26) Linux systems don't need disk defragmenting.
He also refuses to face facts, to accept any criticism regarding
Microsoft or Windows, and he's a self-acclaimed white supremacist - and
that is the main reason why he's in my /killfile./
I never saw evidence of that, but I take your word (also reflected in the NG
stats). I only ever read what Wintrolls have to say if they reply to me.
I did reply to you.
I particularly like the following
short article which is titled "Five reasons NOT to use Linux" (sarcastic).
If you haven't read it, I assure you it's a fun read.
It is sarcastic. And bogus. And silly. Just
more of the immature ranting we've all come to
expect from Linux users.
I rest my case.
You never had a case to rest.