Microsoft Sucks

**sigma** · 11-05-2001

To the original meat of this thread, here is an e-mail that was forwarded to me:

>>BEGIN E-MAIL
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 5 US military
personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
punished.
After the 1996 Kohlrabi Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and
injured 200 US military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible
would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the US Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 US
sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promises, an estimated 7,000 people
would be alive today
------------------------------------------------
So, in view of this, consider this interesting question which was raised on
a Phil radio call-in show.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. The other
sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more money
chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin Laden?
>>END E-MAIL

Now to all of this crap about Windows vs. Linux. Each operating system has its own specialty. Windows for the non-technical people and Linux for the technical / scientific.

If I was writing a program for the masses, I would write it for MS Windows. I am currently working are a specialized software set that requires a high degree of stability, so it is being written for UNIX.

Now if you are working for yourself, you can write for whatever operating system you want. But most programmers work for someone, in the real world we write for whatever operating system the boss wants.

Now if you are a good programmer, all of your code would work in the MS and Unix/Linux worlds without having to change a thing. It can be done (even programming for windows).

**TFOV** · 11-05-2001

mfc2themax, My point was to add a little humor to this silly thread. Geez, how old are you anyway? You sound like that one mean guy that sits in the front of the class that thinks he knows everything and go home to sit in a chat room for hours on end discussing how much something sucks and how stupid people are compared to yourself. Am I close?

***Michelle*** · 11-05-2001

Originally posted by mfc2themax
>several?? So how many computers do you have...<

14

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!!! !!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!

Are they all in your house???

**Series X4 1.0** · 11-06-2001

Troll_King

Windows is more technical than Linux. It's more advanced and complex. Don't believe different.

First of all, I don't take this seriously.

I will assume some things based on what I've seen of you:

You don't know how Windows nor Linux are built up as you don't even know one single programming language fully. You don't know the Win32 API, nor do you know Linux GUI programming (like QT, for example (also available for Windows!)). You don't know Assembly, you don't know how a CPU works, you don't even know what an interupt is!

Of course, therefore you don't know what you're talking about when you say that Windows is more complex than Linux (LOL, you don't know anything). Maybe I should explain this to you: An OS is 'a hierarchy of software', from the kernel to a possbile window manager, and on the top there are applications (basicly) - so it's not possible to say that one OS is more complex than the other (at least not when comparing Linux and Windows). Because: They're different at different levels and they're using the same limited hardware.

Did you know that: I can emulate most Windows programs with my Linux, I can even start games like Deus Ex and UT (not really playable, I hope that will change in the future), there is 3D hardware accelerated graphics in Linux, basicly there is everything you can find in Windows.

Now please don't make any more stupid statements that depends on technical knowledge, because you're completely lost.

**Series X4 1.0** · 11-06-2001

C# (and probably the entire .NET) will be available for Linux too! Isn't that fun?

All these Linux users think they are 'technical', well they are NOT

Some are, some are not.

Dude, I'm way passed you.

You're not. I'm also learning about .NET. And besides that I'm also looking into other platforms and technologies. Don't forget: "Linux users" often means both Linux and Windows users.

**sigma** · 11-06-2001

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troll_King

Windows is more technical than Linux. It's more advanced and complex. Don't believe different.

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

Windows is more kludged than Linux, don't confuse the two. Have you looked at the source? I have.

This usually happens when software development does not follow a good design process. Microsoft has some of the best programmers in the industry, but they do not have the discipline to follow a good process.

Here is a challenge, if Windows is more technical, then you should have no problem setting up a beowulf cluster with machines running a Windows operating system.

Please, post your solution to how you set it up. It would make you famous.

**mfc2themax** · 11-06-2001

>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!! !!!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!

Are they all in your house???<

uhhh... yeah....

**Justin W** · 11-06-2001

First: the latest version and kernel of Linux is about 4000 times more advanced than the last one. I tried it before and thought it was a joke. I tried it again (SuSE 7.2) and was wowed. It is user friendly (don't ever have to see a "DOS" like prompt and the GUI is SOOOooo much better than it use to be). It supports a vast amount of hardware (finally!). It is built for medium to high end processors by default (no recompiling just to take advantage with SuSE). I have not recompiled my kernel once.

Second: Why limit yourself to one? Linux is free. Buy Windows and an extra hard drive and duel boot. I run all my C++ IDEs (MSVC included because it actually runs faster) from Linux (World Book would work too, Michelle). It has better support for Windows software sometimes than Windows does! (StarOffice handles weird Office XP tags better than Office 2000, so why pay?)

Play most DirectX games in Windows. Play Linux games with Linux. Be productive in both. Give your grandma Windows until Linux has better available tech support (like in my area).

hehhh, remember when Dean (Troll King) was fighting for Linux and against Windows? I wonder what the professors will tell him next year..

-Justin

Edit: I use both because I am a programmer. Why limit my audience?

If I sound like an Linux fanatic, it is because I usually play devil's advocate for the minority. I *gulp* like Windows (2K especially). I also recognize that there are probably as many or more Linux hard core users than Mac, and that they have almost an Amigaesque love for their OS. From experience, I know not to underestimate or write off an OS with this kind of near religious followers. It will be an important element in tech in the future. Period.

**Series X4 1.0** · 11-06-2001

Troll_King

Series X4, do you have a College degree?

No, I don't even have any valid grades, I didn't felt like go getting them the final day. I had better things to do (like getting drunk and to have fun). I was in school less than 50% of time I was supposed to be there.

I'm in the industry, I don't know about you

I'm not in the industry, and I will never get there!

I'm not one bit interested in buisness, politics, or my future. I'm only interested in the technical. Therefore my life will go to hell (suicide, being homeless, being a criminal, or something), this society has no solution for people like me. However, you're still not talking about anything technical, you're just talking about your future, M$, and buisness - which I'm not interested in at all. So we should just let it go, we're talking about different things.

**sigma** · 11-06-2001

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troll_King

... do you have a College degree? I will before long ... I'm in the industry, I don't know about you.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin W

Why limit yourself to one?
...
hehhh, remember when Dean (Troll King) was fighting for Linux and against Windows? I wonder what the professors will tell him next year..

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

Finally someone has figured it out. In todays market, you cannot limit yourself to one thing. Being able to program for both MS and UNIX worlds can help in the real world.

I can just imagine Troll_King as a technical lead on a project and the customer having him fired because he will not explore all possibilites for a solution. In the real world, opinion has to be backed up by facts. Here is an example: if an operating system crashes under certain circumstances, what specifically caused the crash and why, or in test a candidate solution on the different operating systems, the results indicated that one operating system performed better than the other. Your own personnal opinion or that of your instructor will not cut it in the real world.

So, is Troll_King not going to code up a beowulf cluster on a Windows OS? The excuse will probably be not enough time, or that he does not have to prove anything to us. He will probably not admit that he can not do it.

**mfc2themax** · 11-06-2001

>I've completed 2/3 of the cirriculum. I'm currently designing a security system which involves several GUI programs. I'm in the industry, I don't know about you. <

Whatever they throw at you in College is going to be nothing compared to what you actually deal with in real life.

Microsoft products were not even an option until recently for the enterprise. For very large businesses running mission-critical stuff, they still arent. Unix is way bigger in the enterprise than any Microsoft products are.

>I'm not interested in Linux or anything it has to offer.<

Thats too bad, your kicking yourself in the face when you go out and start looking for a job.

Microsoft has a great way of portraying themselves as if there the leader in enterprise products, i've worked for some of the largest enteprise software companies in the world (i2, Interwoven, SAP, Great Plains, PeopleSoft), and in that time have meet with hundreds of large corporations. Unix is by far the king.

**Camilo** · 11-06-2001

I really don't know what does people see in Linux, Win95 is faster and stable (you could have a rock-solid system if you keep the right versions of the DLLs) it runs DX apps, it runs with a GUI in a 486 without problems, I think that the linux problem is that it is extremely bloated, an entire floppy for the kernel!!!, that is so much, win takes its parts, but runs OK, the only part of linux that I love is KDE, why?, because it runs ove Qt that runs over X11(XFree86) that runs over the kernel, that's a really fast prog, Heh?. my take: MS wants to corner the market (with .NET and its future sucesors), they can do it, at this very moment the only counterpart is Linux, a piece of crap, but nothing to do until I make and release my own OS.

Camilo (sorry for my grammar, I am just learning)

Unregistered · 11-06-2001

"Win95 is faster and stable"

excuse me? what version of linux did you install? have you been smoking the crack pipe? ill say your just learning that statement is preposterous