Giving up on Linux...

jay jnitroracer2 at
Sun Feb 22 16:33:16 UTC 2004

On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 07:20, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> > > Have you ever thought that people don't complain about MS products for
> > > two reasons - the first is they know it gets sent to /dev/null and
> > > secondly they don't know who to send reports to?
> > 
> > I'll agree with this up to a point.  M$ DOES listen in its own fashion, 
> > otherwise there wouldn't be any updates.
> The updates come from them being embarressed into doing them by the
> likes of the bods who go fishing for vulnerabilities. Do you honestly
> think they would have fixed that lovely huge 8 month old hole if the
> press hadn't made such a fuss. The hole which caused havoc because of
> MSBlast had been in there from Win95. The phishing fiasco really did
> show how little they cared. I know for a fact that the bug had existed
> from IE4 - I reported the damned thing.
> I repeat, updates are only made by MS when they are forced to do it.
> > > The big advantage with open source is that the developers listen.
> > 
> > Ok, they listen.  Where are the fixes for the latest hardware?
> Development versions of the kernel. As another poster has said, a lot of
> the time the problem is that companies are scared senseless of MS and so
> don't release information on how their boards operate. SiS are a classic
> example of that. If it wasn't for an insider and a devoted bunch of
> crackers reverse engineering the code, anything SiS would not work
> properly.
> > > If they didn't care, do you think that those of us using the test
> > > version would take the time to report the problems?
> > 
> > Again, where are the fixes?
> mainly in the development directory. Gets
> updated daily. Also lots of feedback via bugzilla (my feedback directory
> has well over 400 messages in since FC1 went into testing)
> As you know (being a kernel hacker) and as I know (being one part of the
> Scribus team) debugging is not that simple a task. The problem may be
> with another application not working correctly rather than anything in
> your own application/code.
> > > It is sadder that people think WinXP offers anything more than constant
> > > headaches, broken software and an uncaring despot on the throan.
> > 
> > Religious propaganda aside, the pragmatic bottom line is that for my hardware, 
> > WinXP DOES offer a working system out of the box.  Linux is what is giving me 
> > headaches and broken software.  As for uncaring despots, again, where are the 
> > fixes?  Where are the lines in Bugzilla that say "Fixed in kernel version 
> > such and such"??
> Until someone files, in Bugzilla, a bug, how are the bods at Fedora
> supposed to fix a problem? As I frequently say, if you don't tell anyone
> something, nothing gets done. In all my time using Redhat and Fedora,
> I've only ever known the crew at RH to be fast at fixing problems, but
> only when it's in Bugzilla.
> MS have no such reporting facility. It's not religeous propganda or
> anything like that, it's a plain fact.
> > What I am trying to say here is THIS is the stranglehold that M$ has on the 
> > desktop market; i.e., they are able to come out with an O/S that boots off of 
> > the install CD, installs, and WORKS (however lousily).  
> Not always. I have plenty of systems at work which will only work with
> Linux and will not work with any version of Win except 98 - and the
> hardware is less than 6 months old.
> > Until these problems 
> > are addressed and Linux is able to work like this and to react with alacrity 
> > to state-of-the-art hardware, it will remain a desktop hobbyist/hacker toy 
> > and server software that runs on year-old hardware.
> Had to disappoint you on this. The three new servers I purchased were
> all dual Opteron systems using Pink Tie 9. That was before MS even
> properly had XP64 running. Now if you think that's NOT state of the art,
> I don't know what is.
> There is also nothing wrong with year old hardware.
> As an aside, but related, I always laugh at hardware with that stupid
> sticker on which says "Designed for WindowsXP". That's like saying we've
> built this car to fit around this fuel which only Esso produce. Normally
> you make a car which can use any fuel as long as it has the correct RON
> rating - not the other way around.
> Paul
Very good points, I will say that I have noticed since running linux now
for quite some time now that most machines no longer need to be  " state
of the art " in order to run most of the top apps due to the better
memory management and just all around better code and build quality... I
have a 600mhz P3 with 256mb RAM and a 700mhz Celeron with 256MB RAM and
my machines are just as fast and as my friends 2.4 ghz machine.... The
only time the 2.4 is faster is when it comes down to really bogging down
the system with tons of apps other then that in day to day life there
really isn't much of a difference if you tweak out your box properly...
My opinion is that M$ is making apps more demanding every year so that
the PC companys have to make matching hardware to meet the demands and
honestly it think it's really quite pointless to buy a 3.2ghz machine
with 1g RAM just so you can swap some photos and surf the web, how
demanding of resources is an e-mail client or a webbrowser, unless your
into mission critical work or doing something with a heavy app then
what's wrong with 1 year old hardware... What's wrong with 5 year old

More information about the users mailing list