http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25/1156253&tid=109
Yesterday's news, but still funny.
They've been saying that for a long time.
But Linux enthusiasts agree: As Microsoft keeps claiming, Windows in fact has a lower total cost of 0wnership (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/13/1621253).
Who really cares? Linux users are "enthusiasts" while Microsoft users get business done and go on with their lives. This is such a waste of time to compare Linux to Windows. It is like Linux enthusiasts pat each other on the back about how "better informed" they are by using Linux. Dudes, it's an operating system. It's purpose is as a tool to get work done. Wake up!
I agree, many Linux users that I know of get virtually nothing done in their Linux systems. Yet, they feel they're superior to everyone that uses Microsoft Windows. Much of the time they just spend time leaving it on for no reason to feel their '1337ness' sink in.
While on the otherhand, some Linux users I know get much more work done on their Linux systems than Windows.
I personally use my Linux system for the sake of stabilty, since my old desktops seem to run better on Linux, despite a few driver issues....Sadly, Microsoft's chokehold on many hardware manufacturers has left me using generic drivers or not using the device at all.
Quote from: Grok on August 26, 2004, 12:42 PMIt's purpose is as a tool to get work done. Wake up!
Yes, and Windows does a very good job at giving its administrators headaches, succumbing to worm attacks, participating in worm attacks, ... :)
Quote from: Kp on August 26, 2004, 04:55 PM
Yes, and Windows does a very good job at giving its administrators headaches, succumbing to worm attacks, participating in worm attacks, ... :)
The the administrators ought to know how to secure their systems. Systems secured appropriately wouldn't have succumbed to Blaster or the other RPC vulnerabilities. A few hours invested wisely can prevent a lot of headaches.
Quote from: MyndFyre on August 26, 2004, 05:03 PMA few hours invested wisely can prevent a lot of headaches.
Or cause them. Around here, Windows patches are viewed with extreme suspicion due to the probability that the system will behave
worse with the patch than without it. For instance, applications no longer behaving correctly (or failing to start), mysterious permission-denied errors, etc. My personal favorite was how Explorer began to malfunction after I dealt with the DCOM issue. IIRC, it wouldn't do drag-and-drop, and possibly wouldn't even respond to right-click. Reversing the Microsoft-supplied solution resolved the problem.
Quote from: MyndFyre on August 26, 2004, 05:03 PM
Quote from: Kp on August 26, 2004, 04:55 PM
Yes, and Windows does a very good job at giving its administrators headaches, succumbing to worm attacks, participating in worm attacks, ... :)
The the administrators ought to know how to secure their systems. Systems secured appropriately wouldn't have succumbed to Blaster or the other RPC vulnerabilities. A few hours invested wisely can prevent a lot of headaches.
.NET rocks, hosting on Windows sucks.
Sorry, but I can't trust it. Not after its track record, plus a bunch of lousy design decisions.
Quote from: Kp on August 26, 2004, 05:08 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre on August 26, 2004, 05:03 PMA few hours invested wisely can prevent a lot of headaches.
Or cause them. Around here, Windows patches are viewed with extreme suspicion due to the probability that the system will behave worse with the patch than without it. For instance, applications no longer behaving correctly (or failing to start), mysterious permission-denied errors, etc. My personal favorite was how Explorer began to malfunction after I dealt with the DCOM issue. IIRC, it wouldn't do drag-and-drop, and possibly wouldn't even respond to right-click. Reversing the Microsoft-supplied solution resolved the problem.
Who said anything about patches? A system behind an adequate firewall shouldn't have been hit by blaster or any of the really unpatched RPC vulnerabilities.
With respect to what you had to say about Explorer -- well, I guess it happens. Not sure what the problem was, nor did I ever experience it. So I can't speak to that.
Is the fact that windows is spending money to say linux is more expensive saying that linux is giving microsoft a run for it's money?
Quote from: MyndFyre on August 26, 2004, 06:31 PMWho said anything about patches? A system behind an adequate firewall shouldn't have been hit by blaster or any of the really unpatched RPC vulnerabilities.
With respect to what you had to say about Explorer -- well, I guess it happens. Not sure what the problem was, nor did I ever experience it. So I can't speak to that.
Firewalling off every single Windows host isn't very practical when you have a large office, and it only takes one idiot who opens the worm to expose everyone. Patches / praying-for-good-AV are the main solutions to such a problem. As you noted, there were lots of unpatched hosts that those worms took over, and the patch had been out for a while. Unfortunately, (aside from heuristics), virus scanners won't be defending against the worm until it's actually been out long enough for the virus companies to know it exists. Hence my jump to commenting on patches.
LANL had a problem with the worm too. Its behind many firewalls, but people would plug in their laptop that had the worm and spread it around the network to unpatched boxes. As Kp already stated the patches tended to cause them more problems such as having problems with hardware drivers resulting the the hardware not functioning with the patch applied.
Wait wait wait!
Quote from: Lenny on August 26, 2004, 01:20 PM
I agree, many Linux users that I know of get virtually nothing done in their Linux systems. Yet, they feel they're superior to everyone that uses Microsoft Windows. Much of the time they just spend time leaving it on for no reason to feel their '1337ness' sink in.
Those people are idiots. The same kind of people who skin Windows to look like Mac OS X (or the other way around - as per spymac.com).
Here's my history of productivity:
- First I used Mac OS (Classic of course) and that was good. I got a bit of work done and went for compatibility.
- Then I used Windows (mainly because it was a faster computer, so I was able to do much more thorough testing in much less time)... and tended to play games more than do work.
- Now I use exclusively nix for productivity.
Like I always say (
always): if you're going to be 1337, be 1337, but don't claim to be elite.
I agree with kp on a lot of the stuff. But to me, my favourite part about Linux is that it revolves around the console. Just a "few hours" of learning console commands can save an incredible amount of time. That's my #1 reason :)
Quote from: $t0rm on August 26, 2004, 05:13 PM
.NET rocks, hosting on Windows sucks.
Sorry, but I can't trust it. Not after its track record, plus a bunch of lousy design decisions.
Then use mono on linux. http://www.mono-project.com/contributing/asp-net.html
So far c# is the only thing that is supported well for use with asp.net. But eventually vb.net, c++.net, j#, delphi, and others will be supported.
It's quite slow