Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 18, 2006 02:04 PM
Firstly greetings Linux.com
As a MCP, MCSA, and MCDST I'll admit openly that I use SuSE Linux at home for all things. I receive the Action Package at work and that is where it stays, I don't want any of there OS/Applications near my PC.
Reason-being, I like to know what I'm installing and running, and like to know what is going on at a kernal level. Windows operating systems are also dependant on drivers for communication to devices, linux is not. An installation of of linux does not need any third party drivers installed (unless you want 3D), I use an AM2 4800+ with a 7900GTX 512MB at home, with Linux the only problem I have had is in regards to my on board wireless, the hardware needed some ASUS drivers to be modified to use 801.11s/x, to which I just bypassed everything and installed XSupp; problem solved.
I think you should investigate your claims a little more before making generalisations about an open source alternative, then maybe you could substantiate your claims a little more strongly than to call people n00bs. From where I stand my only reasoning for your view is that you have installed an older Linux distro once (probably from the cover of some porrly written PC mag.) and found that doing things from the command line melted your brain.
Also the MCSA "Vista" pre-release has shown that "Vista" is going to be just as troublesome if not moreso than that of XP, and it has also shown that M$ has taken a look at Linux due to it's new file structure/hierarchy. I'd also stay the hell away from "Vista" due to the fact that "Windows Explorer" and IE7 are litterally the same "explorer" and as such "explorer" has no alternative but to leave holes into your systems for intrusion. Add to it that "Vista" also has an open port/embedded user for government departments to inspect users systems, anti-trust at it finest, and sooner or later someone is going to find there way in via. said hole.
Windows contains a huge amount of sloppy code and kludgey design, which results in an extremely glitchy and buggy end product. (A good example of sloppy programming is buffer access, which is routinely left unchecked in release versions of all Microsoft products. As a result of this amateur approach, Microsoft products are riddled with buffer overrun vulnerabilities. Of course buffer overruns don't only occur in Microsoft products but are also found in other software on other platforms. But the difference is in the numbers.) Bloated code has made Windows' efficiency the lowest in the market, requiring more resources and yielding less performance than any other OS in existence. (case in point the 30% frame rate increase I recieve from using Linux)
With all that said I'd also like to add that for someone who bases the sum of their user experience on being able to "point and click" you must see the irony in calling all *nix users noobs.
"Windows [n.] A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Using Windows instead
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2006 02:04 PMAs a MCP, MCSA, and MCDST I'll admit openly that I use SuSE Linux at home for all things. I receive the Action Package at work and that is where it stays, I don't want any of there OS/Applications near my PC.
Reason-being, I like to know what I'm installing and running, and like to know what is going on at a kernal level. Windows operating systems are also dependant on drivers for communication to devices, linux is not. An installation of of linux does not need any third party drivers installed (unless you want 3D), I use an AM2 4800+ with a 7900GTX 512MB at home, with Linux the only problem I have had is in regards to my on board wireless, the hardware needed some ASUS drivers to be modified to use 801.11s/x, to which I just bypassed everything and installed XSupp; problem solved.
I think you should investigate your claims a little more before making generalisations about an open source alternative, then maybe you could substantiate your claims a little more strongly than to call people n00bs. From where I stand my only reasoning for your view is that you have installed an older Linux distro once (probably from the cover of some porrly written PC mag.) and found that doing things from the command line melted your brain.
Also the MCSA "Vista" pre-release has shown that "Vista" is going to be just as troublesome if not moreso than that of XP, and it has also shown that M$ has taken a look at Linux due to it's new file structure/hierarchy. I'd also stay the hell away from "Vista" due to the fact that "Windows Explorer" and IE7 are litterally the same "explorer" and as such "explorer" has no alternative but to leave holes into your systems for intrusion. Add to it that "Vista" also has an open port/embedded user for government departments to inspect users systems, anti-trust at it finest, and sooner or later someone is going to find there way in via. said hole.
Windows contains a huge amount of sloppy code and kludgey design, which results in an extremely glitchy and buggy end product. (A good example of sloppy programming is buffer access, which is routinely left unchecked in release versions of all Microsoft products. As a result of this amateur approach, Microsoft products are riddled with buffer overrun vulnerabilities. Of course buffer overruns don't only occur in Microsoft products but are also found in other software on other platforms. But the difference is in the numbers.) Bloated code has made Windows' efficiency the lowest in the market, requiring more resources and yielding less performance than any other OS in existence. (case in point the 30% frame rate increase I recieve from using Linux)
With all that said I'd also like to add that for someone who bases the sum of their user experience on being able to "point and click" you must see the irony in calling all *nix users noobs.
"Windows [n.]
A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
(Anonymous USEnet post)
#