Why Linux Sucks As a Desktop OS.

For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:

http://tinyurl.com/3lhj5

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:42:15 -0500, Linda Wang wrote:
> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:

Shouldn't this have been posted in an M$ oriented group? Or is it *gasp* a
troll?

Rinaldi
--
The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be
pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues.
-- Elizabeth Taylor

On 2004-12-22, Linda Wang <sleepy_n_sweet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3lhj5

Wow! ...now there's something you don't see every day. A female Asian
troll.

nb

On 2004-12-22, Rinaldi J. Montessi <rinaldi@Senior.Envision> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:42:15 -0500, Linda Wang wrote:
>> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>
> Shouldn't this have been posted in an M$ oriented group? Or is it *gasp* a
> troll?

The latter, I bet--''Linda Wang'' recently posted an unhelpful whine
about linux printing in another thread.

I thought the URL she posted was pretty funny--the author can't even use
the correct article ("an distro") and made an offl error when referring
to which distros almost meet his/her high standards of including
applications ("RH9 comes offly close"). Presumably ''Linda'' wasn't
smart enough to catch these glaring errors before embarrasing the author
by posting a link to them in the newsgroup.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

On 2004-12-22, Linda Wang <sleepy_n_sweet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3lhj5

From the referenced article:

> The problem is the modularization and clear separation of kernel, X and
> the desktop environments from each other. This division has caused Linux
> to be poorly integrated.

Others might see this as a feature. By keeping these things separate, you
reduce the likelihood of a failure in one area causing problems in other
areas. Can you say "BSOD?" "Spyware?" Etc? By running the graphics in
ring0, Windows gets impressive video performace, but at the cost of a
video problem bringing down the whole OS. By integrating a web browser
with the OS and the desktop, Windows made possible the plague of malware
Win users suffer with. And so on. Integration is a double-edged sword.

> Problem #1. The integration of device (and otherwise) drivers into the
> system. Case and point. RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to access WinXP
> NTFS volumes.

Although the article is undated, this leads me to suspect it is rather
old. Both RH8 and RH9 are "end-of-lifed." Most current distributions offer
at least read-only support for NTFS filesystems, and read/write support
can be obtained by installing the proper module, not a full kernel
recompile. Linux distributers are reluctant to enable read/write support
for NTFS by default, because what we have has been painstakingly
reverse-engineered since MS doesn't provide the needed details of how the
NTFS filesystem works. As a result, the linux drivers may not fully
implement some undocumented NTFS behavior. In contrast, linux ext2/3,
XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, BSD UFS, and other filesystems are open-source, so
anybody (even Microsoft) can see all the details of how these filesystems
work. It doesn't seem reasonable to ding linux on this issue.

> Problem #2. Video drivers & X. Somehow it came to be that the Xfree is
> the one and final arbiter when it comes to displays, video drivers and
> functionality. They release their wares on a fairly slow schedule. So,
> if you got a brand spanking new video card, you are pretty much stuck
> waiting for the next release.

Once again, this is hardly linux' fault. Unless the video hardware
manufacturers release the pertinent specs for their new hardware, linux
developers cannot support the hardware without tedious
reverse-engineering. Complain to the hardware makers, not linux.

> Problem #3. Plug & Play. Unfortunately for Linux, its constituent parts
> are not tightly integrated. As a result, when I plug my USB digital
> camera (or mouse, printer, etc) into the PC, absolutely nothing happens.

Once again, either this article is quite dated or blatently false. When I
plugged my Sony USB digital camera into my wife's Win2k machine, I got a
hardware wizard, installed the drivers -- *then I had to reboot the damn
machine* before it would work. When I plugged the same camera into my
old RH9 machine, it Just Worked. No addtional drivers needed to be loaded;
no rebooting. Same thing with Flash memory sticks. Windows had to load a
driver and reboot; linux Just Worked. My USB CD writer? Windows needed
to load another driver and reboot; in linux, it Just Worked. And depite
having the manufacturer's driver CD for my laptop's PCMCIA network card
and multiple attempts to install said drivers, Windows still flatly
refuses to recognize the card. Do I need to say it? In linux, on the same
machine, it Just Worked -- no additional drivers, no rebooting.

> Problem #4. There isn't an distro that does everything I need out of the
> box. It usually takes several hours of hunting for software to make the
> system usable if at all.

This is a specious complaint if ever there was one. If you start with a
computer and a blank HD, run down to the store and buy a WinXP package and
a linux distribution, and then install them on this machine, which one has
more usable software out of the box?

Let's see, XP doesn't have a word processor, spreadsheet, database, image
editor, software development tools, drivers for my USB devices, etc, etc,
etc. All these and more come with any current linux distribution.

How much time and how many reboots will you spend hunting down and
installing all the Windows software you need on that machine? A full
modern linux installation on modern hardware will take well under an hour
-- TOTAL.

Not to mention the fact that I don't need to worry about viruses,
spyware, etc. on my linux machines. How much time and money do you spend
dealing with these issues? Could you put those resources to better use
elsewhere? I know I can.

So, Linda -- looks like you have some homework to do.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

begin Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2004-12-22, Rinaldi J. Montessi <rinaldi@Senior.Envision> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:42:15 -0500, Linda Wang wrote:
>>> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>>
>> Shouldn't this have been posted in an M$ oriented group? Or is it *gasp*
>> a troll?
>
> The latter, I bet--''Linda Wang'' recently posted an unhelpful whine
> about linux printing in another thread.
>
> I thought the URL she posted was pretty funny--the author can't even use
> the correct article ("an distro") and made an offl error when referring
> to which distros almost meet his/her high standards of including
> applications ("RH9 comes offly close"). Presumably ''Linda'' wasn't
> smart enough to catch these glaring errors before embarrasing the author
> by posting a link to them in the newsgroup.
>

"Linda" is in reality "flatfish", a troll constantly nymshifting
S/h/it posted recently under these names

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Baba Booey, Babu
Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen, BklynBoy, Charlie,
Choppers McGee, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion,
Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary
Stewart, gilligan, GregÂ*Laplante, Heather, Heather69, hepcat, Ishmeal
Hafizi, itchy balls, IvanaBSuckyB, Jeff Szarka, juke_joint, kathy_krantz,
Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Major Mynor,
McSwain, Moses@penny.org, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy,
PaddyÂ*Â*McCrockett,Â*Patricia, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Poopy Pants McGee,
Quimby, rothstein_ivan, Saul Goldblatt, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean
Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan
Simonsen, Stephen, SunnyB, Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver,
Thorsten, Tracee, trailerpark, Wang Mycock, Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong,
Winnie Septos and Wobbles. Plus many, many, many more.
--
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected"
-- The Unix programmers handbook, 1972

Linda Wang wrote:

> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3lhj5

> Bottom line. Most of these problems can be traced to lack of integration
between components in Linux. Until there is some integration Linux is
unlikely to gain a foothold in the desktop market.

Yeah. Unlikely to evolve to the same worm breeding, root-only-convenient
sort of exploit treasure which windows and it's fully integrated internet
exploder has become. Now why that success of firefox - because of
separation, NOT tight integration. It's just a bit too dangerous.
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
*to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**React ivate*your*MS*software.
Linux woodpecker.homnet.at 2.6.9-mm1[LinuxCounter#295241]

I may be wrong, but if Linux isn't a good Desktop O.S for not including
NTFS then what do you say about Windows not including anything to read
EXT2/3.

I think Linux is not bad at all and also I think is made for people with
patience and willing to know more than what the monitor shows. Some of us,
have actually learned more about computers through Linux. Windows, in the
other hand does everything for you. That may be good for lazy people or
people not interested in knowing more than it looks.

I remember when I was studying microprocessing and Linux gave me an error
with the 8255. I was amazed by the information that Linux shows. On the
other hand, windows never shows you any debug information like that.



On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:42:15 -0500, Linda Wang wrote:

> For those of you with braindead Linux news readers:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3lhj5

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2004-12-22, Linda Wang <sleepy_n_sweet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Problem #1. The integration of device (and otherwise) drivers into the
>>system. Case and point. RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to access WinXP
>>NTFS volumes.
>
>
> Although the article is undated, this leads me to suspect it is rather
> old. Both RH8 and RH9 are "end-of-lifed." Most current distributions offer
> at least read-only support for NTFS filesystems, and read/write support
> can be obtained by installing the proper module, not a full kernel
> recompile. Linux distributers are reluctant to enable read/write support
> for NTFS by default, because what we have has been painstakingly
> reverse-engineered since MS doesn't provide the needed details of how the
> NTFS filesystem works. As a result, the linux drivers may not fully
> implement some undocumented NTFS behavior. In contrast, linux ext2/3,
> XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, BSD UFS, and other filesystems are open-source, so
> anybody (even Microsoft) can see all the details of how these filesystems
> work. It doesn't seem reasonable to ding linux on this issue.

I think the issue of NTFS support is perhaps the most interesting part
of the original article. The previous poster mentions in passing that
even Microsoft can view the full source code to the Linux filesystem
implementations. Which makes it all the more interesting that WinXP
doesn't support *any* of them. So it's *really* unfair to criticize
Linux for not supporting (closed-source) NTFS while Windows doens't
suport any of the open source filesystems.

John-Paul Stewart wrote:

> John Thompson wrote:
>
>> On 2004-12-22, Linda Wang <sleepy_n_sweet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Problem #1. The integration of device (and otherwise) drivers into
>>> the system. Case and point. RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to
>>> access WinXP NTFS volumes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although the article is undated, this leads me to suspect it is rather
>> old. Both RH8 and RH9 are "end-of-lifed." Most current distributions
>> offer at least read-only support for NTFS filesystems, and read/write
>> support can be obtained by installing the proper module, not a full
>> kernel recompile. Linux distributers are reluctant to enable
>> read/write support for NTFS by default, because what we have has been
>> painstakingly reverse-engineered since MS doesn't provide the needed
>> details of how the NTFS filesystem works. As a result, the linux
>> drivers may not fully implement some undocumented NTFS behavior. In
>> contrast, linux ext2/3, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, BSD UFS, and other
>> filesystems are open-source, so anybody (even Microsoft) can see all
>> the details of how these filesystems work. It doesn't seem reasonable
>> to ding linux on this issue.
>
>
> I think the issue of NTFS support is perhaps the most interesting part
> of the original article. The previous poster mentions in passing that
> even Microsoft can view the full source code to the Linux filesystem
> implementations. Which makes it all the more interesting that WinXP
> doesn't support *any* of them. So it's *really* unfair to criticize
> Linux for not supporting (closed-source) NTFS while Windows doens't
> suport any of the open source filesystems.

Hmmm... good point, John-Paul -

One may suspect that (with all the "integration" in
Windows) that there are places where the developers
of certain utilities (or what should have been utilities
or standalone programs) took a shortcut and dove
directly into NTFS without going through the appropriate
API's (if there are API's?).

As an example, 25 or so years ago, there was the one
and only true "file system" for Unix. Misguided people took
shortcuts like reading the i-node structure directly
rather than using the stat(2) call because "it's faster."
(No proof, just religion.) When other file-system
structures were introduced, these programs broke in
strange and wondrous ways. So, my suspicion is that
there's whole gobs of "integrated" Windows code which would
have to be inspected and regression tested if and when a different
FS ever shows up under Windows. And it will *still* break in
strange and wondrous ways. And it will never be fully
debugged using the other FS types, etc. etc. etc.

Imagine this if they ever changed FS types:

"Whoops, now where did my Tax Return for 2001 go?
I just got a letter from the IRS about it, but when
I click on the Turbo-Tax file, all I see is a jpeg
image of Bill Gates flipping me the bird.

Where did my tax return go?"

NPL

--
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
- A. Bloch