Windows has been ready for the Itanium for over a year. Who cares if Linux is shipping now? You can't buy the processor. So what good is it? This is a publication date not a completed date. How stupid can you get.

There's a big difference between porting something like Win2k and porting Linux. Win2k has a whole library of drivers that you have to port, Linux has only a few. Win2k is regression tested to improve reliablity, Linux really isn't. Linux is more basic. Microsoft deliberately hasn't released a (final) 64bit Win2k, they are holding off for a more polished XP. I'm told that one of the significant problems with the 64bit port of Win2k was stability of DirectX. I think before you pass judgment of Microsoft's ability to deliver a product, you have to consider the final quality of what you are obtaining. Linux is still too buggy, it needs to ditch X, it needs a new memory manager, a proper robust transaction based file system, refinements to the way drivers are dealt with... Still, it's good for some things, and I look forward to the day when it is good enough use in preference to Windows. Personally, I would very much like an Itanium system, and if they become a little more affordable, IA64 will be a wonderful platform for software development with both NT and Linux.

Win2k for the Itanium is specifically designed for the Itanium. Less hardware to support so less drivers.

Transaction based file system. As if microsoft has a such.
Linux us still too buggy. Well microsoft is soo stable and bugfree.
Memory management. Well win2k doesn't have a mem manager worth speaking of. It never ever returns the full amount of mem when an application ends. it sucks.

The only thing that is better in win2k than current linux is the driver issue. The driver system in linux sucks bigtime since it cannot be seperatly developed. It is too much version dependant.

Oh please, what a bunch of hog wash.

Walk on home boy, I've seen your "waste of electron" posts, you have nothing to offer, come back when you do.. FYI, I'd like to see your opinion on why Windows is so much better than Linux, but from seeing those posts, one can easily discover that you know little to nothing about either, so you are not versed enough to give an educated answer. Your post stating his comments are "hog wash" is "hog wash". When you finally graduate from being an ignorant mental midget, I look forward to seeing at least partially educated comments.

-8vO

I won't even dignify that with a real response.

Be honest, it's not that you won't.. You just can't..

Like I said walk on home.. You spread more FUD than anyone else here, and I'll be happy to shove it right back where it belongs.

"Well win2k doesn't have a mem manager worth speaking of. It never ever returns the full amount of mem when an application ends. it sucks."

100% BS.

> Transaction based file system. As if microsoft has a such.

Such as NTFS?

> Linux us still too buggy. Well microsoft is soo stable and bugfree.
> Memory management. Well win2k doesn't have a mem manager worth speaking of. It never ever returns the full amount of mem when an application ends. it sucks.

Have you actually used it? I run 2k systems for weeks on end without losing memory. Maybe if you tried it yourself you'd change your mind...

Is Linux more basic... how come...
You can do what you want, and know one stops you!
Unlike windows where you can't do what want, and microsoft allways stops you!

The only thing windows is good at... is gameing... and it good for gameing... but thats it... when you have to have a BUGFREE OS for mission critical tasks... KNOW ONE USES WINDOWS...

"Unlike windows where you can't do what want, and microsoft allways stops you! " ... where does all of this anti-MS propaganda come from? Are you all part of some club?

Oh and it's "no one uses..." not "know one uses...".

I know, they get ReiserFS working right a couple months ago and all of a sudden it's like they invented chocolate or something. Dude, NTFS (and BeOS for that matter) has had a transaction file system for a loooongggg time.

I know, they get ReiserFS working right a couple months ago and all of a sudden it's like they invented chocolate or something. Dude, NTFS (and BeOS for that matter) has had a transaction file system for a loooongggg time.

Hmmm... my business does.... the state governement offices do.... The self-checkout registers at our local grocery store run on NT4, MS does, a LOT of the Fortune500 do... the list goes on.

One point for for the GNU, Linux is ten times the OS of anything Microsoft can dish out. With thousands of developers, beta testers as well as users, anyone to argue obviously is only a user and has no since of what it is to be a programmer

Long Live Tux

Windows 2000 is supposedly 64-bit ready, and yet someone is poking fun at Microsoft because Windows XP is not out yet and with Win64. Is RedHat 8 with 64-bit capabilities ready for prime time yet? I think not.

Microsoft decided to hold off on releasing a version of Windows 2000 that supports the 64-bit Itanium platform. Windows XP will be the first.

Common sense tell us that breaking Microsoft up won't do us any good in whatever way. But common sense tells us that Microsoft has to be stop or slow down in atleast another way. Trust me, Microsoft has gone quite big during the last few years. They have some kind of power that many of their competitors are strugling to have, like raising prices, getting mass-adoption quickly(through windows integration)... and much more. I hope I don't need to tell you all what they can do that will made us no good. Cause you will know it in time. It's just a matter of time.
One of the main resons that Microsoft cannot be stop or slow down in an traditional way is because we're not living in a traditional society. We need Microsoft. We need their platform, We need their standard, as well as their 40+ years of experience in software development. No one can ever match their level in such a short period of time.
If Microsoft is stop or slow down in the old ways, the whole tech sector will atleast be slowed down in some way. Cause we all have to learn LINUX or BeOS or Mac. which i don't quite like them for the outrageous complexity.
So, I have a very fair ay to solve this problem.
Since there is no law to govern those big corporations to compete fairly, create one! The current law is obsolute. You see, there are people too poor in some countries. There are also people who are 'too rich'. We seems to only help those that are poor and not stop those that are 'too rich'. Why? I don't know why. The same goes for business. There are companies that are too small. Something must be done, right? Right. But what about those that are too succesful? Let them go on? And kill those that are too small? Let the tiger roam in rabbit-park? It's a great joke alright. We need a new non-profit organization that governs the Standard OS API or SOAPI. We need it to create a standard OS foundation so that all OS can run all the software. This has to be done immediatelly whether Microsoft like it or not. You see, on the web, there are lots of companies doing business. But the same thing was, they all use a standard: HTML which is control by W3C, a non-profit organization. So that IE and Netscape can viewd the same page atleast in some similarity.
If the same can be done on the web, why can't on software industry?

Unfortunately, in the United States, there is no such thing as "too successful." There is such a thing as breaking laws to become successful but there is no such concept as "too successful."

It might be nice to have a standard OS platform or API for applications but that already exists - and Microsoft chooses not to be a part of it. Thousands of programs are available that can be recompiled for different OS's (Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc...). Microsoft is not "unix-based," however and has built their entire business on being proprietary.

I'm not commenting on the ethics of this, the long-term viability, or the soundess of this model, but Microsoft is not going to agree with you ever or at least for a very long time. They're not losing money, they're seeming to come out on top in the court system, and they have no incentive to change the foundation of their operating system.

What does this have to do with anything, especially the topic of this article? Another thing, where do you get 40+ years from? Windows 1.0 came out in the mid 80's which means less than 20 years.

Communist?
We should stop people/companies that are 'too rich'/'too successful'? What incentive are people going to have to try and become successful? We're going to help them get started and then stop them as soon as they get to the point which we have symbolised as being 'too successful'! How about rather that trying to change things around for the lowest-common-denominator, we realise that people are not equal and we should be supporting the smart/innovative/etc ones rather that stopping them in their tracks so that some dumb a** gets what you would call a 'fair go'?

While I understand that what you're trying to explain is the cons of globalization, the solution isn't as simple as 'we just have to stop people when they get too successful'. I'm not sure where people get this idea that rich/successful people should be punished!

Microsoft started in the mid 70's. Remember that MS-DOS came before MS Windows. Still not even close to 40+ (unless Gates started programming when he was a baby - with punch cards of course.)

So basically, you are saying that we should help the companies that haven't done jack squat and tear down companies that hae fought long and hard to get in the high posistion they are today. Sooner or later, you will be tearing down those very companies that you helped, this makes absolutly no sense at all.

This is America, we have a free enterprise, you can't become "too rich", heck, that's the American dream! What you are proposing is a communistic way of doing things, we are not communists, we are capitalists, businesses are born to make money (no, they aren't born to serve you, it just so happens that serving you is HOW they make money), we own our own businesses, not the government, not the entire population of America.

Oh yeah, your comment had ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the article, and I assume you were just posting it to either a) boost your ego, or b) spread FUD, either way, you are WAAAY off topic.

Windows: The software that means the real american way of life! It's not a communist program! We need Microsoft! Please, The topic of this article is specific: Linux Beats XP to the Itanium (...at this moment). Is a techical title. You don't like Linux? Allright try another. I think isn't a good idea to defend monopoly! The great and admirable source of the north american economy was the competition.

You are obviously a very simple man. I often wonder how people such as your self are even able to operate a Mac…. But this is nor the time nor the place to discus the depths of your pathetic being. Your ideas are ignorant and you are not even remotely versed in the history of the company in which you speak or the nature of it’s presence. If Microsoft died there would only be complaining by ignorant people and those concerned for economic lose by losing the company. The nature of a software company is if one falls there are others to take their place. There will always be the knowledge gained by the staff of the company, which put out some of the buggiest software in existence out, that can put their knowledge to producing their own alternative or aid in the construction of someone else’s.

In conclusion you are a moron who should not be permitted access to anything other then an apple IIe. People should not be aloud to speak.

Good day. :)

I am not for or against the spliting of Microsoft.

Which MCSE study guide did you pick that up from? There are legal limits to the amount of power a company can use to leverage themselves into other markets, or to crush competition. These limits apply if a company has been found to be a monopoly (read Microsoft) in a given market, it's called Anti-Trust you should look it up, it's been around a while. As for your comment about companies and customers, lets be real, if it weren't for the customer there would be no companies SO I'm going to venture a guess that you wouldn't get too far without them. They come first over anything else, they are a companies blood. M$ has made many unfair business practices, I say that they should be broken up, and their assets liquidated. Their products should be split between several of the highest bidders, and any profits should be returned to the people from which they were robbed. (I have 5 paid licenses to Windows 95 or 98 that I have never used, I would like a refund thanks) It's not communistic, it's realistic.. Gimme a break.. There are limits, and they have gone way past them.

-8vO

Yes, but what he was suggesting was a communistic kind of rule.

And exactly what good would come of breakin up MS? They wouldn't have any more competition that they have now.

And another thing, if they are broken up, and assets liquidated, basically, you are saying break them up, and then sell off each piece. This makes no sense at all. You have it one way or the other, would liquidating big MS not accomplish the same thing with less work then breaking them up, and then liquidating each mini-MS.

Basically, anything that MS does is considered by people like yourself as anti-competitive... MS is the most competitive company out there. Just look at IE and Netscape, or the handheld market (PocketPC's are picking up a lot of turf, while Palm is losing market share, and money)

>Yes, but what he was suggesting was a communistic kind of rule.

I don't see it as communistic at all, I keep hearing that, but no good arguement supporting it..

>And exactly what good would come of breakin up MS? They wouldn't have any more competition that they have now.

I don't want them "broken up" per se, I want to see their assets (hardware, non software merchandise) sold off, and the moneys given back to the people that have purchased their products.

>And another thing, if they are broken up, and assets liquidated, >basically, you are saying break them up, and then sell off each >piece. This makes no sense at all. You have it one way or the other, >would liquidating big MS not accomplish the same thing with less work then breaking them up, and then liquidating each mini-MS.

Then (finishing from above) their softwares sold off to the highest bidders, and again the profits taken and given back to the people (auction profits)

>Basically, anything that MS does is considered by people like >yourself as anti-competitive... MS is the most competitive company

Define "people like me" I do not see EVERYTHING they do as anti-competitive, but you have to admit that they need to be severely punished for pushing so many other companies out of the marketplace with sheer marketing bulls***.

>out there. Just look at IE and Netscape, or the handheld market (PocketPC's are picking up a lot of turf, while Palm is losing market share, and money)

Netscape: Yes, MS hurt it severely by bundling IE on the desktop.. Netscape put all it's effort into the trial hoping to score $$$ they screwed up, and ran out of cash.. good product at 4.0 junk at 4.75 I use it because IE won't run on my os of choice.. (Yes I am a Linux User, I am also a Windows User, an HP/UX user, a Sun user, etc..)

Look at what they are doing now with Win XP.. MP3 encode at 56k? etc...

Enough is enough, they were a good company once, but they have gotten out of hand.. They still have some very good products, but until they stop trying to screw people like you and me (read forced to buy Win98 on systems that we install NT on ??!!!) I will support breaking them up.

-8vO

>I don't see it as communistic at all, I keep hearing that, but no >good arguement supporting it..

Because that's not how Capitalism works, you moron. You don't punish corporations for being successful. If you do, what's the point in trying?

>I don't want them "broken up" per se, I want to see their assets
>(hardware, non software merchandise) sold off, and the moneys given >back to the people that have purchased their products.

i.e. Communism.

>Then (finishing from above) their softwares sold off to the highest
>bidders, and again the profits taken and given back to the people
>(auction profits)

And just what good would this accomplish? Oh, I know. Let's take their toys away. They've been naughty. It's idiots like you that don't have an ounce of common sense that make this whole case so frustrating. First of all, this will never happen, which is a damn good thing. How much Big Brother do you want? The economy has always been, and will continue to be consumer-oriented, and consumer-driven. The Government doesn't need to step in issue punishments, like an oversized nun.

If the customers don't like the product or company, they won't buy it, and they won't use it. It's that simple. So far, Microsoft has what people want: a product that will help you use your computer right out of the box. Need a calculator? There's one right there. Something to draw pretty little pictures with? Oh, there's Paint. Want to get on the Internet? Here ya go kids, have fun.

Sorry to burst your bubble, skippy, but people don't want to use Linux because IT'S HARD FOR YOUR AVERAGE "I can't program my VCR" COMPUTER USER TO UNDERSTAND. Does that mean it's not a good OS, no. It has many strengths. So does Windows. Is Windows just for the computer unsavvy? No. It's a perfectly robust, stable OS (atleast Win2k is. 9x was ass, and I think everyone on the planet can freely admit that).

>Define "people like me" I do not see EVERYTHING they do as anti-
>competitive, but you have to admit that they need to be severely
>punished for pushing so many other companies out of the marketplace
>with sheer marketing bulls***.

Total bulls***. They don't need to be punished for anything. Including IE with Windows was the best thing they ever did. It makes it easier for people who aren't computer wizards to get online. That's what this is all about, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who notices this.

Computers need to be more than a toy for geeks. They need to be easy to use for people who don't understand them, and robust for the people who do. Computers need to be a tool, even for Grandma, even for little ten-year-old Jimmy, not just for George the IT guy...

>4.75 I use it because IE won't run on my os of choice.. (Yes I am a
>Linux User, I am also a Windows User, an HP/UX user, a Sun user,
>etc..)

Whoopty s***. What does your mom use?

>Look at what they are doing now with Win XP.. MP3 encode at 56k?
>etc...

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!?! This has been covered over and over again! WMP7 doesn't even have the ability to encode MP3s. WMP8 does (at 56k), so it's a step up. Any other program can encode MP3s at any bitrate it wants to in XP. 56k is only a limitation on WMP8. Good Christ... read a friggin book.

>Enough is enough, they were a good company once, but they have
>gotten out of hand.. They still have some very good products, but
>until they stop trying to screw people like you and me (read forced
>to buy Win98 on systems that we install NT on ??!!!) I will support
>breaking them up.

Look, I'm totally with you on your example about buying systems with Win98, even when you're putting NT on it. That's rediculous. Who knows, maybe that's Microsoft's policy, maybe that was the OEM's policy. Either way, it's dumb.
The point is: breaking up companies has never helped anything, and the kind of solution you're suggesting is both unrealistic and mind-numbingly stupid. Aside from other effects of such an atrocity, the computer industry, and thus, the computer revolution would be set back decades.

Face it, Microsoft, whether we like it or not, is an industry leader, and it's going to stay that way until the market, and the industry, change it.

Hmm... as I recall, BEFORE Win98, IE4 had claimed the market, and before IE4, IE had less than 10% market share.

What is MS doing with mp3 encoding? They actually ADDED a feature into WMP8 so users can encode in MP3 (WMP7 couldn't do this), and this ONLY effects WMP8's encoder, and it's due to licensing.

Bulls***..

You must be an MCSE.. Do they pay you to make statements like "Windows is an Industry Standard" Maybe on the desktop.. It may always be on the desktop, I still think they should be broken up, if someone else bid on the code, cool maybe they will do a better job, if not well the market won't decide they are ****ing sheep.. What does my mother use? I dunno, I didn't set up her computer, she did.. What does my wife use? Netscape on Linux, she has NO problems doing ANYTHING she did when she used windows, and she's likes the fact that it's faster, and she hasn't rebooted since we set her computer up (he held the keyboard FYI) over 3 months ago.

As for being an idiot, **** you I am entitled to my opinion, you go now, be a good sheep, back to the herd.. Maybe when your company hires me to set up your enterprise systems I'll buy a nice wool sweater.

-8vO

Oh, and my kids use Linux too, and they don't seem to have any problems doing anything anyone else does..

No, I did a LOT of breakfix on the side back then, and I mostly saw IE 3 and NS 4 until Win98, I saw way more IE 3 than anything else because it was there when they got it..

MS added the ability to encode mp3 into media player v8 but it only encodes at 56k unless you know how to change a registry entry in an attempt to push users to use their format (wait, that format ONLY WORKS ON WINDOWS) My biggest complaint with MS (The only other thing I bash them for besides license twice+) is that they don't support open standards, if they released a cross platform API for their closed protocols and file formats, I would respect them a lot more..

A little info..
I am an SA for a fortune 500 (in the top 10) I support all makes models and breeds.. All intercommunication is there until I need to communicate with an MS system, then it all goes to hell..

I purchase 5000 Compaq DP EP's back in '99 I'm an NT shop, but I have to purchase ALL 5000 systems with 95 or 98 then purchase workstation licenses so I can load them for deployment, WTF is that.. that's $5,000 in software I won't ever use..

now I decide to roll the rest of the 250,000 systems...

WTF..

Need I go on? It's not communism, it's freedom, freedom from being screwed.. They made huge $$$$ by charging customers twice, I want my $$$ back.. enuff's enuff

-8vO

Oh, and yes you punish them if they intentionally harm someone else just to get ahead, it's a crime.. If I shoot you so your shop won't compete with mine, is that a crime?

Then shut the **** up..

-8vO

Wow. You're SOOO clever! I wish you were my friend.

No, I'm not an MCSE, I'm a realist. And I didn't say Microsoft was an Industry Standard, I said they were an Industry Leader... there's a difference. Christ, even sheep know that. Why is it that you think whenever anyone defends Microsoft that they're MCSEs or being paid to do it? Little paranoid are we? Or is it just *impossible* in your world that you could be wrong, since you're obviously so talanted? Wake up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch, Cowboy

And yes, you are entitled to your opinions, because this (the US) is a free country. Amazing how just a second ago you were babbling about the Government being big and ballsy and taking control of the situation that has obviously gotten out of hand, and now you like free speech. Speaking of sheep...

As for your family using Linux, good for them. Whatever works, no? But don't think you're typical of every other family out there.

I can see there's no point in continuing this further, you're an a** hole, and so am I, so we're going to stalemate eventually. I'm wrong to you, and you're wrong to me, and that's the way it's going to stay. None of your nonsense will ever convince me that you have a valid point, and vice versa, I'm sure.

Oh, and yes you punish them if they intentionally harm someone else just to get ahead, it's a crime.. If I shoot you so your shop won't compete with mine, is that a crime?

Then shut the **** up..

-8vO

God, I wish I was as smart as you are.

So let me get this straight... Microsoft simply *competing* in a market is an underhanded tactic, and should merit the company being punished. Right, gotcha.

Microsoft included IE with Windows so that it would be easier for people to use the Internet. Netscape still works with Windows (it's just a piece of s***), and it always has. Anyone who wants it is welcome to it. If IE were an inferior product, it wouldn't be the dominant browser right now, even if it were included with Windows.

Microsoft had, and still has, every right to include products with it's OS. It's a better deal for the consumer. If it wasn't it wouldn't have stayed the way it is.

And as far as shutting "the **** up", how pathetic of you.
I feel sorry for you, I really do. Your statement says a lot about the kind of person you are (or aren't, for that matter). If you can't handle a discussion like this, you shouldn't participate in one.

Twice, no less... good job.

Windows Media doesn't just work on Windows, it's just a matter of the play supporting it, and there are many other players othe rhtna WMP that support Windows Media.

IE3 is IE, it counts in the market share, IE2-4 and NS1-4, IE was beating NS before Win98 came out but after IE4 was released.

Sorry, that should be, "it's just a matter of the _player_ supporting it"

And I've often wondered why I frequent Betanews less and less these days. I now realize why.
Instead of bringing up interesting facts, ideas, or friendly debate about this post, you use half of your message to bash this guy.
Impressive, quite impressive.

Yeah, i dont reply to anything because im afraid of being flamed :)

Intel just screwed themselves!!! :) MS was thinking about supporting AMD soon to be higher end proccessors and machines. Intel screws us over..... I don't think so. This is one battle AMD might all of a sudden pull through in.

Also CPUGuy reply to this I know you want to. Your the only other person on these boards that have something worth saying.

Strictly your opinion and no one else's :)

Have a nice day!

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I thought the discussion board was for people to state a personal opinion as fact and imply everyone agreed. How wrong I was...

So do you work at Microsoft? Give me you alias, we'll go eat lunch. Or are you just full of crap and don't know better?

For this one, I think I would prefer Intel to win the battle, as Intel is on a entirely new, state of the art platform, while AMD's offerings are based on a nearly 20 year old platform, that really shows its signs of old age, and they aren't even moving away from it with their 64bit chip, sooner or later, we have to make the jump to a new platform, which means there will be some incompatibilities sooner or later, might as well be sooner.

Not to say I don't like AMD, heck, I don't buy any Intel chips just because AMD currently makes the faster and cheaper product.

My only worry on Intel's side (and trust me I'm a big Intel supporter) is that they won't be able to deliver. They've pushed before to get things out before AMD (when chips hit 1+ GHZ) and things didn't look to promising.

We should all know AMD plans to build machings like Itanium, but obviously cheaper. Now since the majority of these Itanium machines run MS software, because the software is specifically tweaked to support Intel hardware. MS will probably "retaliate" by now supporting the soon to be "higher-end" hardware produced by AMD.

You are right about the technology. AMD is strictly for speed in my opinion. I'm a developer, I need something that can do more. That is why I went P3 and will probably soon build my 3rd Intel hardware box with a p4.

Now, I do have an AMD, which I use for gaming, email, Office products, etc., but it doesn't compare to Intel when it comes to development.

For the Itanium machines, I think it really depends on whether MS lets AMD take part of that "higher-end" market.

Is it me, or does the AMD process (the old ones at least) have another processor built into it that basicaly emulates the Pentium processor (please no stupid replys)

No, the AMD processor itself is based on the Intel technology.

Uhh. No it's not. AMD processors are based on a DEC Alpha architecture which was modified to fit x86 standard needs. Older AMD processors used Intel based x86.

x86 architecture is Intel technology.

Heck, AMD continues to license Intel technology even today.

You're thinking of the bus. The processor itself is not based on Alpha architecture.

Okay, so Linux beat XP in supporting Itanium... So what? Honestly, who cares? Who the hell *OWNS* an Itanium?? Unless you're rich or know someone, I doubt you have one of these processors.

Good job, Linus. I'll make sure you get a cookie.

The point is that the system was done far ahead of Mircosoft's, this may very well be due to the open source model ... and no matter what you think of it you can't say that it did not work for this.

you didn't seem to think this one through. its ok tho, many dont. The big thing about this is by the time that MS releases their version of windows for the Itainium. The open source OS's will have a 4 month headstart on optimizing and fine tuning their systems, and applications. creating a (once again) faster more reliable system to run.

So long Microsoft. Mabey Mr. Gates shouldn't have spent so much time in those strip clubs, hehe.

Too true. Let's not forget the Itanium Linux kernel was released last feburary as opensource and then beta distributions began. I knew that Linux and UNIX would be out there first before M$

actually your wrong its more the fact that linux is much smaller and less complex then windows is. So it is much easyer to make a new version of it.

Smaller and Less Complex? Linux and Unix *less* complex then windows? huh? what? eh???? First off i don't know what "size" has to do with it, unless you mean that the MS code is far bigger, which maybe ... but bigger is not better in that case, not at all ... what is a better OS, one that can more quickly adapt to a new chipset or one that lags to do bogged down code and "size." Secondly I have no idea where you come off saying windows is more complex ... for years and year Unix has been and still is far more complex then windows, so is linux now. Heck take Mac OSX as an example, it runs on the UNIX BSD kernel.

It's still a "so what?" release, as Itanium is going to soon be replaced by McKinley.

Oh, and btw, what do you think MS is doing? They are tweaking it.

So long Microsoft? If you think this is going to break them, you've got another thing coming :)

Let's define complex then. Windows 2000 has something like 30 million lines of code (or thereabouts). You can claim that is "bloat" if you want but that's my definition of complex, especially in this scenario where you're talking about maintaining the source code of a project and adapting it to a new processor. And not just a new processor but an entirely new architecture.

Linux is around 17 million lines of code (or thereabouts). I'm not making any comments either way, I'm just throwing that out there as one definition of complex.

well, 17 million lines of code is only for redhat 6.2 (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/), if you are talking about newer versions of redhat and SuSE or other distributions, I am pretty sure that there are a lot more! But lines of code does not necessarily means that it is more complex! You can write a print statement for printing 1000 characters into 1000 lines of code.

And how many companies adopt new technology in the first 4 months of its availability?

The point is that by the time that 95% of the companies who are going to buy Itanium hardware are ready to, both Windows and Linux will be available. This is, as was said before, a "so what" release.

Half of those lines in windows2000 have bugs. All ms windows are for people that aren't techie. Everyone that I have talked to in person that praised microsoft was the below average pc user. They hate Linux/BSD/ etc because 1: they don't know how to use it. 2: They have no friends to teach them 3: They don't know much about computers in the first place. The *nix OS's are so full of features and possibilities that Windows simply doesn't compare. To truly experience the vast superiority of the *nix OS's you have to learn to use them. Then you'll realize why everyone is boasting Linux etc.

We could spin this situation several different ways, especially in regards to multiple supported architectures.
As far as I know, Windows is mainly a x86 operating system. It runs on Intel, AMD, Cyrix, and other x86-compatible chips.
Linux, although it likely needs to be recompiled, can run on many drastically different instruction sets. Visit kernel.org, if you doubt me. Adding support for another chip seems to be just another days work for the open-source guys.
My belief is that Windows doesn't necessarily suffer from bloat, but more spaghetti-code. It was coded once, it worked, and not bothered to be really optimized. This, of course, is just an opinion, since my comp-sci professor once stated that optimization should not be the concern of the programmer. "Simply getting your code to work will suffice." This shocked and horrified me. He expected people to be lazy at coding. He expected faster chips to be compensation for poorly-written code. Perhaps our buddies at MS follow this advice, and perhaps not. Who could tell?
And as for which is better, Linux or Windows, that is not part of this discussion.

Windows2k = Kernel, plus a million other applications.
Linux = kernel. period. the end.

Windows2k = Kernel with support for multiple things
Linux = Kernel with module support, so you don't need all that code.

Windows2k = buggy. unstable. insecure.
Linux = secure, stable, complete.

well said.

Ooooh, this will be fun...

>> Windows2k = Kernel, plus a million other applications.
>> Linux = kernel. period. the end.

Interesting definitions you have there, you define linux as being just the kernel (theoretically correct) although most people don't think of it as just the kernel. Yet Windows2000 is automatically defined as everything? Why didn't you define Windows2000 as being the Windows2000 kernel? And in terms of the previous post regarding complexity, yet it is more work to convert a kernel + a million other applications then a kernel and 100 applications...that's not a brainer! Let's move on...

>> Windows2k = Kernel with support for multiple things
>> Linux = Kernel with module support, so you don't need all that code.

Now you've defined Windows2000 as being a kernel....I'm sure you defined it as everything in your previous point. "so you don't need all that code."....is that like saying...."so you don't need all that support for multiple things?". Because I was under the impression that most people were pleased with an OS that supports more rather than less things. Final point...

>> Windows2k = buggy. unstable. insecure.
>> Linux = secure, stable, complete.

Where did you come up with this brilliant comparison? Buggy, Unstable and Insecure yet Linux is secure, stable and complete...does complete mean "without bugs"...since you're comparing on a point-by-point basis? And I'm sure everyone would love to see the research/stats/etc that you used to come up with this 'fact'. Or did you have your finger up your a** the whole time?

First, install Win2k's kernel, and command.com. Then show me a screen shot of you booting it. Linux distributions can fit on a floppy disk if needed. Because they don't need all those extra things included in some major distributions, they shouldn't be considered linux in it's purest form. Win2k in it's purest form is.. erm.. win2k.

Go look at the size of your buddy's Win2k kernel, look at the size of yours. Well i'll be damned. I bet they match. Now I'll look at the size of my 2.2.19 kernel, then my friends 2.2.19 kernel, and s***.. they're different. Why? Because i only compiled in the modules *I* needed.

Win2k secure? HAHAHHAHAH. If you think win2k is secure, I'd love for you to give me your IP. I'd love to show you how secure Win2k really isn't. IIS? Secure. HAHAHAHA. IIS is the most exploited http daemon, and unpropertionally so, seeing as how it has one of the smallest market shares. (httpd wise). Linux IS indeed secure. Some programs that are included in different distro's, may have bugs. It all depends on what you chose to install. In Windows, you get installed what they think you should have. Patches are continuously released for Linux, for different holes that may be found. Windows98 is, i would say, more secure then Linux. Why? Because it doesn't have multi-user support. Not unix like at all. Win2k on the other hand, under the official standards for what one considers "unix" is UNIX based. (Although closed-source). It comes with a default set of packages, and everything is pretty much the same across everyone's installation. Sure, you can chose not to install themes, and stupid things like that. But is there really any control over the installation. No. I could get out my slack CD right now, and zip you up a nice little 10mb distro, then e-mail it to you. Then I'm sure you could e-mail me a nice little fully functional Win2k distro. Couldn't ya?

While ranting under my first post, I forgot to mention the topic of stability. I have been using linux for about 3 years now. I think maybe 2-3 times in those *3 years*, I have had to reboot, due to a complete system failure. Saying 3 times may be pushing it. It might even be less then that. Linux is true multi tasking. In windows, Explorer goes down, it takes EVERYTHING with it. Got a fragmented packet? No problem, we'll just show you this big blue screen, then you can shut down. In linux, on the rare occasion I do have something seg fault (That's GPF for you windows kids) guess what, I don't have to reboot, i just have to restart that app. Is my uptime 500+ days? No. Right now it's around 2 days. Not because Linux isn't stable. Because I chose to boot into windows to do different tasks, and I have family members who aren't intelligent enough to use linux, ... maybe you have the same problem they do, trying to use linux?

If you run Linux every day then you are absolutely and completely lying. I totally do not believe anything you said in that post. I'm not sitting on either side of the MS/Linux fence right now but if you are trying to claim that you've had less than 3 critical failures under Linux in a period of 3 years then I see a person that has only booted into Linux once every couple of months.

Your computer science professor is on crack. Either way - many university/college scenarios are trying to teach you concepts and techniques and optimization is rarely important unless that is what the task at hand is (i.e. efficient data structures and algorithms) and it turns out that actually *is* often the task at hand.

I see... well let me burst your bubble. I have a degree in computer science from a top 30 university, have been in consulting for over 8 years, develop software for Windows, develop web applications and other related tools using Microsoft technology, have used Unix, have used Linux (on my own hardware), etc... and when all is said and done, I don't like Linux. That's all.

No - that's not how you count lines of code... The outputted characters are not counted. But thanks for that little analogy.

Either way - I was saying that lines of code *can* be one way of measuring complexity. (And yes, it can, regardless of your comments). You said "not necessarily" but didn't give another measure of complexity. That was useful. Care to elaborate?

Is there a point to all your babbling? Yes, I suppose you could boot Linux off of a floppy disk, but what on earth could you do with it? Not much of anything. Saying Linux is better than Win2k because it doesn't support all that "extra" stuff is sort of, well, stupid. I want an OS that supports all that extra stuff. You are right, Win2K is bigger. So what? I'm sure most users would just love to have to compile modules everytime they want to plug in a new piece of hardware.

"I run Linux. It's secure. I've only had to reboot a couple of times in the last 3 years (liar). Linux is smaller so it is better. I can compile a kernel so I'm an expert. I want a cookie."

u people are like a battered wife. no matter what you just keep gettin slapped around by your big daddy. and then running right back to it for more.

someday you'll learn though. you'll get slapped real hard once, and even though you wont admit it. you'll think to yourself. i wonder if this would have happend in "another" circumstance.

Lines of code? Who uses lines of code to say an OS is more complex that the other one? I will write up a simple example:
variable++;
printf(variable);
Wow, 2 lines, how about this?
printf(++variable);
Now only one line. Is #1 more complex? No, it isn't, it's just writing more.
Are any of these faster? No, they arent. In big O notation, they have the same order O(1)
So, the point it, never bring up the line count as reference

.... ok.... that makes absolutly no sense at all....

So basically, you are running on a 3yr old kernel?

Well it's completly obvious that you know absolutly nothing about system security.

Hell, just the fact that you say Win98 is secure shows your ignorance.

Oh and finally, Win2k's kernel is considered a "micro-kernel", so it is not this big behmoth of a kernel a half a gig in size. Win2k's kernel is certainly not what you see as Win2k the product. The thing is, there is no point in running just the kernel, and same goes for Linux. Heck, the X-Box runs on the Win2k kernel with the DirectX module loaded.

That's about all I'm going to say, as it is quite obvious that you have absolutly no experiance in the computer world.

While 2k is generally only run on one platform, Windows itself is multi-platform.

NT runs on the Alpha and WinCE runs on MANY different types of devices.

well chrismarts if it would have been from top 5 u wouldn't have said that. Well i have it from best 5 so i would say I like WINDOWS and I love LINUX.

First you say: "Linux IS indeed secure"

Then: "Patches are continuously released for Linux, for different holes that may be found"

If patches have to be "continuously released" for something, it is not secure!

Having said that, Windows 2000 is not "secure" either because it needs patches too. *No* OS is secure. Don't be fooled.

Windows 98 is definitely more secure than Linux out of the box.

Why? Easy - there isn't anything to hack into. You don't have telnet. You don't have ssh. You don't have httpd. You don't have mysql. You don't have sunrpc. You don't have sendmail. And so on.

Good for you - my Windows 2000 is just as stable :)

(Oops, replied to wrong post.)

Yep I'm running a 3 year old kernel. I think it may be 4 years now actually. I mean.. i don't know wtf those dates i'm copying from ftp.kernel.org are on, must be some good crack, because 2.2 line HAS to be atleast 3 years old, because some dumba** winkiddy says so.

linux-2.2.0.tar.gz 25-Jan-1999 17:41 12.5M
linux-2.2.19.tar.gz 25-Mar-2001 11:26 18.4M

Ok. So i exagerrated a little, I've been running linux religously for about a year and a half. MAN. YOU GOT ME!

and this from a winkiddy, who constantly defends windows. "I DONT BELIEVE IT'S THAT STABLE. I MEAN. MY WINDOZE NINENTY EIGHT ISN'T, SO THAT *CANT* BE'

Ever noticed how people that know their head from their ass, and use linux for longer then a week, all realize how superior linux is, while the moron's who aren't intelligent enough to use it, defend microsoft with all their heart?

Ok. I'm sorry. I have no idea why i'm even posting here anymore. Betanews is for windows kids, who believe in microsoft, and defend it's ways. I doubt any of you ****ing idiots has even installed and used any distro of linux, for longer then a week. And if indeed a varient of UNIX has been installed, I'm sure it was mandrake or redhat, which are both ****ing swiss cheese when it comes to security.

All you silly a** windows kiddies, go download a slack iso, install it, and use it for 2 straight weeks. Then tell me how stable your windows is.

I forgot about CE, but that is more of a specialist o/s, is it not?
I'm sure it's technically possible, but would somebody boot CE on a pc? Would they bother porting it to the Playstation 2? Dreamcast is already spoken for, but its gui is fairly limited for user interaction. Sure, CE works on different chips, but it's limited to the chips that Microsoft wants.
Linux seems to skirt that problem quite well, while not crippling the operating system.

OK. Let's compare Linux and Windows, shall we?

I've used (or shall we say, tried) four different versions of linux on my system. There've been no changes in the original configuration between each reinstall. I'm using an AMD Athlon 700 with 512 MB of PC133 SDRAM, an Elsa GeForce 256, SoundBlaster Live!, Motorola sm56 modem, and an old RealTek NIC. Mouse is a microsoft USB optical, keyboard is standard 101-key.

-Windows 98 detects nothing, though I can at least start the OS, load the drivers, and get everything to work.
-Windows ME detects the sound card, but nothing else. Same story as win98, basically.
-Windows 2000 detects everything but the modem and video card, but it boots and I can load those drivers.

-RedHat 6.1 detects zip. Can't even boot.
-Corel Linux R1 detects the sound card, but that doesn't help when it won't let me, the administrator, load video or networking drivers. I got it to boot once, but only in a 4-bit color mode.
-SuSE detects my video card. Boots fine, but I can't load sound drivers or use networking at all.
-RedHat 7 detects my video card and my sound card, but again refuses to load drivers for either my modem or NIC. Noted that it does see the NIC, and recognizes it, but does not load drivers.

So. Which will I go with? Operating systems that don't detect my hardware and REFUSE to let me install, or those that detect AND install most of my hardware, plus allow those third-party drivers?

Don't even get me started on application compatibility. I work as a graphic designer, and the GIMP sucks, quite simply. I'd not touch the thing with a ten-foot pole. Give me Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, and I'll give you a website. But Linux doesn't run those, so it makes no sense for me to use it. (And no, I don't want to emulate another OS while running linux with VMware. It makes no sense to have two OS's running when one does just fine.)

As for stability, I'm all too aware of explorer crashes. I tweak win2k outrageously, though, so it's partially my fault. But, crashing one instance of explorer (a folder window, for instance) does not kill my desktop, IE, or any other windows I have open. I'll take that as a lovely example of multitasking.

Rebooting is something I do fairly often (and you would too, opening images that use 100+ MB in RAM), but people need to understand that it's not the OS's fault there. Most of the time, it's lazy programmers at the application companies, who allocate RAM and then don't bother to free it up when closing a file or program.

Security. Out of the box, Win2k is far more secure than Win98. You're not allowed to hit Cancel on the login box, obviously, and add that most ports are automatically hidden and you're doing rather well. But Linux is just as hackable, as seen by the new worm flavors now being written. There's no clear advantage here.

Overall, I'll take an OS that allows me to get to work faster and more efficiently. Installation is quick on Linux, true, but Win2k was faster, simply because I didn't have to spend a great deal of time trying to make the dang thing work. I can run all the programs I need or want, (gotta love compatibility mode!) and rebooting and security just don't affect things.

I guess I'll keep on with Bill for the time being. :)

You brought up the "3 years" figure, not him.

If you have in fact not rebooted in 3 years except due to "complete system failure," then you'd have to be running kernel 2.0.33 at best.

How about you go install a copy of Windows 2000 and use it for 2 straight weeks. Then tell me how stable your Linux is.

I have used Linux for three years, and there really is NO difference in stability between NT & Linux. Both operating systems, if used on good hardware & drivers, are 100% stable.

Well, this "****ing idiot" has used about 4 or 5 different distros of Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, MacoS, and of course, Windows.

Guess which one I prefer.

Your point being? My point which was obviously wasted on you was in reply to the statement "All ms windows are for people that aren't techie." Clearly that is not the case. But thank you for making us all a bit dumber with your comments! :)

"So basically, you are running on a 3yr old kernel?"

was what he said. Before he posted that.. i had said

"Is my uptime 500+ days? No. Right now it's around 2 days. Not because Linux isn't stable. Because I chose to boot into windows to do different tasks"

I never said I haven't rebooted it, or changed stuff. Quit messing up quotes moron.

You tried 3 crappy Distro's, couldn't figure out how to re-compile a kernel, or load modules correctly, and called it quits. Wow. You must be a genius.

If you can hack a windows98 box, NOT TROJAN one, I'll give you all the money I will ever own. and give you oral pleasure.

Windows, 98, 2k, and XP, all have errors with my drivers. I have a Sound Blaster 128PCI, whenever I scroll quickly on my screen, in windows. Or the screen is doing a lot of re-drawing, I get screeching sounds out of my speakers. Incase you're thinking this is a video card driver problem, I have a TNT2 MG64, and use the latest nvidia drivers. Ok, so I/O Problems, Conflicts you may think. Nope Not that either. I'm in linux right now listening to music just find, and scrolling up and down this long page, without hearing loud screeching sounds. Oh. and I use the latest, and only, drivers for SB128 i can find for windows.

oh, and as i've said. I'd love to help demonstrate how secure your win2k boxen isn't, just post your IP, and I'll be glad to demonstrate. I'll even give you mine 24.22.124.214 .. teach me how insecure linux is, and i'll teach you how insecure win2k is.

Here we have a classic example of a driver problem or user error that isn't any fault of Windows.

>99% of users don't have the problem you describe, so that should tell you something...

It's funny to see how you went from "Bogus 'facts'" in one post to presuming I, like your family, cannot use linux in the next. You telling me that linux is stable isn't proof of anything! You have people on this forum claiming Windows boots in 5 seconds for them, program X takes 5 minutes to start up while everything else only take 1 second etc etc etc.

Your comparison of Linux vs Windows2000 was full of holes and little facts, yet you chose not to answer ay of the queries I had regarding your post. Interesting. You either didn't read what I wrote, which you probably should have if you're responding to it, or read it and realised you screwed up in which case you chose to ignore it rather than admit it.

Finally, after missing out all the important details you went on to tell me how you have only rebooted 2-3 times in 3 years as if that's proof of anything. Congratulations! Is that what you wanted me to say? I turn my computer on/off every day not because of stability reasons but because I have no use for it being on all the time! Are you going to say my system isn't stable because I don't leave it on 99.9% of the time over a period of 3 years? I hate to bring this up....but if it's your home computer that you are talking about, it's supposed to be just that, it's not meant to be a server.

And of course let's not forget you had to have a stab at me because I'm obviously not 'intelligent' enough to use linux. Well without getting personal about things, there are more than plenty of example of this forum alone that you don't need any intelligence to install linux and then go brag about it since it is 'leet to use linux'.

How about you back up your 'facts' rather than spreading crap so to speak.

Ok. Here's my 2 bits on this subject. I have my primarary desktop loaded with Windows 2000. The main reason for this is Photoshop isn't for Linux yet and neither is any of my music software. Yes there is the GIMP which is great, but photoshop is just the way to go for me. I like to play games under linux when I can, but some like Rogue spear just don't play under linux, unlike Quake 3 does under linux.
I also have a linux server which I use for my routing/firewall stuff and I was using it for remote access and VPN tunneling for a while, but stopped because I didn't have time to set it up as well as I wanted to and it was unneccesary.

The linux box was messing up for a while because it had a bad NIC in it, but that would really screw over a windows box probably. The linux box just needed it reinitialzed every few days. Now with good NICs in the system it has been flawlessly up for the past 6 months almost. I reloaded shortly before a LAN I hosted at Christmas. I reloaded because of a security hole that I failed to close up, it wasn't linux's fault. It was mine for improper config of a service. It hasn't slowed down, started acting funny or anything. In addition to that the machine I have it loaded on is rather weak. As for autodetecting stuff, it detected pretty much everything on the system. I keep current with kernels and the newest RedHat distros as often as I can. I still haven't gone to 2.4 kernel though, I don't feel like redoing my routing right now and for all I care, it's perfect the way it is.
I have another linux box that I run X on and it's fine. Never had any problems with X not detecting anything. It doesn't support soundfonts for my SBLive, but that's not a kernel problem, it's due to the fact that creative has yet to release that driver. I still think that the companies that make the hardware are responible for the drivers on ALL os'es. Ever seen a NIC card that doesn't have drivers for just about ever OS on the disk? No. Other companies need to do that as well. Linux runs fast for me, no problems on any machine from 486s to P3s and Athalons. I will say that it rocks Novell as a OS. Can't load Quake on Novell 5... :) I think it's safe to say that, I am Novell certified, working on the RedHat cert now..

Windows 2000 is my poison of choice for my desktop stuff though. I personally don't see too many problems with it. It's a little memory heavy at times, but beats all other microsoft OSes hands down, including NT 4.0 Server/Enterprise and Terminal servers. Some people b**** about it for gaming, but from what I saw the guys at the LANs I have been to running ME were having problems with slowdowns, drivers, the network, etc... I love being able to switch IP settings on the fly. Much better than resetting. They finnaly must have taken a look at the linux source. I don't reset my Win2K box but perhaps once a month or so? That's just to clear up things in case of memory leaks or my bad use of pointers when I am programming...

Processors... I have always gone Intel. I have a few AMD boxes sitting around, they mainly collect dust. Here's a little story that shows the strength of the Intels vs the AMDs. A while back I hosted a LAN. A friend of mine just got a new laptop, it was a AMD K6/2 with 3d now or something like that. 400mhz supposibly. It wasn't a badly configured machine. He was talking junk about the intel chips and all. I was only running a 300mhz PII so I thought he would dog me. Well we did the best benchmarking avalable, we loaded up games at started playing. Every single person's system rocked his, we all had intel chips in ours. Even a guy with a 233 PII rocked him. It wasn't just a few frames a second. It was everything from his reboot time to fps. I think when a 233 beats a 400 straight out that's sad. I hear they have gotten better. But they still have issues.

Now the 64 bit Itanium chips should rock. They are 'slower' in the mhz, but that's like saying a 500 G4 mac is gonna be beaten by a 600 Celeron or even PIII. 800mhz on a 64 bit chip should rock. The linux support will be great because of it's maturity. No companies do not jump onto things. The ones that do will most likely be more up to speed in general though and running the best networking OSes, the *nix family. Some places are still running NT 4 on 200 mhz machines as their servers. It won't matter to them, because they don't care. Those who care enough to upgrade the chips and OSes will want the best though. and It will come out the be the Intel and the *nixes that win out. I like Win2K and all, but I think it's pointless to worry about the 64 bit chips on it. The way that Microsoft is popping out OSes now they will have 2002 or whatever out before it even matters.

One last nail in the coffin for AMD chips. Multiprocessor support is a BIG thing in corporations. I even have a dual chip machine at home. Do you think I am trying to make the crappy AMD SMP modes work? No! Intel knows SMP because they have been doing it for god knows how long. You can't beat a 8 processor server with ANY AMD product. That's all there is to it! Servers also don't care about 3d and stuff, the Intel chips will end up making their money there. Normal people don't use 4 mb caches on their processors.

Anyway

Tibbon

One last thing I forgot was that if it doesn't work in linux the first time, make it work! Have you ever done a old school style install of linux? I don't mean using your graphical interface and USB mouse support on install! Break out the floppies and start configuring stuff by hand if you have to. If there aren't drivers, you can't looking hard enough or aren't good enough at programming. My friend wants to hook up his cell phone to linux and dial and transfer data. No driver? No problem, time to start programming. That's what makes the linux community live on so well, if you can't do it, post to somewhere reasonable about it. People will get it done in good time. Why do you need colors in linux anyway? Let me guess you need a pretty graphical interface? Try to use the console more often, you will learn how to do things. 3 distros to get things working? Do you know how to recompile a kernel? Learn more about linux before saying that it sucks. That's like saying that a car sucks when I am 5 just because I don't know how to drive it. Grow up, take some courses, and pick one distro. RedHat seems to cover everything for me. Kudzu does a great autodetect job most of the time, and if it doesn't I just need to get the modules installed.

Tibbon

Your right. Just my windows registry is 18 MB. Security isn't that good, but it isn't that bad either. Linux security is good if you are leet enough to configure all the services well. It's excellent actually, but my mom could probably get Win2K more sercure before she would figure out how to log in linux.

Dave

Ya. Too bad when i first got the Soundcard, and asked some pepole that go to the same IRC channel as me, i think 3 of them had had the same problem in the past. and a few others had heard of it happening before. And i'm not talking #beginner here, i'm talking about a bunch of network admins, programmers, and (HEH!) script kiddies.

wow. and here i was thinking no one on betanews knew their head from their ass.. thank you very much for posting. You're the light at the end of the tunnel.

Please make sure you know the hardware before you cry!
New hardware are all different than before.Putting all good stuffs doesn't mean can give you better result!!!!!!!!

Why should I type a five mile long command line when I can just click a text box.

And who ever said that you can't write your own Windows drivers, guess what, you CAN.

Oh yeah, and btw, using the console doesn't mean you learn how to do stuff... you are just learning how to do it in the console, as opposed to learning how to do it in the GUI.

Neither way is superior to the other, the GUI is just more designed for how humans work, so the comptuer adapts to the human, not the other way around... but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Windows NT used to be compiled for multiple kernels. NT4 was the last release for NT on other kernels I believe. WIndows 2000 might have been released for the Alpha CPU but I'm not sure. The point is, Microsoft NT and 2000 COULD easily be ported to other hardware platforms, it's just not profitable to do so. The alpha was only released through Digital, and later Compaq, and the PowerPC has never taken off outside the Macintosh platform. No application support followed these platform compiles so they faded away slowly.

Point is, you are blaming Windows for a problem with sound card drivers. Windows is not at fault here...

What???? I would love to respond to your comment but I have no idea what you're on about nor how it relates to my post above!
The only thing I can say is "New hardware are all different than before"....well duh! It would be fairly pointless for someone to keep releasing the exact same thing over and over again....it wouldn't exactly be new now would it!

... and you're like an idiot, because... oh, wait. You *are* an idiot. Nevermind.

::cough::openBSD::cough::

i just woke up. and i'm pretty much done with this forum. Read tobbet (i belive that's the nick's) posts. Reply to him. He seems to be a more sensible guy about the subject then me, I get to heated over things. I never said i haven't rebooted in 2-3 years, I said Linux doesn't completely error out such as windows products do. And no, this is far different then a little #hacker kiddy who just heard about linux, and thinks it will make him cool. I first instsalled linux 5 years ago, I have Slackware 2.1 on disk somewhere, it may be 1.2, i'm too lazy to see. I also have some of the very first releases of debian. I am not merely some idiot who just heard about linux, and is heading over to mandrake.com to go download linux, so i can ./put-dos-name-here. Why don't you all start going to a real news site, that actually gets technical. Go read slashdot. Reply to some posts there about how great your windows is. That will be just the same as I am doing now. I am pro-linux and posting on a windows forum. I don't see any of you trying to back up your side on a linux forum. And I am sure, just as I now, am "losing" this arguement, as far as this board is concerned, you would at a linux oriented site too. Am I saying I'm a little /. kiddy, who injests posts and spews out random comments I've heard there? No. I am someone who uses the OS daily, and I hit freshmeat.net about upteen times a day along with linux security related sites, and is subscribed to many mail groups. err.. now i'm getting off topic. My point, to sum it up, go defend your side on a pro unix site, just as I am doing the opposite here. Also, when I have been defending linux, I don't really just mean LINUX. I am speaking of the UNIX family in general. And, as a post further down mentions. FreeBSD is far far far far more secure then anything Windows will ever release. If you try to argue with that fact, I am 100% completely done, because you CLEARLY know nothing of the unixes, or anything about servers. If you were to ask any SysOp, or network admin, who has been in the business a while. They will tell you the EXACT same thing. FreeBSD is, i'd say, the most secure OS. FreeBSD rarely get's exploits released for it. I just scanned every major root exploit site. (hack.co.za,packetstorm,technotroinc) and found 2 remote exploits for 4.2. One of which is a wu-ftpd exploit, which isn't even run by default with FreeBSD. The other is a glob() exploit, where a patch has already been released for. FreeBSD releases updates and patches regularly. And any good FreeBSD admin downloads the /latest every 2-3 months. I'm sure you're going to post now, saying i'm completely switching topics. But as I said. Although, I admit, I have been referring to "linux" 99% of the time, there has been a few times I have said *NIX, and I did indeed mean the UNIX family in general. Also, think about this. 99.999% of software released for *NIX is opensource. Which means anyone wanting to write an exploit can just download the source, and try to find a whole, then create a .c to exploit it. Windows is of course, as we all know, closed source. Which means finding the exploits for it involves trial-and-error. Now then, go to packetstorm.securify.net, and do a search for a 'FreeBSD', you wont find anything that applies to the latest BSD release. Hell, do a search for 'Slackware 7.1' (my personal favorite). If memory serves me correctly, all you will find is a wu-ftpd exploit, which doesn't even work. There exist a few other remote exploits for Slack 7.1, but none of those services run by default. Which means the user would have to specifically turn them on, which means that person must know what he's doing. So he would be aware that he is running something with holes. Now then, are you done looking for those exploits? Good. Type in 'windows 2000', you will find a bundle of IIS tools. Sure IIS is an httpd server, not core win2k. But go type in 'apache', bet you don't find any working exploits for that. Did ya? Ok. Another fact, go to http://defaced.alldas.de and browse through the archive of hacked sites. Even *windows* script kiddies can break into an IIS server. Nothing more then an .asp script is needed to upload a trojan. I'm done arguing the stability factor. Let's argue security now buddy. I'm interested in seing what silly a** replies you have to this, about how unix is so insecure. And if you do, want to respond telling me FreeBSD isn't secure.. just, do yourself a favor, shoot youself in the head, because you are entirely wrong.

-- links for further reading --

http://www.attrition.org...n/os-graphs.html#OSTOT1

http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/05/07/237247.shtml

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/03/021248.shtml

http://slashdot.org/arti.../01/03/08/2310209.shtml

At this point my Windows XP box has been up 3 days 00:30:11 as far as the connection to my server says. Oh BTW are u the deleted that used to hang around in the WindowBlinds forum and post stupid useless comments

The above post is the most intelligent post in the forum, currently.

First of all I have no problems with you being pro-Linux, or pro-Windows or pro-Killing..i honestly could not care less, because at the end of the day you'll still be doing/using whatever you want to use and I'll be doing the same. So I am not pro-Windows as you seem to think, I'm actually pro-Choice...but more that anything I'm con-Bulls***. And that is what gives me the s***s (so to speak...not being literal)...saying things like this:

>> Windows2k = buggy. unstable. insecure.
>> Linux = secure, stable, complete.

Let alone the other two comments you originally made wher eyou contradicted yourself. I'm sorry but wether it's on this forum, a linux forum, a macintosh forum or a windows forum anyone that isn't a 14yr old geek who just installed 'linux-for-dummies' so they can go around claiming how 'leet' they are and how dumb/moronic/drone-like anyone who uses any other OS is..(wow what a generalisation!)....will tell you that that is a LOAD OF BULLs***...and that is what I was writing about. Now I obviously can't speak for everyone else...maybe they are pro-Windows maybe not...i don't know and it has nothing to do with me. So if you spread bulls*** around, expect that those of us that are con-Bulls*** will speak out. Not because "linux isn't cool", but because what you say is bulls***.

Secondly...slashdot? you're kidding right? Granted there are quite a few people who do have intelligent clearly thought out points and opinions to make but the rest fall into that 14yr old category I just described. If you can't see that you must be blind.

Thirdly, what I have never been able to understand is this whole attitude in the linux comunity...call it arrogance, call it 'have-to-be-leet' syndrome....i don't know exactly how to classify it, but I'll try and explain. Not only does liking Linux mean hating Windows, Microsoft and anything to do with the two, but Linux users have just as heated/passionate arguments with other Linux users over different distributions! this is moronic! Several years ago (and still today) is you were running redhat rather than slackware you would be told how s*** your distro was. Mandrake isn't thought of any more highly and as much as you hear about people likign Linux and hence all *nixes, the truth is that once again there are huge heated/passionate arguments with the *BSD vs Linux community. And the *BSD community *laugh* at Linux's claim to security! Explain this.

So to finish up....each time you post a comment you claim completely different facts...no-one mentioned anything about FreeBSD! If you didn't post bulls*** to begin with I'm sure you would only have received a few comments back from some of the anti-Linux crowd here all of which you could have ignored. It's like me going on slashdot and writing a comment on win2k v's linux and saying the reverse of what you said...then coming back the next day and sifting through 500 or so replies/flames back. Here you only got a few replies....can you say the same would occur in slashdot? What does that say?

If I had time to setup a separate server off my business network just for that I would.

It's so secure that you dialup, and log into ICQ, and I can smbmount your IP, and rm -rf /your_mount

...

(If you have MS Client installed, and don't know how to configure it..)

You must work for a failed .com :-P

Linux has it's place
Windows 2k s*** even NT 4 have their places

point and click is for paper MCSE's and wanna be admins..

Real Admins embrace whatever tool gets the job done the most efficiently, I can configure a unix system with vi faster than you can do the same with a mouse. I can then go and configure and AD, File and Print, Exch if need be *spit*, and have all of the unix systems in the farm communicate with each other with a single password from any station before you could finish figuring out which side of the cdrom is up..

Don't fsck, go back to your point and click wanna ba admin job, and I'll continue to enjoy making 5 times your pay..

Thanks! Your ignorance continues to make my paycheck.

Windows is not multiplatform, it is written in ASM, and C.. the C code may be portable it may not. It was "PORTED" to ALPHA MIPS PPC, but support was dropped for those platforms as MS didn't want to spend more money than they would get back by "PORTING" it. Windows NT 3.1,3.5,3.51,4.0 yes, 5.x no.. I don't even think they support patches on any platform other than x86 anymore.

-8vO

Windows is not multiplatform, it is written in ASM, and C.. the C code may be portable it may not. It was "PORTED" to ALPHA MIPS PPC, but support was dropped for those platforms as MS didn't want to spend more money than they would get back by "PORTING" it. Windows NT 3.1,3.5,3.51,4.0 yes, 5.x no.. I don't even think they support patches on any platform other than x86 anymore.

-8vO

Windows is not multiplatform, it is written in ASM, and C.. the C code may be portable it may not. It was "PORTED" to ALPHA MIPS PPC, but support was dropped for those platforms as MS didn't want to spend more money than they would get back by "PORTING" it. Windows NT 3.1,3.5,3.51,4.0 yes, 5.x no.. I don't even think they support patches on any platform other than x86 anymore.

-8vO

Windows is not multiplatform, it is written in ASM, and C.. the C code may be portable it may not. It was "PORTED" to ALPHA MIPS PPC, but support was dropped for those platforms as MS didn't want to spend more money than they would get back by "PORTING" it. Windows NT 3.1,3.5,3.51,4.0 yes, 5.x no.. I don't even think they support patches on any platform other than x86 anymore.

-8vO

Windows is not multiplatform, it is written in ASM, and C.. the C code may be portable it may not. It was "PORTED" to ALPHA MIPS PPC, but support was dropped for those platforms as MS didn't want to spend more money than they would get back by "PORTING" it. Windows NT 3.1,3.5,3.51,4.0 yes, 5.x no.. I don't even think they support patches on any platform other than x86 anymore.

-8vO

Well... after reading your post, re-reading my post, and then reading your post... I can see that you are here not to have intelegant discussion, but to simply spread FUD.

Why don't you stop trying to boost your ego, and actually do something productive.

Since you are so used to using CLI, here is a small hint for you while you are in the GUI... you only need to click the submit button once for it to go through.

I don't see any FUD, only truth, put up or shut up.. If that's all you got then you should just walk away now..

like I need to spell it out, but betanews had problems earlier, I posted several times because I got server timeouts, I had no idea that the post took. Just wait until you post twice, I'll be watching.

I've never contradicted myself, because i've never said windows is stable.

I don't hate microsoft. I have about upteen microsoft products installed, and wine many of them while in linux.

People who use linux, do not all think they're 'leet. I'm glad i get pointed out when i stereo type something, but by all means. go ahead and stereotype s***. I mean, it's 100% ok for you to do it, but kill me if I do.. mmkay.

I have seen posts and slashdot that get more technical about different protocols and standards then any betanews post will ever even come close to being.

The hatred between distro's? Simple. Linux for years has been something that only more advanced technical computer people have been able to use. You can say whatever you want about that. But you know it's the truth. Linux is not something mr Joe Average can install and configure. It is definatelly not something the average person can install. There's millions of people who have enough trouble checking their e-mail with AOL, let alone configuring sendmail. The new distributions, (ie mandrake) are extremely easy to install, and have made the tasks that used to be difficult to do, extremely easy. Now this may seem fine and dandy, in the long run, and for people who don't like setting things up in (put-favorite-text-editor-here), but what do you learn from click on a few buttons and having something done? How to point and click? Microsoft already taught us all that vaulable lesson many a years ago. The new distributions are made so, just as you said, idiots who just want to be 'leet can now think they are. That is my gripe with them. But am I glad they are around? Yes. Because that means the userbase for Linux will grow, which means more software will be created, and more big companies will think harder about releasing software for it, and more hardware makers will think harder about releasing drivers for it. More users is never a bad thing. Some Windows2k machines may be stable. I honestly do not know, I've never run Win2k. I know have some friends who can't keep it running for loner then a few days, and I have some friends who have an uptime of a month in it. I tried WinXP, I ran it for about 2 weeks, and I remember it being quite stable, so Windows2k might be. And no, i'm not contradicting myself now, i'm just tired of arguing with you. I will not give into the fact that Windows2k is secure though. And you gave no arguements to my statistics on windows hacked machines, versus *NIX. Or made any mention to the fact of how it is so much harder to create an exploit for a MS released product. I post very long rants, with a lot of different point, yet you only ever respond to a few. Or just go back to your orginal arguement. Yet when I just reply to say 1 of your points, I get told i'm evading all your questions.. and this and that.. blah blah blah. I'll reply to your post as soon as you cover all my points discussed in my previous topic, and actually have a defense to them.

I am the deleted that used to post on the windowblinds forum, when it was b2-b4. I am the Deleted that was pro windowblinds, helped neil out, and made the first windowblinds skins page, before they were a dime a dozen. i'm the deleted that used to give neil suggestions on thing. Yes. I'm the deleted that helps software I enjoy grow. I can no longer stand WindowBlinds, and despise neil. I understand what he did, and I have no problem with him wanting to sell his hardwork for cash. But I helped him in the beginning, helped promote it, sent it around to software archives, made the, as i said, first skin archive for it. Then i find out a few months later, now I get to pay $30 for this software I helped get such wide spread popularity. What a deal.

OK, don't take it to personly. But people did used to hate your comments, or just take the piss. I can't remember why but they did, didn't they(?) yes i agree that WB was better before stardock took it over and it was free, I my-seaf serjested a few things, i even drew the buttons for the very first BeOS theme

Well then you must not have read my post.

You really need to get a life.

LOL..

Hey Einstein. It's spelled intelligent.

For such an 'intelligent' person that you seem to say you are you're not very bright. My comment regarding contradicting yourself was regarding calling Win2k the complete package and then just a kernel in your next comment when you were comparing Linux to Win2k.

"People who use linux, do not all think they're 'leet"....I never said all, I wouldn't even have said most, if I were to make a comment regarding that I would say there is a fair percentage of users who think exactly that (and show it by posting their arrogant Linux rules, Windows is for drones/sheep messages all over the place).

"I'm glad i get pointed out when i stereo type something, but by all means. go ahead and stereotype s***. I mean, it's 100% ok for you to do it, but kill me if I do.. mmkay."....no-one said it was ok for me to stereotype....i freely admitted the fact that I was stereotyping, but I've 'hung out' in several linux irc channels over the years and I would love for you to tell me that my stereotype was incorrect or invalid on some major point.

"I have seen posts and slashdot that get more technical about different protocols and standards then any betanews post will ever even come close to being."....and what about half the replies in those posts and all the other posts huh?

"The hatred between distro's? Simple. Linux for years has been something that only more advanced technical computer people have been able to use."....what kind of explanation is that??? So there has been this huge hostility between users of the same os because they're all advanced computer users? Their skills and abilities have notihng whatsoever to do with the hostility! A simple answer would be to say that they all have to feel superior and they do that by calling every other distro other than the one they are using crap. That is just a simple answer and may be totally wrong, but you haven't offered any real answer to it. Finally you made no comment regarding the fact that the *BSD community think Linux's security is a joke....wonder why!

"You can say whatever you want about that. But you know it's the truth. Linux is not something mr Joe Average can install and configure."....Well thank you! We can finally put a nail in the coffin of this discussion, you "Mr. Linux", finally admitted that the majority of people on this planet (i.e. out of the 6 or 7 billion we currentl have) CANNOT use linux. So what the hell are you b****ing about? Let those that "CAN" and want to install linux use it, and let the rest of the population experience computers for themselves using an OS they can actually USE. Why do you have a problem with this? Why does it seem that such a large proportion of the Linux community has a problem with this? Are all these people "morons" for not installing Linux becuase it's open-source and therefore that point alone makes it the greatest OS in the universe? Why the hell would a grandma want to install linux so she can email her grandson for? Don't be so idiotic. Linux is not ready for the desktop and until you understand that point you're going to be posting comments regarding those users as being morons. I think you're more of a moron if you install a server OS and use it for a totally different purpose! That's like installing Oracle so that you can design a database for your collection of 3 cd's.....it's called OVERKILL!

"Some Windows2k machines may be stable. I honestly do not know, I've never run Win2k."....yes with no knowledge you freely post comments regarding Win2K being unstable, insecure and buggy. Yes you're entitled to that opinion (we do have free speech after all), but everyone has the right to respond to your opinion (based on no knowledge whatsoever) and call it bulls***.

"And you gave no arguements to my statistics on windows hacked machines, versus *NIX. Or made any mention to the fact of how it is so much harder to create an exploit for a MS released product."...I never realised you wanted me to comment on your 'statistics'....I would love to see those statistics. But before you do, make sure you compare linux to win2k, not freebsd or openbsd or anything else for that matter. As for it being harder to create an exploit for a MS released product...i don't know exactly how true this is, seeing as there are a lot of exploits for windows products, but I would have to admit there would be a lot more for linux. The point however is this.....Is it not BETTER for it to be harder to create exploits for MS products? or any companies products for that matter! Let's be 100% honest here, the only people exploits really serve are script-kiddies (feel free to go back to my comment regarding the 14yr olds here).

"I'll reply to your post as soon as you cover all my points discussed in my previous topic, and actually have a defense to them."...you're kidding right? I apparently only cover some of your points but you covered which ones of mine??? Hypocrite.

Finally understand the fact that Linux is a server OS whereas Windows 2000 is both a desktop and server OS.

OpenBSD has its share of security problems... http://www.openbsd.org/security.html

Nope... File sharing is not installed by default on Windows 98.

In contrast, Linux distros ship will all sorts of file sharing-type daemons running, just waiting to be hacked - ftpd, httpd, nfsd, etc.

Windows NT was _originally developed_ on MIPS! It was not "ported" to that platform.