Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft, recently referred to Linux as a cancer.
This is incorrect - Linux was released on August 25th, 1991, and is therefore a virgo.
Yours in constellation space
Negative
Printable View
Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft, recently referred to Linux as a cancer.
This is incorrect - Linux was released on August 25th, 1991, and is therefore a virgo.
Yours in constellation space
Negative
I think you have a lil too much time on your hands Negative, but it makes for some enjoyful readings :D
I'm having two weeks off.Quote:
I think you have a lil too much time on your hands Negative
Francis Bacon was found guilty of corruptly having accepted money in 1621. That was 24 years after having finished his Meditationes Sacrae. He should have known better :pQuote:
Knowledge is power - Francis Bacon
LoL.
LoL.
LoL.
erm.... oh yes that was funny. LoL
LoL
LoL
It brought a tear to my eye.
LoL.:D :D
:D
:D
:D
:D
Secondly I'd like to kill anyone who puts linux down.
:D
Actually, X, Y, and Z, would be 60° only if X=Y=Z.Quote:
__________________
Consequential Equations
--------------------------------
If X , Y , Z are = angles of a triangle ;
then X , Y , Z = 60*
If God was a programmer;
then he would be using a Linux box.
The only rule all-the-time-rule-for-a-triangle would be that (internal angles) X+Y+Z=180.
If God was a programmer, he would, and presumably does use, Universe++, which is only compilable onto a system running the SpaceTime Infinity processor, which only runs RealityOS.
Hey Terr, you know Mr. Escher ?Quote:
Consequential Equations
--------------------------------
If X , Y , Z are = angles of a triangle ;
then X , Y , Z = 60*
If God was a programmer;
then he would be using a Linux box.
And if God is a programmer, he sure forgot to debug his stuff.
Komodo? Hmm.... I know a komodo....
Yeah, me too. Peep this ****!
I am already well-aware of the tricks that have been played by the brilliant Mr. Escher...
But I would point out that they violate no law, since they are 2-dimensional objects which merely trick us into thinking they are a 2-d representation of a perspective of a 3d object.
And yes, I know what a Komodo Dragon is... but how did that get into the discussion?
Ah, I just noticed something...
I think I see the logic, but the phrasing is VERY misleading.Quote:
If X , Y , Z are = angles of a triangle ;
then X , Y , Z = 60*
"If X,Y,Z are (equal to EACH OTHER and are) angles of a triangle"
is not the same as
"If X,Y,Z (represent, symbolize, are equal to) angles of a triangle."
Actually there are triangles that can have less that 180* or more than 180* they were developed by gauss and some other guy independantly, I can't remember the second guy. imagine a *striaght* line on the surface of the earth is actually quite curved in 3d space, thus a *straight* triangle in 2d space taken from a 3d impose of a triangle would be greater than 2pi radians. one on the inside of a "saddle" would be less than one.Quote:
Originally posted by Terr
Actually, X, Y, and Z, would be 60° only if X=Y=Z.
The only rule all-the-time-rule-for-a-triangle would be that (internal angles) X+Y+Z=180.
If God was a programmer, he would, and presumably does use, Universe++, which is only compilable onto a system running the SpaceTime Infinity processor, which only runs RealityOS.
Gotta love geometry don't ya?
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that if you map a triangle onto a globe, you can get three 90° angles, and other weird things.
But unless explicitly stated, I'm working in pure 2-d mode. :)
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that if you map a triangle onto a globe, you can get three 90° angles, and other weird things.
But unless explicitly stated, I'm working in pure 2-d mode. :)
gaussian mathematics = evil
..anyway, back to the original topic.. Linux is a cancer..
Don't get me wrong. It's all I use. I have a Windows2K AS system that does nothing but browse the web and play MP3s. My point is, Linux is getting to the point where there are so many different distributions that there are starting not to be coherent UNIX standards anymore. With a different distirbution focusing on different aspects, and most straying to the point of making it "simple" by rewriting things that reuire basic UNIX functionality, Linux is going to fall on it's face in a few years.
Open Source is good, to a point, but come on, when is enough enough? When will people realize the more they change osmething the less likely it is to produce a quality product. We all remember kernel < 2.2.18 with it's module loading vulnerability. I mean give me a break.. Linux needs to be more centralized.
Not sure i agree with your point about linux falling flat of its face in a few years jparker, imho linux is going to come into its own within a few years. All these automated features which you seem to dislike so much are there to help the less knowledgable get thier machines up and running and performing the tasks they need thier pc to do with the minimal hassle, certainly these features add bloat and will give a performance hit but it gets the job done. Imagine asking joe public to sit at an AIX or HP-UX machine and perform some rudimentary task such as send a few emails or type up a document - he wouldn't know where to start. Now sit the same person at a mandrake box running a decent window manager and he stands at least half a chance.
I also remember reading in one of your other posts about speed differences - whats your frame of reference?
Lastly, if your using w2k to only surf and play mp3's - why? whats wrong with xmms? not to mention the plethora of browsers available for *nix. I use w2k myself, but only for things i can't do in linux (yet), things like cubase and reason.
[QUOTE
If God was a programmer, he would, and presumably does use, Universe++, which is only compilable onto a system running the SpaceTime Infinity processor, which only runs RealityOS. [/B][/QUOTE]
hmmz...
Can't find reality.sys.. universe halted... ?
oew!
Those morons at M$ only want more money, and that is why they are now trying to choke out the next thing that can compete against them! They FEAR Linux, they FEAR them greatly.
That's just it.. My Window's box is useless. XMMS rocks my multimedia needs.
My idea that open source, which was the great levelitator of Linux will ultimately be it's demise is based on the fact that Linux's standards are slowly being lost. I wish I had the link to some changes that have been made in the UNIX community, that have long since been standards, that have recently changed to accomidate the ever-loosely connected Linux dstirbutions.
As for "joe public" Linux isn't a desktop OS. Everyone seems to be forgetting this. Linux's roots, no matter what "desktop functions" it can do, is still a multi-user network operating system. It's not meant for "joe public". It's meant for "joe public's system admin" to run. Someone with knowledge of concepts and ideas on how to manage a multi-user system.
If Joe Public has a sincere interest in running Linux, something other than "cuz w1nbl0wz sux" than by all means, he'll learn to navigate the seemingly complex interface of a UNIX based machine. During this time, there is a trial to see if his will to learn something new is sincere. If it is, he'll succeed, if it's not, then he'll get frustrated and drop it like a hot rock.
Thinks like KDE as a WM, or the entire Mandrake dist are a slap int he face to experienced UNIX users. We fought hard back int he early days of Linux to learn what we know now. The power of this operating system is not it's ease of use, and THAT is what Window's users are trying to take from Linux.
..as I was posting this, another guy posted something that specifically proved my point..
"Those morons at M$ only want more money, and that is why they are now trying to choke out the next thing that can compete against them! They FEAR Linux, they FEAR them greatly."
Linux cannot compete with Windows, nor is it trying to. Flakey UNIX-rookies are the ones creating this hostility between the mainstream corporate OS, and Linux.
UNIX has it's uses, Windows has it's uses (for some people).. Can't we just leave it at that?
Okay,
I totally disagree that open-source ruins linux,
because of it, the same day that a bug is discovered,
a fix is written. The Linux side of my box is only about
100000x more stable then my windows side,
and the windows side of this box if probably the most
stable windows box ive seen.
One time i wrote a self-spawning program, and had like,
100000 processes running or somthing crazy like that,
and my box was fine. You can DOS your box, send the CPU
to 100%, and still use it fine.
I dare any of you to run 100000 processes on
a windows box, haha, itd practically explode.
If linux was easier to set up, and easier to use once it was,
then there would be no windows.
-8trak
Long live linux!!!
Yeah, yeah, yeah... 100.000 processes? What system are you on? The Asci White? A Cray? I know what you mean, but can you please keep it a little more realistic? I'm pretty sure the number of processes you can run on any box depends on the processor, more than on the OS...Quote:
One time i wrote a self-spawning program, and had like,
100000 processes running or somthing crazy like that,
and my box was fine. You can DOS your box, send the CPU
to 100%, and still use it fine.
I dare any of you to run 100000 processes on
a windows box, haha, itd practically explode.
Actually,
The multitasking is controlled by the OS, not the processor. Hence making it the fault of the OS if resource exaustion occurs. The OS can deny resources to processes deemed redundant, while maintaining higher-priority processes such as a root prompt.
-8trak
I didn't say the multitasking is controlled by the processor, I said the number of processes you can run on any box depends on the processor, more than on the OS. What I meant by that is the simple fact that a faster processor gets more work done in the same time...
And multitasking...
Multitasking means that processes are carried out at the same time. That of course is not possible with only one processor. It may look like multitasking, but it isn't, I hope you can agree on that one. So if the OS wants to 'pretend' it's multitasking, it has to call in its processor management to tell the processor to switch between processes.
WinNT uses pre-emptive switching, meaning one process being carried out is forced to leave the processor for another process. Unix also uses pre-emptive switching. This in condradiction to co-operative switching, where a process being carried out voluntary leaves the processor for another task (Win 9x, OS2).
Then there's the problem of scheduling: which process first? There are two things that are desirable from a good scheduling system: make sure each process gets a share of the CPU and
keep the CPU busy 100% of the time.
Scheduling in DOS isn't even an option, since each process has to run to completion before another task can resume.
A Windows 3.1 application can take out another task, but it can only bring down the other Windows 3.1 applications that are running. That's not that bad, but it could be better.
Then there's the Windows 32-bit applications. They each run in their own protected memory space. No Windows 32-bit application can crash another because it does not have access to that other application's memory (of course, there are 'applications' that deliberately violate this). There's also the problem called 'trashing', meaning the system is using more CPU cycles to swap between processes rather than actually running those processes.
And *nix? There's a scheduler that periodically looks at what processes are doing and adjusts the priority of those processes: the longer a process runs, the lower its priority becomes, and processes that have been denied the use of the CPU for a long time become priority.
I agree with you when you say that it's the fault of the OS if resource exaustion occurs. Win32bit has its flaws, but so does *nix: *nix doesn't maintain processes because they have higher priority, it actually 'punishes' long-running processes. And that's its strength, I guess.
Hehe, you made me stay up until 5 am, but that's ok: I actually learned something tonight!
I believe ....and i am seldom wrong...if ever...that the maximum number of processes able to run on most if not all *nix boxes is 65,535.
After that, without the patch to handle it, the system crashes. With the patch it still can only run 65,535 processes at any time.
Alright,
It was already established that i was exagerating when i said 100000 processes, i dont know why you would bring that up again.
The fact of the matter is that It is much harder to cause a windows system to lock up, or become sluggish then it is to do the same to a linux box.
Try using a DoS that works on any os, like any type of fragmentation re-assembly problem. On a windows box your mouse can freeze in place, while your mp3's continue playing for some retarded reason. There's priorities for ya!
However, the same attack on a linux box, (assuming that it's not a total peice of trash) wont give the same effect.
I tried just this, over a network, and found that while my windows box froze in place until the attack was halted, the linux side of the same computer was quite alright, the cpu utilization went to 100, and the drives seemed to be randomly seeking for some possibly un-related reason, but i remained quite in control of my box.
-8trak
P.S. The EDVAC that i used to do that test could run more then 66536 processes,
haha, im only kidding for those of you that cant tell.
I generally avoid picking holes in other peoples statements, it usually serves no purpose, but i thought the number of processes on a linux box was limited by the task vector, which is, by default, set to 512.
Is this not the case?
Ah yes,
Take a look at FAT!!!!
Fat12, 16, 32, whatever one, i dont care!
know why?! because they all suck!
How often do you have to defrag your linux drive!?
NEVER!!! why??! because EXT2FS is written properly!
Windows is tied to a single company which could fail, look at Union Carbide!
Linux doesnt have that problem!
In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs. for example, tryto make windows find files starting with T, sort them chronologically and have it all done on wednesday morning at 3:00.
Do it without writing a new program.
In linux it would be rather easy by comparison.
And Processes dont get punished by how long they have been running!!! They get punished by how long they have been idle!
Which makes complete sence!
Linux can be set up with routing! Enough said!
Windows is restricted completely by legacy dos hardware emulation. Linux of course is not.
Linux is open-source, this is just self-explanitory, it allows you to
modify the operating system as you choose.
Linux allows you to directly control the hardware, you can
ls > /dev/dsp and your current directory will come out your speakers, this illustrates full control.
You dont have to wait months and months for bug fixes, and you defiently wont have to pay for them with linux.
And to the multiprocessing comment,
Multitasking is defined as quickly switching between tasks to concurrently perform operations. It has nothing to do with the amount of processors.
Multiprocessing has nothing to do with multitasking, infact, if your running 2 processes on a dual processor system, then your actually not multi-tasking, your multi processing.
If you think that multitasking means that, then you must not understand how processors actually work.
Processors have to run serially, they have no idea where the data is destined, they only know what order the processes lay in the stack.
-8trak
No, the 65536 task limit is a programming decision,
only 16 bits are assigned to the PID,
hence the problem.
you should never want more tasks then that,
-8trak
Guess the multitasking definition depends on the source you're quoting from. From your point of view, of course you're right... I've had lots of discussions about 'multitasking' on several newsgroups: lots of people agreed with me, lots of people agreed with you... But I can live with your point of view...Quote:
Multitasking is defined as quickly switching between tasks to concurrently perform operations. It has nothing to do with the amount of processors.
I sourced that definiton from my head,
but it appears that Webster.com, whatis.com, search solaris, and
yes, this website's definition under hacker jargon say that multitasking is simply the process of performing multiple tasks at one given time.
By your definition, you can only have as many concurrent tasks as you have processors, but there is a problem with this as well, because multiple processors multitask exactly the same as one processor does.
Lets consider that having two processors is no different then having a single processor of twice the complexity. (this is not true in actuality, but only in theory) One processor performing a 64 bit calculation is EXACTLY the same as two processors makng two seperate 32 bit calculations. This only applies if code was actually compiled this way, but it makes sence to think this way because definitions of terms are completely theoretical as well.
So what does it mean to have two processors?
Do they have to be in seperate packages?
I think not. In fact. I think it is completely accurate to say that
a 8 bit 8088 is actually two 4 bit processors that happen to be connected in the same die and package.
By this method of thinking, it cant be possible that two processors is required to multitask, because two processors is truly not different then 1 of double the bus width.
Multitasking is simply the process of saving the state of the processor, and switching it between several other saved states to provide concurrent operation of un-related tasks.
On a slightly un-realated but still interesting topic,
It is because of this that having large amounts of cache no longer makes any sence, because during multi-tasking the stack is dumped, and hence, the entire cache is lost. Therefore, if the processor cannot completely empty it's cache before the tasks are switched, then you have more cache memory then makes sence, and will get no performance increase while multitasking.
-8 trak
I differ greatly with what 8trak said.
FAT is actually faster than EXT2FS if the drive was defraged recently. EXT2FS becomes much better relative to FAT as writes and rewrites go on. If I had to recommend a static server drive..say for backup purposes then FAT would be the best. But for everyday heavy usage then it inhales violently.
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement!Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
Ah yes,
Take a look at FAT!!!!
Fat12, 16, 32, whatever one, i dont care!
know why?! because they all suck!
No, but the downside is that Linux lacks the same amount of standardization. What would Linux do if Linus died suddenly? :DQuote:
Windows is tied to a single company which could fail, look at Union Carbide!
Linux doesnt have that problem!
It depends on who wrote the programs, just like in *nix!! Some people add command-line functionality, some don't! As for moving data you have a backup.... copy... paste...Quote:
In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs. for example, tryto make windows find files starting with T, sort them chronologically and have it all done on wednesday morning at 3:00.
Do it without writing a new program.
In linux it would be rather easy by comparison.
As for finding all files starting with T (I ASSUME you mean the filename) and sorting them chronologically (Last modified, or Created?) and having them done on Wednesday Morning at 3:00...
At 2:45... Click Start. Click Find. Click "Files or Folders", enter in 'T*', click SEARCH, when done, click the 'Last Modified' tab.
'sence' makes no sense. Furthermore, if they are Idle so much, why should they be forced to be 'Idle-er' when they are not fully Idle?Quote:
And Processes dont get punished by how long they have been running!!! They get punished by how long they have been idle!
Which makes complete sence!
What about Windows NT/2000? Legacy Dos? It just emulates dos.Quote:
Windows is restricted completely by legacy dos hardware emulation. Linux of course is not.
Linux isn't limited by legacy dos, of course, silly. It's limited by conventions of *nix, because it is based on it, and if you changed it too much people would say it wasn't linux.
I suppose you *could* set up an OS which uses two processors, each handling a different program, neither program interacting with each other. (Add RAID arrays... hmm...) Hence, you are running two tasks at once. The word 'Multi-tasking' makes sense in that context, if freed from encumbering connotations from early computers. Who says they both must be working on the same program? They *can*, but could be made to work independently as well. Each processor is not multitasking, but as a unit, the computer and OS are multitasking...Quote:
By your definition, you can only have as many concurrent tasks as you have processors, but there is a problem with this as well, because multiple processors multitask exactly the same as one processor does.
EDIT: Fixed quotes and bold tags
That's interesting. He refers to Linux as a cancer, but it's HIS company that has the PC market by the balls. Can you say "hypocrite"?
Supporting data? Do you think fat is a good file system? Maybe you could supply some supporting data to that statement.Quote:
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement!
Do you really think the os linux is entirely reliant on linus torvalds? Don't be ridiculous.Quote:
No, but the downside is that Linux lacks the same amount of standardization. What would Linux do if Linus died suddenly?
What are these "conventions of *nix" that linux is limited by - explain please.Quote:
Linux isn't limited by legacy dos, of course, silly. It's limited by conventions of *nix, because it is based on it, and if you changed it too much people would say it wasn't linux.
Or you *could* use solaris/aix/hp-ux - the word "Multi-tasking" makes sense in that context.Quote:
I suppose you *could* set up an OS which uses two processors, each handling a different program, neither program interacting with each other. (Add RAID arrays... hmm...) Hence, you are running two tasks at once. The word 'Multi-tasking' makes sense in that context, if freed from encumbering connotations from early computers. Who says they both must be working on the same program? They *can*, but could be made to work independently as well. Each processor is not multitasking, but as a unit, the computer and OS are multitasking...
I assumed that that statement required no explination,Quote:
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement
As mcevoy said, do you really think FAT is a good filesystem?
Take a look at fragmentation on a *nix box compared to a windows box.
Alright... this entire statement is insane.Quote:
As for finding all files starting with T (I ASSUME you mean the filename) and sorting them chronologically (Last modified, or Created?) and having them done on Wednesday Morning at 3:00... At 2:45... Click Start. Click Find. Click "Files or Folders", enter in 'T*', click SEARCH, when done, click the 'Last Modified' tab.
Have you ever heard of automation?
Of course you can perform those operations if your at the computer... haha...
As for the command line comment...
No windows programs can be usefully piped.
Unless you want all of the text output from a program to be piped into another program...
which is totally useless...
As for the multitasking comment...
The true definition of multitasking states that no extra hardware is used. It's the idea of performing multiple tasks by quickly switching the processor's state.
And this raid-array comment... What were you smoking?
Ever hear of RAM???
Whether or not your concurrently reading from multiple harddrives has nothing to do with multitasking.
And who says that i can't concurrently operate drives without a raid array anyways??
What if i have my cd-drive playing as well, that **** doesnt even touch your processor, how can you say that im not performing multiple tasks then???
Not that it matters, seeing as though none of that has anything to do with multitasking.
-8trak
Did I say I wasn't a hypocrite for occasionally saying vehement comments to a derogatory nature without saying much about why I mean them? I'm just as hypocritical as everyone else.Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
I assumed that that statement required no explination,
As mcevoy said, do you really think FAT is a good filesystem?
What, it works, doesn't it? Windows is doing exactly what you said without any new programs! :DQuote:
Alright... this entire statement is insane.
Quote:
Have you ever heard of automation?
Of course you can perform those operations if your at the computer... haha...
You didn't mention that before, so hah! :D
You could always make one that took a command-line arguement to start in a console mode! For instance, many game servers can be started up in a text-only manner. As I said, it depends on who writes the program. Define "Windows Programs", all programs the run under windows? Wrong. Part of the OS? Then in a sense, it isn't a program, is it? It's part of the operating system.Quote:
As for the command line comment...
No windows programs can be usefully piped.
Uhm... What did you have in mind? You said: "In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs."... and now you say that piping text output from one into another is useless? Which statement do you mean? You are making a big deal that most programs running on Windows don't do it, and then say that it is useless to do? :confused:Quote:
Unless you want all of the text output from a program to be piped into another program...
which is totally useless...
And how would you know exactly what I was thinking by saying: "RAID Arrays... hmmm...."? I was just verbalizing my thoughts. Did I say you needed them? Did I say they would be necessary? What *did* I say that you are reacting to?Quote:
And this raid-array comment... What were you smoking?
Ever hear of RAM???
Quote:
What if i have my cd-drive playing as well, that **** doesnt even touch your processor, how can you say that im not performing multiple tasks then???
Actually, that might depend... What are you doing with that data on the CD? MOST audio cards nowadays have the little card<->cd cable to bypass any processing, but what if you are using a program to play the music, say, WinAmp? Are you going to tell me that isn't using your processor? What interprets your keystrokes or mouseclicks into commands to change the track, or to access a certain file on the CD (depending on type)? "How can you say that the processor is not being used then?" :confused:
:confused:
I said that no graphical programs can be piped, this is true.
The command line comment was for command line programs!
Alright, so im mentioning automation now!
God dammit man, you must have known what i meant!
Why do you ask questions that you ovbiously already know the answer to?
Also, I stated earlier that the 3:00 in the morning problem was to be done without any new programs.
and mabey i want to find files containg the word internet, or somthing or the like. In *nix, i could just use grep.
Not that it even matters, because that was just an example of some of the little things that make *nix more useful, and less of a pain.
You can play a cd without the rest of your computer.
Cd drives have handled their own audio since they became common. The programs have nothing/ very little to do with audio output from the CD drive.
If I'm playing a Cd, my processor could catch on fire, and as long as my power supply stayed on, the cd would keep playing.
Those programs do almost nothing.
-8trak
But there *are* graphical programs that can be started in a command-line mode, and you could certainly code one so that it dumps or recieves input from certain text files...Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
I said that no graphical programs can be piped, this is true.
The command line comment was for command line programs!
But you concede that the processor *does* do CD-related work?Quote:
You can play a cd without the rest of your computer.
Cd drives have handled their own audio since they became common. The programs have nothing/ very little to do with audio output from the CD drive.
Whew! Can you hear that. Yeah that screeching noise. Oh, you want to know what it is huh. Well that is just the firealarm going off over your computer. Seems to me we have a flame war on our hands.
Why cant we all just get along and share IT security tips and advice like good little children.
Besides everything has a purpose or it would not be used, unless it is something strange like those spindles that can hold 50 CD-Rs when you only bought 30. Whats with that? Or that little indent on the back side of a floppy just above the labeling area to the right, bet you never noticed that before. FAT doesn't suck it just has it's purpose, just like windows. Hey even lamer newbies have a purpose. They are targets for more knowledgeable people to pick on about their total lack of cerebral function so the real hackers don't go around writing destructive virii to vent.