Linux sucks?

From linuxsucks.com:

"Linux is more of a social phenomenon than a useful OS. It seems to fulfill a deep-seated need in certain geeks and nerds to fiddle endlessly with incredibly arcane trivia on a daily basis just to get basic services to work. Somehow Linux users are convinced that all the alleged power and configurability of Linux is an advantage. Well it's not. I work almost exclusively with Fortune 100 firms who invest 10's of millions in enterprise applications which can make or break them. The last thing they need is a 35 year old OS which has been tarted up with 2500 or so command line utilities and bizarre political ideology. Unix certainly has a place. IBM has gone slightly bonkers recently in supporting Linux. The only reason for this is to counter Microsoft (it will backfire). IBM already has a vastly superior implementation of Unix in the form of AIX.

Most really large systems run on big iron. No flavor of Unix, and certainly not Windows, can provide the 365x24 99.999% uptime that a cluster of 390's, or possibly Compaq/Tandem NonStop, can accomplish with ease.

But, back to the world of smaller systems. Windows 2000 is so vastly superior to Linux in any conceivable situation that it boggles the mind how so many apparently intelligent people have been sucked in by the Linux propaganda machine.

Case in point: Today I installed Oracle 8.1.7 on both Windows 2000 Server and on a RedHat 7.1 box. The Win2K installation went flawlessly and there was no need to consult README files or anything else. I had Oracle running smoothly withing an hour. Linux, on the other hand, was a complete mess. The Oracle installer choked and died several times. After about 6 hours of scouring documentation from Oracle, RedHat and myriad other websites I finally managed to get Oracle partially installed, but Net8 is still completely kaput with no solution in sight.

StarOffice fared somewhat better and it is fairly impressive, although not even remotely as polished and powerful as Office XP.

The video drivers delivered with RedHat do not work properly on the brand new Compaq Proliant I'm using as a test bed. Many, many other things only half work or require extensive reference to documentation (no, I don't want to have to RTFM, I want to play softball with my kids!).

Kylix is pretty cool but in the end it is simply a weak version of Borland's excellent Delphi product. None of the other Linux development tools would be taken seriously by our corporate clients. Linux in general reminds me of my early days when I had to hack through 8086 assembler using an MS-DOS text editor and MASM 5.0. Man I could produce code that was blindingly fast, incredibly memory efficient and I had 100% control over the hardware--far more control than Linux gives you. Trouble is assembly language programming was a huge pain in the arse and nobody in their right mind would do it today. Linux people seem to like the retro stone-age aspects of their pet OS. Well, everybody needs a hobby I suppose. I just prefer skiing and playing hockey to sitting in front of a glowing CRT hacking Perl scripts until my skin starts to turn to pale white cheese.

So, basically Linux sucks. For small systems Win2K is far easier to install and administer, and development environments are light-years ahead.

For the average user Windows XP is 1000% better than any form of Linux. I can only imagine the torture that thousands of parents, girlfriends, relatives and friends are subject to after being convinced by a Linux-loving fanatic to put this mess on their own computers. Guys, if you want to wage pissing contests against each other with your silly little OS go right ahead. But let everybody else get on with normal life.

Ciao."

I KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahaha :fpissed: :3pow: :shootem:

I'd like to see the author of that run some of the things that run on Linux/Unix on Windows 2000 or XP. A personal example I can contend with is running MUDs. ( And here come the flames! ;) ). I've ran muds on both Linux/Unix servers and on Windows. Windows running applications that must make many connections gobbles up so much memory that my computer started sounding like my Grandfather. "Who's in the what where?" Also, let's see a Univeristy have 100 to 10000+ students check email daily on Windows 2000.

....I choose you Blue Screen of Death!....

(Sorry for the Pokemon reference. My sister has it on in the background.)

Linux clearly doesn't suck. I've used it a lot and have never had any reason to complain about it - and I've used Windows about as much and complain about it regularly. Basically, if you're wondering whether or not Linux sucks, just use it - or speak to people who do - and you'll find it doesn't.

People can write anything they like. I can tell you the earth is flat and Windows XP is a good product. Don't worry about it.

- Freon

In the modern world about 98.999% of people have no friggin clue about computers, software, programming etc. For them Linux would suck because it requires horrible things like reading the instructions and understanding what you are doing.
How can we be so cold as to make something that any mongo retard can't just click, click, click, click and do whatever without any clue at all.

98.99999% is a lot (used to be 99.99999%) of people. People who cringed in fear back in the DOS days prior to Windows at the site of a computer. The real problem is that we have enabled a world full of morons to use very sofisticated machines and software with all of this user friendly crap. User friendly == "I want to look like I know what I am doing without understanding any of it, and GOD NO, please don't make me read anything."

Ok I will calm down a little. I guess there are bound to be those loyal to the evil empire and rhetoric.

Hmmmm..... I wonder if they are running IIS .....?

Although I am a beginner user of Linux, I have seen better results using linux on an old junker (200+ mhz, 32 meg of 72 pin SIMMS, old Cirrus Logic PCI video card) than on my Windows machine running at 500 mhz with 192 meg of SDRAM.

Another thing...who here has seen linux crash??? Not me...not even once!

LINUX DOESN'T SUCK!
Plain and Simple.

So :fart: on those who think Linux sucks.

that you mentioned RedHat...so where were the statistics on the "inability" of slak and debian....to accomplish anything with winders...ya need a damn program...and when you install a proggie...reboot reboot reboot....aaaarrrrggggg.....when you write to a floppy...linux has windows beat in speed and reliability....does windows probe the hardware like linux does...please tell me I dont know....can you set your ports open or closed manually without needing a firewall to do it for you...would any sane person set up a winders box as a firewall to a linux box...or would it be better to turn that around....what the hell is the use of a gui? And damn icons? clickety clickety click...makes me sick...i want the program to run knowing that its not going to hang or hit the blue screen of frustration halfway through....arcane? win2k is better? bah humbug

I have seen Linux crash under circumstances which didn't justify it. I think the setup I managed this on was Red Hat Linux 5.0, Kernel 2.0.36, running wu-ftpd 2.6; if you hook up to the FTP server, log in as a normal user, or anonymous (if that's enabled) and issue PASV requests as fast as you can, it causes a kernel panic.

Well, having said that, I still stand by Linux (and that trick doesn't work any more as far as I know, with the latest kernel and a nice FTP daemon).

- Freon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freon
I have seen Linux crash under circumstances which didn't justify it. I think the setup I managed this on was Red Hat Linux

---

Well Ive ran Linux for going on 6 years and I can count on one hand How many times it has crashed.. Windows on the other had I crash about 15 times a day :P So that is another reason I use *Nix.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by psychosquee
Another thing...who here has seen linux crash??? Not me...not even once!
[/B]

---

I've never seen linux crash except when the whole computer went down which was caused by a lightning strike. I agree that we have given everyday Joe's highly advanced software and the ability to use it with a "click-click-click." This brings alot of pro's and con's into the picture. Pros are people can be more productive then ever. Cons are the breeding of script kiddies, morons crashing thousands of dollars of equipment, etc. No one takes the time to figure out why something works. With Linux and Unix you have to have an understanding of what you are doing. Would you drive a car if you had no clue what an engine or alternator was? Some people do! (No offense to those who are car-illiterate). Unix/Linux is like people driving around who moderatly know what to do when their car breaks down on the side of the road. Windows is for those people who have to push the wretched OnStar button. ;)

Quote:

---

Case in point: Today I installed Oracle 8.1.7 on both Windows 2000 Server and on a RedHat 7.1 box. The Win2K installation went flawlessly and there was no need to consult README files or anything else. I had Oracle running smoothly withing an hour. Linux, on the other hand, was a complete mess. The Oracle installer choked and died several times. After about 6 hours of scouring documentation from Oracle, RedHat and myriad other websites I finally managed to get Oracle partially installed, but Net8 is still completely kaput with no solution in sight.

---

Guy who hates Linux because it is too complicated for him has hard time installing software on Linux. Linux to blame, or PEBKAC error? News at 11.

Well I think nullterminator has a point there. I mean I use Linux but it’s a struggle to always go on and read the howto's. Thing is most of the people don’t want to understand anything about their computer all they want is pretty pictures to send a mail or a nice spreadsheet program. And that’s why win2k is so successful. Also in big companies people see machines as a tool not something to get involved in and spend your time on. It’s just a tool to make money with that’s it they also don't care about how to setup and run Linux. And they are not necessarily morons I mean a friend of mine has a PhD in economics and he knows nothing about a computer besides how to play mp3 file on his win98. So I guess what I’m trying to say is that everyone has its own interests likes and dislikes.

Won't need to be constantly looking at -HOWTO files. I mean you should have a clue what you are doing before you install the os. Don't just do it to blend in. That is the biggest mistake you can do. If you don't know what in the hell you are doing in windows, What makes you think you can do any better out of it. :P

I think ive kernel paniced 3 times in 6 years btw.. that really is pretty good stats for any o/s.

Why on earth would someone say Linux sucks? Because they don't know how to use it! The people (like me) who have the working knowledge of it can tell you that by far it is the best platform for Expert users and users who need mucho power. Security-wise, once properly configured, it is hands down the most secure. I have had more Trojans and viruses in a month on Windows than I have had with Linux for the some 9 years I have used it.
People who put it down are not true tec's nor are they even worthy of installing it.
:D

Linux suck??? i dont think so..... i think the problem is that its to complex for your simple mind to work....which is quite funny when you think about it because LINUX IS FRIGGIN EASY TO USE...which must mean your a dumb ass.....:flip:

I think Mr. NullT knows that Linux is a favorite around here and is trying to draw attention to himself.

I'm just curious as to why the site hasn't been defaced yet ;)

Anyway, yeah people wine and complain. If Microsoft dropped dead and Linux ruled the world, people would still complain about how crappy Linux is. There is no pleasing the masses, just let me surf their websites and play their mp3's while we keep the rest of the tech world running. That's the way I look at it. Everyday over 100 people work in the New York city sewers to keep it running, but no ever thanks them. If they all quit, New York would become a big toilet. I tell you, the behind the scenes people never get a break :(

You know what. This man is right to an extent. Linux is a pain in the ass to install. Also why go through ton of command line to do something that someone created a program to do with one click. However it is good to know how things work if you are an IT person like a lot of us. Also having a system that doesn't crash is great. Don't forget that there are people out there who just want to get the job done as simply as possible without having to remember thousands of commands.

You know, it's interesting. I go through this exact discussion with my students. They generally hate the two weeks of unix (solaris 7) and linux (red hat 7) that we throw at them. I remind them however that they have been living in a Microsoft world.

If you go in with assumptions and expect it to be as easy as Windows, that's where things will get frustrating. I've done Oracle installs on Solaris (piece of cake), red hat (couldn't get it working but that is mostly user problem.. I think I did a typo somewhere) and Windows NT (piece of cake but damn, it's a hog).

To blatantly say that one OS "sucks" over another isn't a true statement. I'm not fond of Microsoft but that's mostly due to security holes and the administrator environment that they have allowed to fester. To have admins want to have everything easy and setup in one fell swoop without knowing the OS is just wrong.

The only reason that Unix and Linux are more "secure" is that the admins have to spend more time understanding the system and that is not a bad thing. I installed Linux 7.1 last week, setting it up as a router/firewall. It worked for 3 days and then unexpectedly died. I did a clean re-install. Didn't work. Did a clean re-install without the firewall. Didn't work. Hardware error IMHO. It's not the OS. It's the user. There is something that I haven't figured out and will figure out.

I believe that every OS has its place and does what it WAS DESIGNED to do, well. Keep that in mind. Remember what OSes like NT was designed for: LAN, NOT internet. It came out around the time that Internet was catching on. Of course it would have holes in it. They never conceived it being used the way it was.

Unix/Linux had the internet developed on it. They are great for that kind of thing but do require an admin that understands.

As to why a system crashes, well ranging from hardware to user problems anything could cause that. Reality does show that Windows doesn't like being 24/7 but then again, desktop machines weren't supposed to be 24/7. My Win2K Adv Serv was up and running non-stop for quite a while until I installed a service pack. Then I had to reboot. And it continues to run non-stop. But it is a SERVER. It was designed to be 24/7.

So before slapping that poor innocent OS around, think about what it's being used for and what it was designed for.

nullterminator. ARE YOU BILL GATES??????????????????/

or are you working at Microsoft ?????

It is a great pleasure for AO that someone working at Microsoft is posting to our forums .THANKS MAN.

To those who have made presumptions about nullterminator's stand on this issue:

Are you sure where nullterminator stands on the issue? He copied this article from linuxsucks.com. Is it not possible he is posting it merely to bring the article and website to our collective attention? Where does he express his own opinion on the subject?

The name of the thread suggests he is undecided on the issue, or wants our input: "Linux sucks?". Perhaps he is confused that there would be a website dedicated to such idiocy.

I suggest you ask his opinion before you flame him for it.

I believe my area of expertise will be different from the majority of users on this site. I deal in large scale network management systems dealing application performance analysis and network forensics.

To me computers are a profession not a hobby, this means they are entirely functional pieces of hardware. The system that does what I want with the minimal fuss is the system that gets used.

For all my desktop general-purpose stuff it has to be Windows, it works with everything and it’s easy.

For analysis of High-speed networks, the platform I use is a Free BSD variant that has been heavily customized to offer the high performance required to analyse Gigabit speed + networks.

I feel that the issue here is very technical people have the habit of getting very engrossed in very specific areas. Unix people stick with Unix, Mac people with Macs and so on, different operating systems are specialized for different things.

If you wish to implement a budget custom system, Linux is a good platform to build around. However I don’t care what performance increase Linux offers on a low end desktop, the difficulty of use is to great to justify when the cost of a high spec Windows PC is so low.

I can’t see Linux moving from a niche market for the next couple of years as it is to bloody difficult to use.

I don't think that Linux sucks... but I don't think that Windows sucks either... I believe that really they are for different purposes.. (please no-one make a comment about Windows turning you computer into an effective paperweight)..

I believe that Windows is a perfect system to start off with.. it is a easy to use ( I say this lightly, Win, as all OS's can be a bitch) and unintimidating... It allows you time to learn to understand how your computer works, gain understanding of principles of operation...

Linux on the other hand is rather intimidating, and can be quite hard to use.. but it is a learning leap, and a rewarding... Windows handles manages nearly all the computer for you... Linux gives you back that control.....

I use Windows 2000 Advanced Server.. its stable, meets my needs, and I'm quite happy with it.. I want to move onto linux shortly. I just don't have time to read all the How-To's and stuff... I have installed Linux 6 times on my computer... all six times, I encountered a problem which, even for all my research couldn't find a solution to, and I had to revert to Windows because I needed my computer to do my studies...

Linux does not suck.
Nor does Windows.
They serve different purposes(levels if you would)...

Give me lines about Windows being horribly unstable, but hey, Microsoft is getting better at making their software stable..
Both OS crash... its a undeniable fact....

Give me lines about Windows being horribly insecure... I show you some statistics I read on another security site a while back, showing linux not far behind Windows for vulnerabilities discovered in that year.. *if you want to see these, I can find them but it will take some time*

*realises he's rambling*
I'm gonna stop now...

Linux is my primary OS of choice for PERSONAL computing. Want to see it crash? Put Oracle 9ias on it and try to make gig worth of queries. Solaris 8 my friend.

dedicated to ms mittens

Quote:

---

[i]
I can?t see Linux moving from a niche market for the next couple of years as it is to bloody difficult to use. [/B]

---

First (before the flame cometh) I am glad to hear that you use FreeBSD. At "MY" large corporation we have benchmarked them all and FreeBSD came out the overall winner. If I am something of a Linux advocate, then I am definitely a FreeBSD zealot.

I couldn't help but notice how near sighted that remark about Linux on the desktop was. A couple of points if I may:

- Not long ago there was DOS, and joe user cringed in fear at that too. Then came Win3.1, and then Win95 and every since the common fool has been able to to a half dozen things on a computer.

- I take it that you have not followed the Linux thing for very long. It was only 6 years ao that I installed my first copy of Slackware via a huge pile O' floppies. Back then there were only 7 usenet groups that really even talked about Linux.

- Linux has been used in so many different ways. Embedded systems, Servers, Desktops etc.
It was used for the graphics in Jurrasic Park, Titanic, and others, and that is probably where it is making it's mos notable growth. The high end graphic design market.

- Linux and FreeBSD and rapidly replacing Windows on the desktop in the education sector (Grammer through University) in places like Japan, Europe, and korea. Much of how people feel about Windows is because they may have only been using computers for about 6 or less years and know nothing else.

- Expect the toatlly unexpected from Linux. And remember that it is not one person or a small group, but people all over the world with unique ideas and needs for and end user product. I had no idea 6 years ago it would be where it is today. I don't even care to guess where it will be in 6 more years.

Linux does take a little extra time (and brains) to understand and configure. But once you start to get the hang of it the rewards far out way those of running a Windoze box.

As the saying goes "Build a system a fool can use and only a fool will use it."

I think that should be the start up screen for all Winblows OS.

My win98se computer has only crashed once, and that was a stupid hardware mistake that I made. The only other time that my computer went down for any period was after I installed linux. I am not bashing linux, in fact I still have high hopes for running a linux only system, but for now win98se will work. As for stability, the longest I have ever had my computer on without rebooting is 53 days(I had to turn it off to test some new hardware). Right now I am only 14 days into this run due to a blotched linux install.

Linux Sucks huh ?

That must be the reason ISP's use it for all their NMM and Mailing needs.

That must be the reason Shrek was renderd on 80% linux boxes and the SGI's are piled outside.

That must be the reason checkpoint claims 20% preformance gains on linux.

I guess one oracle setup says it all ..... :rolleyes:

linuxsucks.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) madna/1.34 anses/1.10 FrontPage/5.0.0.0 mod_ssl/2.6.6 OpenSSL/0.9.6a on FreeBSD

I would think someone giving so much praise to win2k would atleast use it to host their site.

[email protected]

LOL. So is linuxsucks.org: The site linuxsucks.org is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) PHP/4.0.6 on Linux.

Interestingly, windowssucks.com running Apache on Linux and microsoftsucks.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000

If you want to find out what a site is running go to: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/

Nifty little site. ;)

Well I've never used linux but im about to try it out. I have to agree with buddy who said that windows was "user friendly", I perfer to say pretty. But the whole thing with windows is, that those 98.999999% people that dont know anything about computers, software or hardware, all have windows. They have no idea what is under the interface.

Technology is suppose to make your life better not more complicated, that is why every one uses (meaning bussinesses and families) use one OS, because it is easy to go from one computer to the next and just click a welcoming start button.

The reason im thinking about switching over is for one......... the crashs....... two, i want something new......... three i want to know what all the hype is about.

Remember this, most people get on computers for
1) work
2) porno
3) entertainment (love chating etc..........)
4) gaming

Who cares about protection and OS (other than us)? Its all about how will this benifit me.....


How much would linux cost by the way (red hat?)

opppssss wrong jpg.......... this one i ment.........

(now don't flame me for this, but: )Windows is excellent. That is, if your only a normal person who just wants to surf the web or write docs, spreadsheets, etc., or play games. Windows is made for people like that. Linux on the other hand, as stated by most here, is for the more advanced users who want alot if not total control of their system. It's purpose is to provide more power to the user who actually know's what they're doing.

The point is, if you only going to use it for normal stuff and don't really care how it works, get windows, but if you do/want to know how it works, and you want more control than windows, get linux (or some other non-windows OS).

That guy is funny. I have been running Unix and Linux servers for a long time. I also had the opportunity of running NT/2000 servers. Out of all this time I never had to reinstall Unix or Linux.

"Most really large systems run on big iron. No flavor of Unix, and certainly not Windows"

Really large corporations DO run a Flavour of Unix. (IBM AIX is huge in the Banking industry.) I think they qualify for large. Just a few thousand dumb terminals.

How about the Railways ? They are kinda large. They run IBM and AIX. (the ones that I have personal knowledge of)

And the Steamship Lines ? With worldwide offices ?

I can go on, if you like to medium sized companies.

And, (chuckle) ever seen the OS/2 boot disk for a bank machine ?

i like linux because
1. it is free:)
2. it is kewl (i.e. fool-unfriendly)
3. it is free:)
4. most of the programs for it is free
5. it is free:)
6. it is as powerful as unix (i.e. better than windows)
6. last of all, it is free:D

Free is good. Linux is free. Therefore, Linux is good... even though I paid for my copy... which I felt the makers of my distribution deserved.

-Mandrake 7.1 User

Quote:

---

Free is good. Linux is free. Therefore, Linux is good

---

I dont like that logic. Somebody gave me a free ass kicking once, but that didn't make it good. Also you can get a good product for free, but you can get a great product when you spend money. Nobody ever complains that hardware costs money. I think all hardware should be free. Intel is a big greedy company that should give me their processors for free.


FREE HARDWARE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!
DOWN WITH INTELSLOTH!!!!!!