Slashdot Mirror
Linux Has Better Windows Compatibility Than Vista
Several readers have written to tell us about one users rant in which he tells the story of being so frustrated with gaming on Windows Vista that he tried comparing gaming on Vista to that on Linux using Wine, with surprising results. "This post is clearly a bit biased. What shocked me though was how easy it was to find games that didn't run under Vista but did in Linux by using Wine or DOSBox. I'm not a huge gamer, so I don't have a huge collection of games to try out, but even still with just a few hours of frustrating work, I have been able to show that not only is Linux a reasonable alternative to Vista for gaming (XP is still king though), but also that Linux handles application failures more gracefully than Vista. Every game but Blackthorne crashed my Vista box, this didn't happen a single time under Linux."
What's the deal with people having vista compatibility problems? It's like malware, and any computer problems at all- everyone else gets it but if you do things right and don't break stuff, you'll never have problems. Ever thought "HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO GET SPYWARE?" well--- same thing for vista problems. Just don't go into it expecting an 8 year old operating system - XP - and you'll be fine.
How about we mod you -1:Flamebait instead? At least the author admits the article is "a bit biased".
On the other hand you're saying it ISN'T news for nerds that games built to run on a prior version of Windows don't work in new one but do work on a totally different operating system?
Let me guess. You don't think it's news that newer versions of Office won't open old word documents but Open Office will.
Don't get me wrong, the choice of games (besides perhaps Civ 4) is questionable, but make no mistake YOU are the one trolling. The author of the blog article has a point.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"the guy" suggested that an entire article didn't belong on /. and should be modded flamebait and "the other guy" pointed out that this was news to geeks and shouldn't be censored. You may wish to consider trying not to sound like a bubblegum chewing teenager when you summarize a discussion. At least use "one poster" and "another poster" instead of "the guy" and "the other guy".
Time for me to "yell" "YOU TROLL" at you instead?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"Its you screaming 'TROOOOOOLL' at fairly reasonably points and then crying when people call you a troll because you've shown little to no interest in debating the content of the article, only the way that the OP is arguing."
The opening poster was interested in debating the content of the article???? That's news to me. The opening poster wanted it censored as flamebait, which is what I objected to. Get a clue.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Which is sadly not very much, except for name calling.
Name calling? Well if you're going to accuse me of it, might as well do the crime. MORON!
My point was that the article is newsworthy. When you call for it to be "modded flamebait" and tell me that it's "not newsworthy" you're saying it doesn't belong on slashdot and are calling for its censorship here. There is no other interpretation, and denying it makes no sense. To throw one of your own supposedly "civilized" insults back at you "Please don't tell me that did not get that?"
By the way getting other people to post as anonymous and or mod things flamebait is incredibly immature. You must be one prize to deal with in person. Thankfully I am unlikely to ever have that pleasure.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
fairly reasonably points ...and... only the way that the OP is arguing.
The only thing that the OP has argued is that the article should be suppressed, preventing any further discussion.
Also, it's "pray", not "prey".
Actually it's spelt "anal retentive grammar nazi poser". When I want an English lesson I'll go hire a teacher you rude little man.
This isn't a formal business letter, it's a message board, on which you'll find plenty of typos, spelling mistakes, and errors in grammar. These discussions occur at all hours of the day and night and are casual. Small errors rarely take away from the argument and are usually only pointed out by petty gits who wish to offer these errors as some kind of proof that they're superior (usually when they have nothing better to say).
When did I say that?
When did you tell me to shut up? Lets see you're accusing me of showing no interest in debating the content of the article, but you object to me telling someone not to call for it to be suppressed (aka "modded flamebait"). In other words you don't want to hear that I don't like someone asking for it to be suppressed. What is there to not understand here exactly?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer