Um, you'd do better if you weren't to target me directly as being a windows admin who doesn't know my job. That just pisses me off because it's personal, and there's no need for it.
As for your recent dealings with windows, you have proven beyond a doubt that you do not know enough about windows to be administering it.
1) Discrediting XP based on the fact that you had issues using it as a gaming machine. Did all those games run with no problem on Linux? Or did you first have to ensure that you had suitable, stable drivers for everything on your system and that the game was available for that platform? It's the most stable gaming platform MS has ever developed, and there are actually a couple million XBox users out there who will back me up on this even though I wouldn't touch an XBox with a ten foot pole.
2) Mouse interaction in MS windows is just different than in X. Why would you just expect MS windows to automatically focus on hover? Oh, you've made an assumption about windows. How many more assumptions have you made? (BTW, there is an activate-focus-on-hover setting, and another to determine how long you must hover for this to occur.)
Thanks for the well rounded and level headed reply. Actually I agree with everything you have to say there. Being a windows user, I'm in a position to really know what is wrong with windows, and what can go wrong with windows. I also know it doesn't have to be that way.
The only thing that pisses me off is that by admitting to being a windows user here, I wave all rights to be any different than any other windows user. I never have, and never would do that to someone posting about the merits of linux.
This is what I get tired of: Someone posts information about linux, how it works well in this situation to solve this problem in this way etc. I read it and happily absorb the information. I would never dream of responding by saying something like "Why would you use linux when windows does this too?". That's pretty fucking ignorant because it would be suggesting that the poster is wrong (or worse) for using linux.
Unfortunately, if one post anything good about windows, this is _exactly_ how one gets treated.
I don't mind bitching about windows, I do it too. So do linux users, though usually about lack of drivers for video card x etc.
I HATE however being treated like an ignorant pissant just for suggesting that someones view of windows in a particular area is wrong.
This I would _really_ like someone to comment on: Somewhere back up this thread, someone used the fact that Unreal tournament 2004 didn't run well on their IBM Thinkpad R40, blamed it on windows, and stated that installing linux was the solution.
How come when I refuted with just a tiny bit of reality, basically shooting that argument to bits, I got modded as a Troll and the slamming just got worse?
Now really, think about it for a second. Is it reasonable to expect a game like that to run on a mid-range business-use laptop? Regardless of OS? Of course not, but you sure couldn't tell by the support the guy's gotten (and total negativity my way)
I'm in the wrong place, on the wrong planet, at the wrong time aren't I?
Re:Damn you Square!
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You are totally correct, except I don't really think it is limited to humans, it's just that our brains are very highly tuned for reading each other, and thus it is hardest to trick our brains when we're dealing with human renders.
Exact same problem as the HULK suffered from. They spent so much time making the renderings look 'real', that all they really did was prove to our minds, over and over again and again, how incredibly NOT-real it really was. Remember all of the studio hype about how much time, effort and detail went into just the hulk's eyes? Of course it didn't work because the hulk isn't even _real_, so our minds were just totally insulted by it all really. It would be a better movie by simply overlaying all of the 3D renderings of the hulk with simple 2D animation.
Finding Nemo looked awesome (haven't seen Shrek2 yet, so bear with me, this works, I promise). They all looked like real fish and birds etc...no, no wait, they didn't at all. Fish don't have lips and talk and have facial features like we do. They have a HUGE amount of fish-like detail, but it's so obvious to our brains that they're cartoon characters that we aren't even remotely offended. They knew this too when they made Finding Nemo. Take a look at the actual human characters in Finding Nemo, they're designed to be OBVIOUS cartoon characters.
Actually, on the DVD they talk about and show the process they went through to develop their water environment renderings. They came up with a water rendering system that produced near photo quality water-like environments (They looked incredibly real) They didn't use it though because it would have undermined every other rendered thing in the movie. They ended up redesigning it to render very nice cartoony water environments. Still gorgeous, but keeps the movie in the land of animation.
Now try to imagine the same movie if they did everything they could to make it look 'real'. Sucks doesn't it?
Re:Damn you Square!
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, it would be very easy to provide you with that, and very hard for you to prove that I didn't actually render it;)
I think that's one of the biggest problems with the internet though, all the cues we're expecting that aren't there (sound, look, expressions, subtle little things that we don't even realize matter).
Unfortunately, most people online just react instantly, just as they would in the real world, even though those cues are missing. A lot of the time, things are taken out of context, or misinterpreted.
I don't think this has to be the case though. We have cues available to us online that we tend to ignore. They're just different cues that we should learn to use. For now, we really need to be making ourselves stop and reflect for a moment before we interact online.
What I am kind of suggesting, is that if this thread had happened in a room with all participants face to face, you would never have made that comment because you would have gotten the cues from the offending poster's expressions etc. that the last thing they, or anyone else cared about at that point in time, was spelling and grammer. Your brain would probably have automatically made that assessment and you probably wouldn't have said a word.
The cues that are available in this thread online are different, but mean the same things. First, where are we? That's right,/. Second, who are you talking to when interacting here? Nerds who have a tendency to spell things cryptically and weirdly on purpose. (Yes, some generalization, but some must be applied, this is how our brains work) Third, there is a high rate of ADA, Dyslexia and other problems of the like with us nerds. (Again, very broad generalization, but not unfounded, and a cue like this would be akin to a subtle hand movement or something else, so you wouldn't make a decision solely based on things like this, but it all adds up to how we interact with one another)
Fourth, there is a very strong history of dislike for being corrected here, especially with regards to spelling.
I'm sure there are tonnes more 'cues' we could come up with, but what I think this adds up to is cues that are similar to cues in the real world that would have likely stopped you from making the correction.
And lastly, I'm a dick sometimes, but I do act the same online as offline, I can be just as big a dick in person;) However, before I'm a dick online, I do make a conscious effort to try to determine, based on all of the cues I have on hand, whether I really would act that way in the real world.
And to prove you don't need to pay the leading-role actor 20 million.
20 million will go a _long_ ways with rendering hardware, software and the like.
I don't think anyone has any sort of dillision that animated characters will replace real actors, but you'd have to be kind of dense to not see how there's room for both, both separated and combined.
No, you're not feeding a troll, but we're not talking about driver specifics here. You are totally correct about your feelings on the windows driver architecture, but it's out of context of the thread.
If the originating poster had stated that "Driver X caused instability Y requiring full reinstallation", then we might be on track. However, the original poster had NO facts backing up their requirement to reinstall XP due to bad drivers or anything else for that matter.
This whole thread started because someone couldn't run Unreal 2004 on their laptop sufficiently, speculated that it was the fault of the OS, and led us to assume that linux was the solution to the problem.
I have only countered with the following: a) Unreasonable expectations of the laptop in question b) Pointing out the severe lack of evidence that the problem was with the OS c) Pointing out that reinstallation of the OS has nothing to do with the problem OR solution and d) That though installing linux worked in this case*, that doesn't prove that the problem was with WinXP**.
*Other posters have also suggested that the users problem, lag while playing the game, is common in linux as well and is actually due to insufficient RAM.
**As a parallel: Say somebody's car stops working. They speculate that the engine is shot or some other irreprable problem, and go buy another car from a different manufacturer and lo and behold, it works! So their first car must have been at fault right? Turns out it was out of gas.
I should clarify a bit, even I wouldn't lump all windows together.
When I'm talking about stable windows installs, I'm talking about properly administered Win2k Server installs, and WinXP installs. I'd be lying, and deserving of discrediting if I were to try to suggest the same about _any_ previous incarnation of windows.
I fully understand the decaying windows thing. Even with Win2k on the desktop, which at the time was a HUGE leap for MS in terms of stability, required a full reinstall at least once a year. Pathetic? yes. Thing of the past? yes.
And I will conceed that it is still possible to royally bugger up an XP install, but it doesn't take much knowledge to avoid doing so.
I'm not trying to discredit Linux, in fact I've been quite readily giving it credit where it is due.
I'm not sure what FUD you are suggesting I am throwing out, I've been stating facts as well. (OK, the percentages of knowledgeable users was pulled out of the air, but obviously and to make a point, and the numbers mean nothing in this context, thus not FUD)
Can you not see why I am annoyed? I openly accept what people are saying about their experiences and preferences of using linux, all I ask for is the same, and for some reason it's like pulling teeth. Is it totally impossible that windows _can_ be useful and stable? No, it is not. I accept linux users on their observations, please accept mine.
For example, I am willing to accept that you have a box that hasn't been rebooted in years. I ask that you accept that I have a cluster of Win2k IIS servers that no nodes have been rebooted on since they were deployed into production over 2 years ago. I ask that you accept that I have a WinXP box that has only been rebooted 4 times since first installing XP just over 3 years ago. Just a sec...that would be because of 2 moves and 2 video card upgrades. I ask that you accept that I have a laptop (R40 with WinXP) I use every single day, have been for over a year, is used by my wife as well, and has never had windows shut down since I first got it running? It's only ever hibernated or slept.
Actually, I'm not trolling. Nobody likes spelling correction posts.
You could have just said nothing.
I also have a strong suspicion that the offending post was likely written by someone suffering from dyslexia, for the most part it was just like a word scramble. If it wasn't that, it was just a hurried post in which the poster would have made a decision before receiving your feedback that they didn't care whether it had mistakes or not, and thus is almost guaranteed to not give a damned about said feedback.
Lets draw a brief parallel: If someone comes up to you on the street and says: I flew down the banana patch for ears of pluto?
What would you do? a) Teach this poor sob english or b) Move on (Possibly after a polite 'Excuse me')?
See the point I'm trying to make? The internet is the real world too, and I wish we would all interact online the same way we do in the real world.
OK, I see how you could have misinterpreted my post and get pissed off, however the point you are making is the exact point I was trying to make. (Obviously I failed miserably)
Choice is good, personal preference is everything here.
Now, to not take _all_ of the blame here, I think that if you re-read my post you will see that I was only stating some facts when I categorized mozilla users, (Yes, I know I left personal preference out which was the mistake I made) I was describing some well known, typical users. Not all users of mozilla, just some.
As well, can you show where I said that one was better than the other? Because I didn't. You appear to mostly be pissed at me because I suggested, in some way, that you shouldn't be using mozilla. Why would I say that? Oh, I didn't.
OK, maybe that was a tad harsh, but I don't think you're getting my point, at least noone wants to discuss.
Are there any developers out there that do/have use/used Mozilla and Firefox for development? And which do you use now? And why?
And I wasn't trying to pigeonhole mozilla users, what I was trying to show was that it is a personal preference thing...different users, different needs.
Sorry to offend.
BTW, if you are a web developer using Mozilla, and you haven't tried FireFox, you really should at least give it a try.
Lets put it this way, you're comparing the relative stability of your average linux box to the relative stability of your average windows box.
Sure, but there is a MAJOR flaw in this argument. Who's boxes are they?
Probably close to 100% of the linux boxes belong to users in the know, people who know what they are doing or are willing and capable of finding out how.
Probably close to 1% of windows users fall into this category.
Take all the windows users, replace their boxes with linux boxes, and start counting how many times linux is reinstalled. I'd put money on the old windows users reinstalling more frequently than they currently do with their windows boxes!
It's all in the user and their area of expertise. Why can't we see that for what it is and all be friends and move on? Why does one side have to win?
I think you think I'm trying to win the argument, to say that windows is better, which I clearly and most deffinately am NOT. I'm ONLY defending against the exact opposite argument, and as usual, it's like smashing my head against a brick wall.
If you can see where I'm coming from, I think you may come up with a new idea on who is being arrogant here.
Ahh, sorry, I missed the cue that we'd gone from arguing to helping one another. I think if you read the thread from top to bottom you may notice how it is that I got confused...especially since nowhere does anyone actually ask for help.
(If you were, it isn't obvious, and I know I didn't because I'm currently running 0 linux boxes, thus have no need for assistance)
Or maybe: those of us that have brains have no problem with nuclear-power, it's nuclear-waste that we take issue with.
And surprisingly, though no one can figure out why, the two are inextricably linked.
This new line of pro-nuclear ranting that's been coming on strong recently is bullshit, and for some reason the/. crowd appears to be falling in line.
Yes, nuclear-power is safe. No, nuclear-waste is not safe. No, you cannot have nuclear-power without nuclear-waste.
Whenever one argues that nuclear-power is safe, and slams those that don't agree as fear-mongering tree huggers or the like, take it with a HUGE grain of salt because you're missing 2/3 of the story, you're being lied to. Period.
I hate being lied to.
Now, personally I'd like to see this issue resolved once and for all. Why don't we fix the problem with the waste? Does it not strike you as odd that we have nuclear-waste? Why do you think it exists?
Answer is simple: because there is no incentive to do anything with it other than stuff it in a closet and forget about it, other than the "save the world" argument which sits well with individuals, but doesn't fly with corporations.
Now, here's the interesting part: It has been hypothesized, and many studies have been done that appear to support the hypothesis, that if the same amount of money that goes into creating nuclear-power were directed at dealing with the waste, 2 things would occur:
1) There would be no waste as we would find uses for it. 2) Chances are the uses we find for it would offset the cost needed to find the solution, and would likely end up paying for the creation of the nuclear-power in the first place!
Think I'm on crack? Prove it by showing that billions(Probably Trillions actually) have been put into projects intended to solve this problem. Rhetoric doesn't cut it here, but that's what we take for granted, the assumption that there's nothing that can be done about the problem we have created.
That's great rhetoric, but a wee bit lacking in details.
Is it possible that you just don't know what you're doing with an IIS box?
Does it not strike you as odd that, as you say, "I always hear from one person who has not had problems keeping his Windows servers up and running"?
Does that not mean anything? Especially on a website where MS users are a minority, and ones whom are willing to burn their Karma to back it up are a minority within that minority?
We've got 27 windows servers here. One administrator for all. Spends about 1/4 of his time actually administering them and our network (Includes regular security updates and patches and the like). Haven't had a problem here due to a down server in a long time, and last time it did happen it was a raid controller that died.
OK, two of our boxes are NT4 boxes, which are required to run third-party software that won't be supported on any other box (And won't run anyways, we've tried), but I'd never EVER run an IIS machine on NT4 attached to any sort of network.
So, the problem we don't have with IIS is? And the problem with our 24/7 services that we don't have are what?
Linux/Apache is a security, setup and maintenance nightmare if you don't know what you're doing. Where's the difference?
As for back-doored? Never happened here. As for speed? Um, average a million hits a day on a 2-box cluster of IBM 1U xSeries dual xenon 1.4ghz where the load is all directed to one box. Setup is just for redundancy. Never peak out the machine.
(And no, it probably would not withstand a/.ing. Why? Because it's not designed to as we have no such requirement for such a load. But, if we did receive such a requirement, we'd just pop more boxes into the cluster, happier than pigs in poo.)
So, you've got your setup and opinion, I've got mine, and we both seem to be doing ok in the big wide world. You're point in arguing is?
I'm with you with the patch thing, but how is your position any different than mine in this regard? Our boxes are both set up well (I'm assuming) and we're in the same boat here, regardless of what os/server we're running.
And yes, you really need to get over the NT4/IIS scars, that's the same as comparing Win95 to WinXP on the desktop, not even worth bringing up.
I've got my own horror stories from those days, pretty much constant attention. Now however, our web-cluster has been up, running, happy and requiring no maintenance for 2 years, save standard patching which is a no-brainer and takes no time.
You just don't get the point do you. You have to be right, linux has to be better in all situations period.
You know your shit, I know mine. You can keep a linux box up and know all the tools to do so. I can do so with windows.
Where is the problem here? Other than the fact that you're so arrogant that you have to create one that is.
You do realize that it is possible for us to both be right? And maybe it would be easier to accept that and be happy? Or you can continue to try to change the whole world to fall in step behind you.
Yes, you are entirely correct. I certainly wasn't trying to say that Big Iron Computers are a thing of the past, they certainly have their place.
However, _that_ arena isn't very open to MS or linux. (Though, yes, there would certainly be _some_ linux installations on Big Iron whereas MS would have _none_)
My point really was that the venue that MS will be targeting here is obviously commodity-hardware based HPC solutions, as this is where their competition currently shines gloriously.
That article is so slanted it's not even funny. Comparing Sony's DRM to Apples free, open use? Whatever, they're both just as inbred and if Sony is setting their sights on the model that Apple is currently following, well, nothings going to get better fast.
And the crap about how hard-drives are the key to it all? Know why I REFUSE to buy a portable digital media player with a hard-drive? Because I'm not paying that kind of money for a piece of hardware that can be destroyed so easily.
Consumers just don't get it. Why is it that portable disk players and portable media players aren't built like the old trusty Sony Sport Walkman? Hm, because they last too long and you won't have to go buy another one.
Do you really think they're putting hard-drives in little portable devices for your benefit? Sure, the space IS a benefit, however, it also GUARANTEES that you will be replacing that device sometime in the not-too-distant future.
God damned do I ever wish consumers would be better consumers! If we demanded better, we'd get better. If we take what they stuff down our throats, we're just paying through the ass for no good reason.
Ah, ok, because you don't know what the problem really is the only solution is to reinstall.
So what do you do when linux has issues?
Tell me please, how should I fix my unstable debian installation that won't stop crashing and after 18 months of very careful use and maintenance is now virtually unusably slow?
That's bs. Memory Stick and Memory Stick-Duo are entirely compatible, the devices using them have NO idea that they are different, they are totally interchangeable. It's just the internal hardware that is different. The original memory stick hardware was physically limited by space to 256mb. The Duo is just new hardware to overcome this limitation and take them up to WAY bigger memory capacity. (Currently available up to 2g, prototyped up to 10g)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you'd do better if you weren't to target me directly as being a windows admin who doesn't know my job.
That just pisses me off because it's personal, and there's no need for it.
As for your recent dealings with windows, you have proven beyond a doubt that you do not know enough about windows to be administering it.
1) Discrediting XP based on the fact that you had issues using it as a gaming machine. Did all those games run with no problem on Linux? Or did you first have to ensure that you had suitable, stable drivers for everything on your system and that the game was available for that platform? It's the most stable gaming platform MS has ever developed, and there are actually a couple million XBox users out there who will back me up on this even though I wouldn't touch an XBox with a ten foot pole.
2) Mouse interaction in MS windows is just different than in X. Why would you just expect MS windows to automatically focus on hover? Oh, you've made an assumption about windows. How many more assumptions have you made?
(BTW, there is an activate-focus-on-hover setting, and another to determine how long you must hover for this to occur.)
Thanks for the well rounded and level headed reply.
Actually I agree with everything you have to say there. Being a windows user, I'm in a position to really know what is wrong with windows, and what can go wrong with windows. I also know it doesn't have to be that way.
The only thing that pisses me off is that by admitting to being a windows user here, I wave all rights to be any different than any other windows user. I never have, and never would do that to someone posting about the merits of linux.
This is what I get tired of:
Someone posts information about linux, how it works well in this situation to solve this problem in this way etc. I read it and happily absorb the information. I would never dream of responding by saying something like "Why would you use linux when windows does this too?". That's pretty fucking ignorant because it would be suggesting that the poster is wrong (or worse) for using linux.
Unfortunately, if one post anything good about windows, this is _exactly_ how one gets treated.
I don't mind bitching about windows, I do it too.
So do linux users, though usually about lack of drivers for video card x etc.
I HATE however being treated like an ignorant pissant just for suggesting that someones view of windows in a particular area is wrong.
This I would _really_ like someone to comment on:
Somewhere back up this thread, someone used the fact that Unreal tournament 2004 didn't run well on their IBM Thinkpad R40, blamed it on windows, and stated that installing linux was the solution.
How come when I refuted with just a tiny bit of reality, basically shooting that argument to bits, I got modded as a Troll and the slamming just got worse?
Now really, think about it for a second. Is it reasonable to expect a game like that to run on a mid-range business-use laptop? Regardless of OS? Of course not, but you sure couldn't tell by the support the guy's gotten (and total negativity my way)
I'm in the wrong place, on the wrong planet, at the wrong time aren't I?
You are totally correct, except I don't really think it is limited to humans, it's just that our brains are very highly tuned for reading each other, and thus it is hardest to trick our brains when we're dealing with human renders.
Exact same problem as the HULK suffered from.
They spent so much time making the renderings look 'real', that all they really did was prove to our minds, over and over again and again, how incredibly NOT-real it really was.
Remember all of the studio hype about how much time, effort and detail went into just the hulk's eyes? Of course it didn't work because the hulk isn't even _real_, so our minds were just totally insulted by it all really. It would be a better movie by simply overlaying all of the 3D renderings of the hulk with simple 2D animation.
Finding Nemo looked awesome (haven't seen Shrek2 yet, so bear with me, this works, I promise). They all looked like real fish and birds etc...no, no wait, they didn't at all. Fish don't have lips and talk and have facial features like we do. They have a HUGE amount of fish-like detail, but it's so obvious to our brains that they're cartoon characters that we aren't even remotely offended. They knew this too when they made Finding Nemo. Take a look at the actual human characters in Finding Nemo, they're designed to be OBVIOUS cartoon characters.
Actually, on the DVD they talk about and show the process they went through to develop their water environment renderings. They came up with a water rendering system that produced near photo quality water-like environments (They looked incredibly real) They didn't use it though because it would have undermined every other rendered thing in the movie. They ended up redesigning it to render very nice cartoony water environments. Still gorgeous, but keeps the movie in the land of animation.
Now try to imagine the same movie if they did everything they could to make it look 'real'.
Sucks doesn't it?
Well, it would be very easy to provide you with that, and very hard for you to prove that I didn't actually render it ;)
I think that's one of the biggest problems with the internet though, all the cues we're expecting that aren't there (sound, look, expressions, subtle little things that we don't even realize matter).
/.
;) However, before I'm a dick online, I do make a conscious effort to try to determine, based on all of the cues I have on hand, whether I really would act that way in the real world.
Unfortunately, most people online just react instantly, just as they would in the real world, even though those cues are missing. A lot of the time, things are taken out of context, or misinterpreted.
I don't think this has to be the case though.
We have cues available to us online that we tend to ignore. They're just different cues that we should learn to use. For now, we really need to be making ourselves stop and reflect for a moment before we interact online.
What I am kind of suggesting, is that if this thread had happened in a room with all participants face to face, you would never have made that comment because you would have gotten the cues from the offending poster's expressions etc. that the last thing they, or anyone else cared about at that point in time, was spelling and grammer. Your brain would probably have automatically made that assessment and you probably wouldn't have said a word.
The cues that are available in this thread online are different, but mean the same things.
First, where are we? That's right,
Second, who are you talking to when interacting here? Nerds who have a tendency to spell things cryptically and weirdly on purpose. (Yes, some generalization, but some must be applied, this is how our brains work)
Third, there is a high rate of ADA, Dyslexia and other problems of the like with us nerds. (Again, very broad generalization, but not unfounded, and a cue like this would be akin to a subtle hand movement or something else, so you wouldn't make a decision solely based on things like this, but it all adds up to how we interact with one another)
Fourth, there is a very strong history of dislike for being corrected here, especially with regards to spelling.
I'm sure there are tonnes more 'cues' we could come up with, but what I think this adds up to is cues that are similar to cues in the real world that would have likely stopped you from making the correction.
And lastly, I'm a dick sometimes, but I do act the same online as offline, I can be just as big a dick in person
And to prove you don't need to pay the leading-role actor 20 million.
20 million will go a _long_ ways with rendering hardware, software and the like.
I don't think anyone has any sort of dillision that animated characters will replace real actors, but you'd have to be kind of dense to not see how there's room for both, both separated and combined.
No, you're not feeding a troll, but we're not talking about driver specifics here. You are totally correct about your feelings on the windows driver architecture, but it's out of context of the thread.
If the originating poster had stated that "Driver X caused instability Y requiring full reinstallation", then we might be on track. However, the original poster had NO facts backing up their requirement to reinstall XP due to bad drivers or anything else for that matter.
This whole thread started because someone couldn't run Unreal 2004 on their laptop sufficiently, speculated that it was the fault of the OS, and led us to assume that linux was the solution to the problem.
I have only countered with the following:
a) Unreasonable expectations of the laptop in question
b) Pointing out the severe lack of evidence that the problem was with the OS
c) Pointing out that reinstallation of the OS has nothing to do with the problem OR solution
and d) That though installing linux worked in this case*, that doesn't prove that the problem was with WinXP**.
*Other posters have also suggested that the users problem, lag while playing the game, is common in linux as well and is actually due to insufficient RAM.
**As a parallel: Say somebody's car stops working. They speculate that the engine is shot or some other irreprable problem, and go buy another car from a different manufacturer and lo and behold, it works! So their first car must have been at fault right? Turns out it was out of gas.
I should clarify a bit, even I wouldn't lump all windows together.
When I'm talking about stable windows installs, I'm talking about properly administered Win2k Server installs, and WinXP installs. I'd be lying, and deserving of discrediting if I were to try to suggest the same about _any_ previous incarnation of windows.
I fully understand the decaying windows thing. Even with Win2k on the desktop, which at the time was a HUGE leap for MS in terms of stability, required a full reinstall at least once a year. Pathetic? yes. Thing of the past? yes.
And I will conceed that it is still possible to royally bugger up an XP install, but it doesn't take much knowledge to avoid doing so.
I'm not trying to discredit Linux, in fact I've been quite readily giving it credit where it is due.
I'm not sure what FUD you are suggesting I am throwing out, I've been stating facts as well.
(OK, the percentages of knowledgeable users was pulled out of the air, but obviously and to make a point, and the numbers mean nothing in this context, thus not FUD)
Can you not see why I am annoyed? I openly accept what people are saying about their experiences and preferences of using linux, all I ask for is the same, and for some reason it's like pulling teeth.
Is it totally impossible that windows _can_ be useful and stable? No, it is not. I accept linux users on their observations, please accept mine.
For example, I am willing to accept that you have a box that hasn't been rebooted in years.
I ask that you accept that I have a cluster of Win2k IIS servers that no nodes have been rebooted on since they were deployed into production over 2 years ago.
I ask that you accept that I have a WinXP box that has only been rebooted 4 times since first installing XP just over 3 years ago. Just a sec...that would be because of 2 moves and 2 video card upgrades.
I ask that you accept that I have a laptop (R40 with WinXP) I use every single day, have been for over a year, is used by my wife as well, and has never had windows shut down since I first got it running? It's only ever hibernated or slept.
Coolio?
I sure hope so.
You're basing an argument on speculation and assumptions, that won't get you anywhere with me.
Actually, that's what annoyed me in the first place.
Blanket statements of fact based on speculation and assumption.
Lets try to do better than that.
Actually, I'm not trolling.
Nobody likes spelling correction posts.
You could have just said nothing.
I also have a strong suspicion that the offending post was likely written by someone suffering from dyslexia, for the most part it was just like a word scramble. If it wasn't that, it was just a hurried post in which the poster would have made a decision before receiving your feedback that they didn't care whether it had mistakes or not, and thus is almost guaranteed to not give a damned about said feedback.
Lets draw a brief parallel:
If someone comes up to you on the street and says: I flew down the banana patch for ears of pluto?
What would you do?
a) Teach this poor sob english or
b) Move on (Possibly after a polite 'Excuse me')?
See the point I'm trying to make? The internet is the real world too, and I wish we would all interact online the same way we do in the real world.
Sign in and maybe we can continue this conversation.
OK, I see how you could have misinterpreted my post and get pissed off, however the point you are making is the exact point I was trying to make. (Obviously I failed miserably)
Choice is good, personal preference is everything here.
Now, to not take _all_ of the blame here, I think that if you re-read my post you will see that I was only stating some facts when I categorized mozilla users, (Yes, I know I left personal preference out which was the mistake I made) I was describing some well known, typical users. Not all users of mozilla, just some.
As well, can you show where I said that one was better than the other? Because I didn't. You appear to mostly be pissed at me because I suggested, in some way, that you shouldn't be using mozilla. Why would I say that? Oh, I didn't.
OK, maybe that was a tad harsh, but I don't think you're getting my point, at least noone wants to discuss.
Are there any developers out there that do/have use/used Mozilla and Firefox for development? And which do you use now? And why?
And I wasn't trying to pigeonhole mozilla users, what I was trying to show was that it is a personal preference thing...different users, different needs.
Sorry to offend.
BTW, if you are a web developer using Mozilla, and you haven't tried FireFox, you really should at least give it a try.
You miss the point entirely.
Lets put it this way, you're comparing the relative stability of your average linux box to the relative stability of your average windows box.
Sure, but there is a MAJOR flaw in this argument.
Who's boxes are they?
Probably close to 100% of the linux boxes belong to users in the know, people who know what they are doing or are willing and capable of finding out how.
Probably close to 1% of windows users fall into this category.
Take all the windows users, replace their boxes with linux boxes, and start counting how many times linux is reinstalled. I'd put money on the old windows users reinstalling more frequently than they currently do with their windows boxes!
It's all in the user and their area of expertise. Why can't we see that for what it is and all be friends and move on? Why does one side have to win?
I think you think I'm trying to win the argument, to say that windows is better, which I clearly and most deffinately am NOT. I'm ONLY defending against the exact opposite argument, and as usual, it's like smashing my head against a brick wall.
If you can see where I'm coming from, I think you may come up with a new idea on who is being arrogant here.
Ahh, sorry, I missed the cue that we'd gone from arguing to helping one another. I think if you read the thread from top to bottom you may notice how it is that I got confused...especially since nowhere does anyone actually ask for help.
(If you were, it isn't obvious, and I know I didn't because I'm currently running 0 linux boxes, thus have no need for assistance)
Or maybe: those of us that have brains have no problem with nuclear-power, it's nuclear-waste that we take issue with.
/. crowd appears to be falling in line.
And surprisingly, though no one can figure out why, the two are inextricably linked.
This new line of pro-nuclear ranting that's been coming on strong recently is bullshit, and for some reason the
Yes, nuclear-power is safe.
No, nuclear-waste is not safe.
No, you cannot have nuclear-power without nuclear-waste.
Whenever one argues that nuclear-power is safe, and slams those that don't agree as fear-mongering tree huggers or the like, take it with a HUGE grain of salt because you're missing 2/3 of the story, you're being lied to. Period.
I hate being lied to.
Now, personally I'd like to see this issue resolved once and for all. Why don't we fix the problem with the waste? Does it not strike you as odd that we have nuclear-waste? Why do you think it exists?
Answer is simple: because there is no incentive to do anything with it other than stuff it in a closet and forget about it, other than the "save the world" argument which sits well with individuals, but doesn't fly with corporations.
Now, here's the interesting part: It has been hypothesized, and many studies have been done that appear to support the hypothesis, that if the same amount of money that goes into creating nuclear-power were directed at dealing with the waste, 2 things would occur:
1) There would be no waste as we would find uses for it.
2) Chances are the uses we find for it would offset the cost needed to find the solution, and would likely end up paying for the creation of the nuclear-power in the first place!
Think I'm on crack? Prove it by showing that billions(Probably Trillions actually) have been put into projects intended to solve this problem.
Rhetoric doesn't cut it here, but that's what we take for granted, the assumption that there's nothing that can be done about the problem we have created.
That's great rhetoric, but a wee bit lacking in details.
/.ing. Why? Because it's not designed to as we have no such requirement for such a load. But, if we did receive such a requirement, we'd just pop more boxes into the cluster, happier than pigs in poo.)
Is it possible that you just don't know what you're doing with an IIS box?
Does it not strike you as odd that, as you say, "I always hear from one person who has not had problems keeping his Windows servers up and running"?
Does that not mean anything? Especially on a website where MS users are a minority, and ones whom are willing to burn their Karma to back it up are a minority within that minority?
We've got 27 windows servers here. One administrator for all. Spends about 1/4 of his time actually administering them and our network (Includes regular security updates and patches and the like). Haven't had a problem here due to a down server in a long time, and last time it did happen it was a raid controller that died.
OK, two of our boxes are NT4 boxes, which are required to run third-party software that won't be supported on any other box (And won't run anyways, we've tried), but I'd never EVER run an IIS machine on NT4 attached to any sort of network.
So, the problem we don't have with IIS is?
And the problem with our 24/7 services that we don't have are what?
Linux/Apache is a security, setup and maintenance nightmare if you don't know what you're doing. Where's the difference?
As for back-doored? Never happened here.
As for speed? Um, average a million hits a day on a 2-box cluster of IBM 1U xSeries dual xenon 1.4ghz where the load is all directed to one box. Setup is just for redundancy.
Never peak out the machine.
(And no, it probably would not withstand a
So, you've got your setup and opinion, I've got mine, and we both seem to be doing ok in the big wide world. You're point in arguing is?
I'm with you with the patch thing, but how is your position any different than mine in this regard? Our boxes are both set up well (I'm assuming) and we're in the same boat here, regardless of what os/server we're running.
And yes, you really need to get over the NT4/IIS scars, that's the same as comparing Win95 to WinXP on the desktop, not even worth bringing up.
I've got my own horror stories from those days, pretty much constant attention. Now however, our web-cluster has been up, running, happy and requiring no maintenance for 2 years, save standard patching which is a no-brainer and takes no time.
You just don't get the point do you.
You have to be right, linux has to be better in all situations period.
You know your shit, I know mine.
You can keep a linux box up and know all the tools to do so.
I can do so with windows.
Where is the problem here?
Other than the fact that you're so arrogant that you have to create one that is.
You do realize that it is possible for us to both be right? And maybe it would be easier to accept that and be happy? Or you can continue to try to change the whole world to fall in step behind you.
Done.
Yes, you are entirely correct. I certainly wasn't trying to say that Big Iron Computers are a thing of the past, they certainly have their place.
However, _that_ arena isn't very open to MS or linux. (Though, yes, there would certainly be _some_ linux installations on Big Iron whereas MS would have _none_)
My point really was that the venue that MS will be targeting here is obviously commodity-hardware based HPC solutions, as this is where their competition currently shines gloriously.
That article is so slanted it's not even funny.
Comparing Sony's DRM to Apples free, open use?
Whatever, they're both just as inbred and if Sony is setting their sights on the model that Apple is currently following, well, nothings going to get better fast.
And the crap about how hard-drives are the key to it all? Know why I REFUSE to buy a portable digital media player with a hard-drive? Because I'm not paying that kind of money for a piece of hardware that can be destroyed so easily.
Consumers just don't get it.
Why is it that portable disk players and portable media players aren't built like the old trusty Sony Sport Walkman? Hm, because they last too long and you won't have to go buy another one.
Do you really think they're putting hard-drives in little portable devices for your benefit? Sure, the space IS a benefit, however, it also GUARANTEES that you will be replacing that device sometime in the not-too-distant future.
God damned do I ever wish consumers would be better consumers! If we demanded better, we'd get better. If we take what they stuff down our throats, we're just paying through the ass for no good reason.
Ah, ok, because you don't know what the problem really is the only solution is to reinstall.
So what do you do when linux has issues?
Tell me please, how should I fix my unstable debian installation that won't stop crashing and after 18 months of very careful use and maintenance is now virtually unusably slow?
I was finding your post very insightful until you started talking about memory sticks.
Sorry but you lost all credibility for your argument when you compared where the memory stick _started_ out to where CF currently is.
What about the 2g memory sticks that are available to consumers?
How about the 10g ones that have been prototyped?
That's bs. Memory Stick and Memory Stick-Duo are entirely compatible, the devices using them have NO idea that they are different, they are totally interchangeable. It's just the internal hardware that is different. The original memory stick hardware was physically limited by space to 256mb. The Duo is just new hardware to overcome this limitation and take them up to WAY bigger memory capacity. (Currently available up to 2g, prototyped up to 10g)