This is all quite ironic though, that you're complaining about people moaning about Linux in the responses to this particular article.
If there's one thing to take away from this article, it's that people slagging off Linux is actually good in the long run - you know that Linux can overcome any complaint that they throw at it, and what they do is to spur people on to sort problems out!
It has long been contested that Americans don't have freedom. The constitution of America enshrines a number of concepts - freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms - in such a way as to effectively prevent actual freedom on a day to day basis.
I'm presuming said chocolate is American, and Americans only tolerate their 'chocolate' because they've never tasted the proper stuff... Hershey? YUCK!!!
But then of course, what with Belgian chocolate now apparently being poisoned....
Why do you separate GPL from the issue of stability? By its very nature Linux should end up (note, as someone else pointed out, that you can't expect pre-alpha releases to work - the point of them is to get rid of the bugs) to be much more stable and bug free.
The way that Microsoft survives is by shipping a single product with or without bugs. They have little incentive to iron out minor bugs, so long as they aren't going to destroy a major companies computers to a suing extent, since people madly pay to get a version that had gone through the sort of testing that linux programs go through before release (cf the 'Y2K bug fix' - Win98).
With Linux, if you have a problem, by its nature it gets ironed out. If it doesn't, and you find that something doesn't work on your particular computer you can do something about it - rather than just moaning about the fact that they never bothered to consider your personal, eccentric system.
It may take some work and some knowhow, but that's surely going to be better than having to just put up or shut up. In almost every case if your Linux system at first seems less stable than the NT system it can be tweeked to make Linux more stable and faster. If your program doesn't work, you can fix it (or point out the fault to someone else - I've always found them to be enormously helpful and positive about fixing problems - you try telling a Windows programmer that something doesn't work and, in my experience, you don't get help or courtesy, you get abuse). If that fails, you can always write your own program!
So basically all I'm trying to say is that GPL is the reason for Linux's stability, not a different point, and it is because of GPL that we don't need to worry about the day Windows gets as stable as Linux - it isn't going to happen!
Hope we all noted the bit in the article where he states that people have been cheating. The largest headache apparently 'obviously' has come from the Linux / Unix community. He says it's something to do with 'The hacker mentality'...
Slashdot Mirror
This is all quite ironic though, that you're complaining about people moaning about Linux in the responses to this particular article.
If there's one thing to take away from this article, it's that people slagging off Linux is actually good in the long run - you know that Linux can overcome any complaint that they throw at it, and what they do is to spur people on to sort problems out!
Well done.
It has long been contested that Americans don't have freedom. The constitution of America enshrines a number of concepts - freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms - in such a way as to effectively prevent actual freedom on a day to day basis.
Don't even think about it!
I'm presuming said chocolate is American, and Americans only tolerate their 'chocolate' because they've never tasted the proper stuff... Hershey? YUCK!!!
But then of course, what with Belgian chocolate now apparently being poisoned....
Why do you separate GPL from the issue of stability? By its very nature Linux should end up (note, as someone else pointed out, that you can't expect pre-alpha releases to work - the point of them is to get rid of the bugs) to be much more stable and bug free.
The way that Microsoft survives is by shipping a single product with or without bugs. They have little incentive to iron out minor bugs, so long as they aren't going to destroy a major companies computers to a suing extent, since people madly pay to get a version that had gone through the sort of testing that linux programs go through before release (cf the 'Y2K bug fix' - Win98).
With Linux, if you have a problem, by its nature it gets ironed out. If it doesn't, and you find that something doesn't work on your particular computer you can do something about it - rather than just moaning about the fact that they never bothered to consider your personal, eccentric system.
It may take some work and some knowhow, but that's surely going to be better than having to just put up or shut up. In almost every case if your Linux system at first seems less stable than the NT system it can be tweeked to make Linux more stable and faster. If your program doesn't work, you can fix it (or point out the fault to someone else - I've always found them to be enormously helpful and positive about fixing problems - you try telling a Windows programmer that something doesn't work and, in my experience, you don't get help or courtesy, you get abuse). If that fails, you can always write your own program!
So basically all I'm trying to say is that GPL is the reason for Linux's stability, not a different point, and it is because of GPL that we don't need to worry about the day Windows gets as stable as Linux - it isn't going to happen!
Hope we all noted the bit in the article where he states that people have been cheating. The largest headache apparently 'obviously' has come from the Linux / Unix community. He says it's something to do with 'The hacker mentality'...