You generally have to go above the 7000 series to get ASIC accelerated forwarding. As an example, the specifications of a Broadcom BCM1250 read remarkably like the specifications of a Cisco 7301, because that's what's inside one.
show ver
on the router shows the CPU model number, and
show controller <blah>
will show you the current register values, which you can then look up in the BCM1250 reference manual.
as of a week ago. Care to tell me how he's running x86 only binary modules from ATi and Nvidia one one of those ?
I don't think quoting somebody's statements are a game. You might want to claim it is because I've shown evidence that your statements are incorrect, but that's just a diversionary tactic.
Where are your quotes by the way with matching URLs ?
Before when ? He though they were "a major pain in the ass, and always
horribly buggy" back in 2003. If he ever changed his mind, it certainly wasn't recently. I'd think the first day he came across a binary module he didn't like them (probably back around 1998, IIRC when binary modules first appeared), because he didn't have access to the code to fix bugs if he encountered them.
Skype is both closed source and more importantly uses closed VoIP protocols. It is the antithesis of the 'Linus'. If you don't think that matters, then you just don't get it.
Same thing could happen with them, and the impact would be far greater. Read your EULA, MS reserve the right to revoke your license without any explanation or compensation. This is the reason why 'proprietary file formats considered harmful.'
IANAL, however I'm pretty sure the following is correct.
You have a monopoly on a market if you are the only entity provide that product, and there is nothing in the law against being the sole provider of a product. In fact, that is one of the best ways to win at business, to invent and then be the only provider of a new product. If you invented purple carrots, you'd have a monopoly on the purple carrot market, and nobody is going to have a problem with you being a monopolist of the purple carrot market.
It would be pretty silly to expect a new company, who is going to introduce a new, never-existed-before product to the market to have wait until they have a competitor before they can bring their product to market. In fact, patents are a government endorsed tool to preserve a monopoly for a period, to make sure the inventing entity is rewarded for their significant investments and time in furthering the "state of the art." (Abuse of the patent system, and the granting frivilous patents is the issue, not the fundamental purpose they are supposed to serve). Why would you spend time and money inventing something new, only to have somebody else take the invention and make money with it without having to cover the costs of inventing ?
What is usually against the law is using your monopoly position to either (a) force your customers to continue to buy from you i.e. lock them in unfairly, or (b) use your monopoly power to drive your potential competitors out of business, the later being the primary thing that Microsoft has done. That is an "illegal monopoly".
Apple is a monopoly when it comes to providing Apple compatible computers and software. They just don't leverage that monopoly for illegal purposes.
The problem with Jabber is that all messages that are part of a converstation between two parties has to go through a central server.
This current architecture has a number drawbacks:
The server becomes a single point of failure. I have suffered this, where I was online, I knew my friend was online, yet because the Jabber server we were using failed during our session, we couldn't communicate. Yet there was an "IP path" between our end points, so we could communicate at the IP layer, which should mean we could communicate at the application layer.
The server can become a performance bottleneck, which then introduces scalability problems. They can be addressed by introducing a multiple server architecture, which is what has been done, however that is really a work around to scalability limits, where as these problems wouldn't exist at all if the IM clients were talking directly to each other. Multiple server solutions still don't get around a server failure impacting many ongoing converstations that are operating through it.
Security of conversations isn't (or wasn't a year or so ago) end-to-end. If I want to communcate securely with somebody via IM, I'm really requiring that any entity between us can't see any parts of our conversion, uncluding who I'm talking to - to intermediary entities our conversation just looks like a bunch of random bits. Unfortunately, with the Jabber architecture, the server has to be involved in the conversation, so parts of the conversation, such as who I'm talking to, have to be exposed. Further, at the time I was using Jabber, I could only enable client to server encryption/authentication, and there was no way I could be sure that the other participant had also enabled that feature, so the converstation may be encrypted between me and the server, but not between the server and the other IM client. So even though I though I was asking for security for my converstation with my IM peer, I can't be assured I'm actually getting it.
Ideally, IM sessions between parties should go direct between the IM parties i.e. peers, rather than via an intermediary server. Intermediarly servers would only provide a directory and an availabilty service - similar to the way DNS and SMTP work together. Ongoing and existing communcations sessions wouldn't fail if the directory server fails because they don't depend on it for communications (as a DNS server failure won't disrupt existing SMTP sessions). An IM client to IM client architecture can also cope with network failures, as long as their is an alternative path for the IP packets to follow. If a router fails, and there is an alternative IP path, the routing protocols will discover it and make it available. TCP on the end-points will try for up to 9 minutes to communcate with the other peer, which should be long enough for this transient failure in the network to be recovered from - the TCP session will eventually recover, and communciations can continue. The key requirement here is that nothing "in the network" maintains session state ie. knows about the TCP session. Unfortunately NAT boxes do, which is why they also break this "peer-to-peer" or "end-to-end" model (hence the Slashdot ID, and also why IPv6 is being designed to avoid any reasons to use NAT).
When I asked on the jabber developers list why things were done this way, the answer was so that people having conversations could be anonymous - the server would hide their identity. While the ability to be anonymous is a useful feature, I'm pretty sure most people would give up this "inherent anonymity", provided by the architecture, if they were given a choice between reliability and anonymity. I certainly would, because most people I'd talk to on IM I know anyway, which is obviously why I'm talking to them. There is an old unix rule of "optimise for the common case". The Jabber architecture seems to be optimised for (pseudo - see next paragraph) anonymity, yet I doubt it is the common case. Most of the time, most p
and I'd argue that games are niche application. When your parents, your sister and you grand parents play FPSers, then I think your argument would stand. However, they don't, so standard broadband will suit most applications that most people actually use. The only bandwidth intensive application that your parents, your sister and your grandparents would possibly use today is video conferencing, and broadband already privides enough bandwidth for that, even with lower than TV frame rates. Just seeing the other person, even if it is only 10 times a second, adds a lot of value over just pure audio aka VoIP.
The evenual market for "fully-powered" desktop PCs may only be gamers - and they'll be called "games consoles".
Yes. I have very seriously considered killing myself for exactly those reasons. But I am egoistic, so I found that I will kill myself delayed: I am not going to have children.
So what are you going to do about all the other animals on the planet ? They're also having an environmental impact. They eat food. They change their envionment to suit themselves (e.g. monkeys will break branches off of a tree to suit if they want to live in that particular tree.)
The world we live in has an assumption of envionmental impact as part of the "eco-system". Turn the clock back 10 000 years, and everything was also having an environmental impact.
Yes, in recent times the human race, being the dominant one, has had a more significant impact than in the past. However, the human race, also because of our intelligence (which is why we became dominant), will change its behaviour to avoid or solve the problems when they become prominent enough. If we don't, then as a race, we'll become extinct. That will only be the human race's fault. Extinction is also a natural part of the evolution of the environment. The Earth will continue without us.
Want an example ? How about skin cancer. I live in Australia. When I was growing up, skin cancer wasn't an prominent issue. The only reason to wear sunscreen was to avoid the next-day pain of being sunburnt. Then skin cancer became a problem, and people now religiously cover up when going to the beach. It didn't take much for "humanity" to change it's practices when it it became life and death. I believe the same will happen with any other issues, such as environmental, that provide a significant and credible threat to human existance.
Have you got some ? Solar panels have an enviornmental impact during manufacture, even if they produce "free" electricity.
What about your impact on the environment, just by living ? You're killing plants and possibly animals because you eat, there were bugs and plants killed during the manufacture and building of your house, bike etc. If you want to have a significant impact on saving the environment, I suggest killing yourself, because it will immediately and very effectively prevent the environmental damage you'll cause by your mere existance for the next 30 to 50 years (or however long you live).
* If you download a movie from the Internet, legally or not, paid for or not, then you are NOT in any way causing additional damage to the earth and biological diversity on earth.
That's the first time I've heard of environmental impact being used to justify the theft of other people's right to control the copying of their work.
Are you next going to suggest robbing banks so that they can't give money to people because those people might then go and buy an SUV which has an environmental impact ?
And guess what Cachelogic sell ?
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 1
Yep, that's right, P2P traffic blockers and shapers. Does anybody think they figures would be under-inflated or over-inflated ? My bet is the latter.
I don't run windows so my question is academic. I'm curious how easy it will be for you to squeeze your DirectX over OpenGL shim in between this Aeroglass layer ? Being compatible is one thing, getting the OS to use it can be another thing.
If it is easy, I'm sure these OpenGL complainants, e.g., ATI, NVidia would be very interested in your project. You may even be able to get some sponsorship from them if you needed it.
Of course, there would be benefits to Linux users as well,as you've mentioned.
At least then you know that if the drive dies and you don't physically destroy it, for somebody to copy the data they'll have to do more than just get the drive going again.
PCB board failures are the problem. The drive won't work, yet the data on the platters is likely to still be good. PCB failures are also fairly easy to recover from - just go to ebay to buy a second hand drive of the same model, and swap the PCBs over. If it is easy for you to do, it is also easy for your adversaries.
Even if you sell a working drive, as long as you don't provide the customer with the passphrase for the encrypted filesystem where your important data resides (I'm sure I don't have to point out how stupid doing that would be), you can be sure that the above story is unlikely to happen to you.
Does that mean you're into beastiality ?
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
I'd think your objection to Siemens wasn't contrary to a strong ethical or philosophical position you held (or supposedly held), so at a certain point you're willing to overlook the reasons why you don't want to work for them for a certain amount of the money.
This isn't just about having fun working with computers and software for a big salary. As I think I said earlier, if those are the only criteria, then there would be other companies that are tolerant of or pro-Open source. In my experience a lot of companies will be tolerant of it as long as it doesn't effect your work or the work of others. They're even happy to let you do it unofficially if it improves your productivity, or solves a problem for them.
Choosing to work for Microsoft, when there are alternatives, is selling out open source principles, and that is my point.
It's up to Daniel what his principles are. My main point is that "FOSS-oriented" people, such as the original poster, should move on, rather than complaining that MS "stole" FOSS people, and FOSS will die when all of these people are "stolen" by MS. There are two reasons why (a) the person who went to work for MS chose to do so, and (b) not all key FOSS people will "sell out" for money.
Why are they worth "saving" ? Why waste time and effort trying ?
Are you originally a Windows user, and still feel some sentimentality towards Microsoft, such that even though you're running FOSS, you still think "gee, wouldn't it be great if Windows was open source" ? If that is the case, you need to realise that you haven't fully understood the FOSS philosophy enough to realise that MS would never change. It is as likely as the Pope converting to Satanism.
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
So there aren't any other IT companies that are neutral or pro-Open source left in the world that he could have worked for, that would have paid a decent salary ? Have IBM gone out of business, and I don't know about it ?
Your statement almost implies that there are no employers left in any field at all, other than Microsoft, that are paying a living wage. Do I need to point out how unrealistic that implication is ?
The shame is Daniel's, not Microsoft's. Microsoft found somebody with the skills and experience they wanted, and who was willing to work for them. It was Daniel's choice, and he decided to sell out, probably for the money.
PS. Don't need an SUV. If they are costing too much in fuel, get a smaller car, such as a normal sized sedan....
I still have a 80486DX2 66 Mhz, circa 1991/92, that works (and can run the latest Linux kernel, fortunately it has 20MB of RAM). I've got 4 ISA ethernet cards, also all circa 1991/92, in it as well. The most modern thing in it is a 10GB HDD drive, from around 1999. To get the 486 to boot off of it, the BIOS thinks it is only 512MB in size, once Linux starts, Linux sees the whole disk.
Recently I took apart a working 200MB Western Digital HDD, only because the cover would make a useful screw holding tray while working on my bike, and that use became more valuable to me than 200MB of storage ! It was a bit sad to pull apart a still working drive of such age.
I was responding to what appeared to be your claim that I was making an assumption without any evidence or first hand experience.
You are partially right in your assumptions. I don't use Linux. However, I do use the *BSD and get to chuckle at the Linux users every time a new kernel comes out and half of their drivers break.
Has never happened to me, that's probably because I'm using open source drivers for my hardware, and have been doing so since I first ran Linux in late 1992.
Those faults are blamed on Linux, of course the root cause is hardware manufacturers not releasing programming specifications. I personally would like to see an agressive non-binary module stance taken by the kernel developers, so that lack of reliable hardware support (or hardware support at all) is directly attributed to the hardware vendors, not Linux itself./p.
My comment is directly based on how often I have to upgrade my Linux box due to security updates verses how often I read about "critical" MS security patches on Slashdot. It is also based on what my friend says about the Linux servers his work run verses the windows servers and desktops they run. I'm fortunte that I got out of Windows desktop / server administration before the Internet became popular, and therefore these problems became common.
Windows advocates are more likely to make assumptions than Linux advocates. Windows advocates usually haven't used Linux at all, yet they're willing to repeat what other people say about it, without having any personal experience to indicate to them that what they are saying is the truth. It is hard to provide realistic or credible criticisms of something that you don't have any experience with.
Linux advocates are usually ex- or even current Windows users (sometimes not by choice, due to their work situation), so they're typically speaking with a level of experience.
Slashdot Mirror
as of a week ago. Care to tell me how he's running x86 only binary modules from ATi and Nvidia one one of those ? I don't think quoting somebody's statements are a game. You might want to claim it is because I've shown evidence that your statements are incorrect, but that's just a diversionary tactic. Where are your quotes by the way with matching URLs ?
Here's just some of what Linus says about binary modules.
"I'm a complete non-believer in binary modules"
"Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules."
Before when ? He though they were "a major pain in the ass, and always horribly buggy" back in 2003. If he ever changed his mind, it certainly wasn't recently. I'd think the first day he came across a binary module he didn't like them (probably back around 1998, IIRC when binary modules first appeared), because he didn't have access to the code to fix bugs if he encountered them.
I'm afraid you could not be more misinformed. You'd be wise to follow the LKML to find out what Linus actually thinks and says.
Skype is both closed source and more importantly uses closed VoIP protocols. It is the antithesis of the 'Linus'. If you don't think that matters, then you just don't get it.
Same thing could happen with them, and the impact would be far greater. Read your EULA, MS reserve the right to revoke your license without any explanation or compensation. This is the reason why 'proprietary file formats considered harmful.'
IANAL, however I'm pretty sure the following is correct.
You have a monopoly on a market if you are the only entity provide that product, and there is nothing in the law against being the sole provider of a product. In fact, that is one of the best ways to win at business, to invent and then be the only provider of a new product. If you invented purple carrots, you'd have a monopoly on the purple carrot market, and nobody is going to have a problem with you being a monopolist of the purple carrot market.
It would be pretty silly to expect a new company, who is going to introduce a new, never-existed-before product to the market to have wait until they have a competitor before they can bring their product to market. In fact, patents are a government endorsed tool to preserve a monopoly for a period, to make sure the inventing entity is rewarded for their significant investments and time in furthering the "state of the art." (Abuse of the patent system, and the granting frivilous patents is the issue, not the fundamental purpose they are supposed to serve). Why would you spend time and money inventing something new, only to have somebody else take the invention and make money with it without having to cover the costs of inventing ?
What is usually against the law is using your monopoly position to either (a) force your customers to continue to buy from you i.e. lock them in unfairly, or (b) use your monopoly power to drive your potential competitors out of business, the later being the primary thing that Microsoft has done. That is an "illegal monopoly".
Apple is a monopoly when it comes to providing Apple compatible computers and software. They just don't leverage that monopoly for illegal purposes.
Hmm, I need to preview more. That should read
I'm Mark Smith from Adelaide, Australia, just to show my anonimity behind "Anti-NAT" isn't all that important to me.
I'm Mark Smith from Adelaide, Australia, just to show my anonimity behind "Anti-NAT" isn't all that important much to me.
The problem with Jabber is that all messages that are part of a converstation between two parties has to go through a central server.
This current architecture has a number drawbacks :
Ideally, IM sessions between parties should go direct between the IM parties i.e. peers, rather than via an intermediary server. Intermediarly servers would only provide a directory and an availabilty service - similar to the way DNS and SMTP work together. Ongoing and existing communcations sessions wouldn't fail if the directory server fails because they don't depend on it for communications (as a DNS server failure won't disrupt existing SMTP sessions). An IM client to IM client architecture can also cope with network failures, as long as their is an alternative path for the IP packets to follow. If a router fails, and there is an alternative IP path, the routing protocols will discover it and make it available. TCP on the end-points will try for up to 9 minutes to communcate with the other peer, which should be long enough for this transient failure in the network to be recovered from - the TCP session will eventually recover, and communciations can continue. The key requirement here is that nothing "in the network" maintains session state ie. knows about the TCP session. Unfortunately NAT boxes do, which is why they also break this "peer-to-peer" or "end-to-end" model (hence the Slashdot ID, and also why IPv6 is being designed to avoid any reasons to use NAT).
When I asked on the jabber developers list why things were done this way, the answer was so that people having conversations could be anonymous - the server would hide their identity. While the ability to be anonymous is a useful feature, I'm pretty sure most people would give up this "inherent anonymity", provided by the architecture, if they were given a choice between reliability and anonymity. I certainly would, because most people I'd talk to on IM I know anyway, which is obviously why I'm talking to them. There is an old unix rule of "optimise for the common case". The Jabber architecture seems to be optimised for (pseudo - see next paragraph) anonymity, yet I doubt it is the common case. Most of the time, most p
and I'd argue that games are niche application. When your parents, your sister and you grand parents play FPSers, then I think your argument would stand. However, they don't, so standard broadband will suit most applications that most people actually use. The only bandwidth intensive application that your parents, your sister and your grandparents would possibly use today is video conferencing, and broadband already privides enough bandwidth for that, even with lower than TV frame rates. Just seeing the other person, even if it is only 10 times a second, adds a lot of value over just pure audio aka VoIP.
The evenual market for "fully-powered" desktop PCs may only be gamers - and they'll be called "games consoles".
Yes. I have very seriously considered killing myself for exactly those reasons. But I am egoistic, so I found that I will kill myself delayed: I am not going to have children.
So what are you going to do about all the other animals on the planet ? They're also having an environmental impact. They eat food. They change their envionment to suit themselves (e.g. monkeys will break branches off of a tree to suit if they want to live in that particular tree.)
The world we live in has an assumption of envionmental impact as part of the "eco-system". Turn the clock back 10 000 years, and everything was also having an environmental impact.
Yes, in recent times the human race, being the dominant one, has had a more significant impact than in the past. However, the human race, also because of our intelligence (which is why we became dominant), will change its behaviour to avoid or solve the problems when they become prominent enough. If we don't, then as a race, we'll become extinct. That will only be the human race's fault. Extinction is also a natural part of the evolution of the environment. The Earth will continue without us.
Want an example ? How about skin cancer. I live in Australia. When I was growing up, skin cancer wasn't an prominent issue. The only reason to wear sunscreen was to avoid the next-day pain of being sunburnt. Then skin cancer became a problem, and people now religiously cover up when going to the beach. It didn't take much for "humanity" to change it's practices when it it became life and death. I believe the same will happen with any other issues, such as environmental, that provide a significant and credible threat to human existance.
Have you got some ? Solar panels have an enviornmental impact during manufacture, even if they produce "free" electricity.
What about your impact on the environment, just by living ? You're killing plants and possibly animals because you eat, there were bugs and plants killed during the manufacture and building of your house, bike etc. If you want to have a significant impact on saving the environment, I suggest killing yourself, because it will immediately and very effectively prevent the environmental damage you'll cause by your mere existance for the next 30 to 50 years (or however long you live).
* If you download a movie from the Internet, legally or not, paid for or not, then you are NOT in any way causing additional damage to the earth and biological diversity on earth.
That's the first time I've heard of environmental impact being used to justify the theft of other people's right to control the copying of their work.
Are you next going to suggest robbing banks so that they can't give money to people because those people might then go and buy an SUV which has an environmental impact ?
Yep, that's right, P2P traffic blockers and shapers. Does anybody think they figures would be under-inflated or over-inflated ? My bet is the latter.
I don't run windows so my question is academic. I'm curious how easy it will be for you to squeeze your DirectX over OpenGL shim in between this Aeroglass layer ? Being compatible is one thing, getting the OS to use it can be another thing.
If it is easy, I'm sure these OpenGL complainants, e.g., ATI, NVidia would be very interested in your project. You may even be able to get some sponsorship from them if you needed it.
Of course, there would be benefits to Linux users as well,as you've mentioned.
Good luck with it.
OBEY Hacker
At least then you know that if the drive dies and you don't physically destroy it, for somebody to copy the data they'll have to do more than just get the drive going again.
PCB board failures are the problem. The drive won't work, yet the data on the platters is likely to still be good. PCB failures are also fairly easy to recover from - just go to ebay to buy a second hand drive of the same model, and swap the PCBs over. If it is easy for you to do, it is also easy for your adversaries.
Even if you sell a working drive, as long as you don't provide the customer with the passphrase for the encrypted filesystem where your important data resides (I'm sure I don't have to point out how stupid doing that would be), you can be sure that the above story is unlikely to happen to you.
You said it, not me!
It comes down to philosophy.
I'd think your objection to Siemens wasn't contrary to a strong ethical or philosophical position you held (or supposedly held), so at a certain point you're willing to overlook the reasons why you don't want to work for them for a certain amount of the money.
This isn't just about having fun working with computers and software for a big salary. As I think I said earlier, if those are the only criteria, then there would be other companies that are tolerant of or pro-Open source. In my experience a lot of companies will be tolerant of it as long as it doesn't effect your work or the work of others. They're even happy to let you do it unofficially if it improves your productivity, or solves a problem for them.
Choosing to work for Microsoft, when there are alternatives, is selling out open source principles, and that is my point.
It's up to Daniel what his principles are. My main point is that "FOSS-oriented" people, such as the original poster, should move on, rather than complaining that MS "stole" FOSS people, and FOSS will die when all of these people are "stolen" by MS. There are two reasons why (a) the person who went to work for MS chose to do so, and (b) not all key FOSS people will "sell out" for money.
Why are they worth "saving" ? Why waste time and effort trying ?
Are you originally a Windows user, and still feel some sentimentality towards Microsoft, such that even though you're running FOSS, you still think "gee, wouldn't it be great if Windows was open source" ? If that is the case, you need to realise that you haven't fully understood the FOSS philosophy enough to realise that MS would never change. It is as likely as the Pope converting to Satanism.
Many of them being family guys, they cannot turn these offers down due to finances. Kids are expensive, wives are expensive, SUVs are pricy, gas is pricy, taxes, computer hardware, and on and on.
So there aren't any other IT companies that are neutral or pro-Open source left in the world that he could have worked for, that would have paid a decent salary ? Have IBM gone out of business, and I don't know about it ?
Your statement almost implies that there are no employers left in any field at all, other than Microsoft, that are paying a living wage. Do I need to point out how unrealistic that implication is ?
The shame is Daniel's, not Microsoft's. Microsoft found somebody with the skills and experience they wanted, and who was willing to work for them. It was Daniel's choice, and he decided to sell out, probably for the money.
PS. Don't need an SUV. If they are costing too much in fuel, get a smaller car, such as a normal sized sedan ....
I still have a 80486DX2 66 Mhz, circa 1991/92, that works (and can run the latest Linux kernel, fortunately it has 20MB of RAM). I've got 4 ISA ethernet cards, also all circa 1991/92, in it as well. The most modern thing in it is a 10GB HDD drive, from around 1999. To get the 486 to boot off of it, the BIOS thinks it is only 512MB in size, once Linux starts, Linux sees the whole disk.
Recently I took apart a working 200MB Western Digital HDD, only because the cover would make a useful screw holding tray while working on my bike, and that use became more valuable to me than 200MB of storage ! It was a bit sad to pull apart a still working drive of such age.
I was responding to what appeared to be your claim that I was making an assumption without any evidence or first hand experience.
You are partially right in your assumptions. I don't use Linux. However, I do use the *BSD and get to chuckle at the Linux users every time a new kernel comes out and half of their drivers break.
Has never happened to me, that's probably because I'm using open source drivers for my hardware, and have been doing so since I first ran Linux in late 1992.
Those faults are blamed on Linux, of course the root cause is hardware manufacturers not releasing programming specifications. I personally would like to see an agressive non-binary module stance taken by the kernel developers, so that lack of reliable hardware support (or hardware support at all) is directly attributed to the hardware vendors, not Linux itself./p.
My comment is directly based on how often I have to upgrade my Linux box due to security updates verses how often I read about "critical" MS security patches on Slashdot. It is also based on what my friend says about the Linux servers his work run verses the windows servers and desktops they run. I'm fortunte that I got out of Windows desktop / server administration before the Internet became popular, and therefore these problems became common.
Windows advocates are more likely to make assumptions than Linux advocates. Windows advocates usually haven't used Linux at all, yet they're willing to repeat what other people say about it, without having any personal experience to indicate to them that what they are saying is the truth. It is hard to provide realistic or credible criticisms of something that you don't have any experience with.
Linux advocates are usually ex- or even current Windows users (sometimes not by choice, due to their work situation), so they're typically speaking with a level of experience.