On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Ernest wrote:
> With that in mind, I've wondered for some time if Windows (like Linux)
> crashes so often because of a lack of user understanding, and poorly
This is the second reference I've seen this week to complaining about
Linux crashing. I find this to be ludicrous.
Look, if Linux crashes, it's because YOU did something wrong or
something's wrong with your hardware. Windows just crashes for seemingly
no good reason. Linux doesn't.
So people, please. Don't blame your own shortcomings on Linux.
> all of the others aren't? Usually, the reasons become apparent, and in most
> cases, reasonable to me. The user is a beginner or a moron. They loaded some
> stupid screensaver or badly designed piece of freeware. Or the computer
An OS that let's an application cause it to crash is a joke.
> it's design. When someone's computer crashes, they love to blame Windows but
> how often is the problem really with Windows? Possibly always but there are
> a lot of variables to consider when you place the blame.
I have a brand new Dell machine. I primarily run IE, a solid telnet
client (CRT), a good mail reader (Pegasus), Word, Works, Napster, and
whatnot. Nothing too exotic or risky. Windows crashes. I have to reboot
about 2 times a month.
Fix my computer, Ernest :)
> My Linux box crashes more often than my Windows box, and I'm the first to
> admit that it's because I don't know what the hell I'm doing, when I use it.
Thank you.
> Does that mean that Linux is designed badly? If Linux is so great, why is
> there an almost daily alert in my inbox from bugzilla, reporting some
> security risk or other newly found flaw? As a frustrated new Linux user,
You're obviously going about this the wrong way. Why not pick something
stable like RH 6.2 and just stick with it? That's what I did, and my
server's been up constantly for months now. Stop trying to be on the
bleeding edge.
> that doesn't build my trust in it but I still like using it. I wonder if
> Linux proponents, like the early Apple users, have simply decided that their
> OS is better than Windows, whether it's a truly better OS or not, simply
> because they don't like Microsoft. I don't like Microsoft but that doesn't
> mean that Linux is great. Linux is what it is, and that has nothing to do
> with Microsoft.
This argument is sickening. Calling Windows an OS in the same sentence as
mentioning Linux is wrong in the most dire sense of the word.
> I've been living high on the hog (weird phrase, eh?) by suckling up to the
> virtual teat that Microsoft's software problems have created, and it's a
> mighty BIG teat for sure but doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that any
> other mass produced OS would have just as bad a reputation if it were as
> common as MS Windows? Can you imagine how pleasantly Linux would be embraced
No, it's not reasonable. You just have this attitude because, as you
plainly have acknowledge, you make a living off of the misery that people
must suffer due to the shit products that one software company has forced
onto the world with their f-ed up marketing practices.
> if it became the new standard in homes across America? Can you hear the
> howls of agony in the distance? I want to like Linux, and I do like it but
> it's got it's flaws, just like Windows. Right now, I would recommend Windows
Again, you're doing something wrong. I think I see the problem. You're
approaching Linux as you would with Windows. Windows needs every patch
that comes out for it because it is fundamentally flawed. Linux does not.
You just don't get it.
Sorry to carry on this lame thread, but it is sometimes necessary to
dispell ignorant obfuscation of the facts.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Wed Oct 18 2000 - 22:53:44 BST