Thank You Microsoft

Linux is beter than u think, unfortunatly it's still in its beginning stage and the install wizards we are all used to on MAC and WINDOWS systems still need a little work( id say about a year or so..) Still it is open software which means that anyone who thinks he can actually can make improvements on the software, i dont see very many people doing this to the NT or WIN98 OS's. SO all i can say is keep your eyes open for linux and try to install it once in a while and i am sure that one day u'll end up with a big smile on your face! ;-)

Opus October 21, 1999

I have used Linux for more than two years now and still see absolutely no advantage in using this OS. Linux is clearly for people who like to find out everything the hard way. Userfriendly is something that sure doesn't exist in the Linux dictonairy.

I sure could share you with many frustrating moments in linux, like installing GNOME, compiling a kernel or just install a simple application but I won't.

I on the other hand will tell you that the programmers of Linux makes the same mistakes Microsoft has made in the past. To name you a few. Hardware support. The more hardware is supported in Linux, the more combinations of hardware there are, the more started to fail. I mean, now your VGA is working, but when enabling sound, the VGA stops working and things like that.

Also before even trying to install hardware, be sure you have all specs available. Linux applications tend to ask you the most stupid questions on your hardware, while even Windows 3.1 could find it out himself. I mean, do you know your VSYNC and HSYNC of your videocard ? Yes, there are some programs like SAX who are able to find some videocards by probing them - but maybe I have strange hardware, in two years I have had at least 4 different videocards and SAX couldn't find any of them.

Second, Windows users have sometimes what is refered to as "DLL-Hell". Well, under Linux you have your Libxxx.so.xx.x hell. I mean, libraries (compare DLL's) are spread in different version in /lib /usr/lib /local/lib /usr/X11R6/lib and god know where else. How many times did I have got an application that said "error - you have to wrong Libxxx.so.1.x - please update". Update what, the library ? First you have to find out in which package the library is included. This is next to impossible, since there is no reference to what belongs to what. Mostly, I found it out by endless querying search-engines on the Internet and finaly found pages which contains the content of the different pacakges. Second, when downloading the latest version, I more then once receive a warning which says "you are about to install a library on your system that all exist". Yes, you have an old version in /lib and a newer version in /usr/lib and of course your application is looking into the first library directory.

At third, enabling things like sounds, or even optimizing your system requires a kernel recompile. I won't any user recommend ever trying to do so. First get a Phd and take a course in doing so. You will be asked tens of questions which you only can answer if you know how to write operating systems kernels and know everything of UNIX and hardware. "Do you want UNIX V IPC", "do you want ADFS", "do you want 860/821 support", "do you want MMTR support". Incredible, who invents those type of questions - even when reading the primative explanation which goes along with this question you still don't know what they mean". And raving through the up to hunderd of those type of questions, you still are stuck with finaly compiling the kernel. Should I select "make zImage" or make "bzImage". Dunno, is it important.

A last I want to make a comment towards applications. Linux users like to bash on Microsoft for making to applications loaded with too many, unneeded features. Well, Linux programmers tend to make their applications to have at least the same features. In the end there won't be a difference. One thing is for sure, virtuall all applications on linux are in their alpha and beta phase. And even if there is a point version, it is likely in their first version. So think about that when linux kernel 2.4 gets USB - it is a version 1.0.

Every Linux user claims there linux OS to be more secure than Windows. While it is true that even I want to kick Scott Culps ("security program manager") for finding yet another IE 5.0 bug, linux is way way worse. I mean, how many holes did we have in NT this year that allowed some type of administrator control towards your system. Once ? I mean having a Excel Bug doesn't make your Windows NT and IIS webserver unsafe. On Linux you have to deal at least every two weeks with yet another security bug which actually allows you to get root-access. But don't believe me on this part - just go to www.linuxtoday.com/security and make a visit to the RedHat site and judge yourself.
Linux users claim that linux must be more secure than NT since linux is open source and anyone can fix the code. Sure, do you as an ordinairy end-user know where to start debugging in the 40MB+ of sourcecode (hundredthousand lines of code)? I don't and I don't want to learn C++ either. So you still are depending on some guy to fix it. Maybe it can be fixed faster then the two days avarage that Microsoft fix a bug. But, when fix, how much guarantees do you have that it doesn't affect your system on another way. That is what Microsoft is doing before releasing a fix. Testing if it doesn't affect the system otherwise. Give them credits and understand why they cannot day it any faster. At least Microsoft is sending me email explaning the exploit. I have an official registered version of SUSE, but SUSE never send me a email saying they found a security bug (which they had many this year). They send me unwanted marketing stuff.

Finally I want to mention QUALITY control. Having thousands of programmers writing applications and parts of the kernel sure gives problems with QUALITY control. Some write bad code, some write good code. But in the end it is all mixed to gather and you all start praying it works.

My credits for this moment go to Windows 2000. This is clearly how things need to be. Having a reliable, secure and quality OS ranging from ordinairy end-users (W2K professional) to large scale datacenters (W2K DataCenter). Incredible having that range from just one OS.

Xavalon

Xavalon October 21, 1999

Sir,

I agree with you that Linux and the Unices are rather complex, but after reading your letter, I have to shake my head and wonder what branch of Microsoft you work for. Your comparison of a freeware OS, and the bloated, expensive Windows product line is absurd.

You didn't state why you chose S.u.S.E.'s version of Linux, over the more user-friendly Red Hat, you didn't state why you wanted to use Linux, other than bland curiosity; you didn't talk about the type of machine on which you were attempting your laborious installation, you poor poor Windows user. And, worst of all, you failed to tell us for what you wanted to use the OS.

If a ship has no guidance it inevitably winds up on the rocks.

You have formulated opinions before the installation of the OS, which makes you guilty of contempt prior to investigation. That is typical these days, in a fast-food culture, but for Winntmag to have allowed that tendentious and feeble-minded rhetoric to be published as a veritable feature is appalling, and taints my trust for what I otherwise thought was a pretty stellar publication.

Now I must cast a jaundiced eye on that magazine too, questioning every sentence that is printed or published, because I am unsure who's agenda the statement may be serving, Microsoft's or the readers.

Good luck with the Windows.

P.S. People who don't like to think for themselves should avoid being forced to think and find new and creative solutions to common problems, which is what using "The programmer's toolbox" (or an OS modelled after it) is all about. Sit back and relax, you will be continually spoonfed the pap to which you are accustomed, and for which you pay its exorbitant tariffs. Rest assured.

Klaus Kararatzacz October 21, 1999

Like all NT folks your clueless and by your own admission young. When you grow up someday maybe someone will let you learn a real OS!

George Van Devere October 21, 1999

Boy I hope this guy used a phony email account. All the Linux Clergy (oops I mean users) will be hounding him to death.

I have no problem critizing Microsoft and do all the time but Heaven forbid you say anything bad about this product. It reminds me of the Mac crazies and the OS/2 nuts. A operation system is just that not a religion accept the criticism and disagreed with it if needed but don't go Holy Crusader on the rest of us. We use them for work not worship.

Joe Smith October 21, 1999

The ONLY thing that matters to me about an OS are these type of comments. I really do not understand why some folks care about Linux being free and sticking it to Bill Gates and Microsoft. WHO CARES? I want an OS that is easy to work with and gets the job done. Every time I see anyone say that LINUX is anything but wonderful, I always see comments such as shown here like "You must work for Microsoft".
The pro Linux crowd discredit their point by harping on the anti-Microsoft point all of the time.
I have also installed Linux and found it difficult to use and no where near the panacea I had heard. Yes, it may work for some, but I would not use it in a corporate environment at all. My experience was very similar.

Brad Dolbec October 21, 1999

What a ridiculous article! I can deal with an NT advocate who wants to debate Linux on its technical merits or shortcomings, but this was simply a troll. Stone age, huh? Looks like DOS. eh? Please take a look at my Linux desktop and say that again.

http://www.mindspring.com/~alginn/screenshot1.gif

Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with the technical issues. Linux runs 1/3 of the servers on the internet according to the Internet Operating System Counter

http://www.leb.net/hzo/ioscount/index.html

so yes, it is extremely advanced. Don't blame the software for your inability to grasp it. Clearly, this article is more of a damnation for your lack of technical prowess than it is of Linux.

As far as installation, I installed Red Hat Linux the last time in 20 minutes! This includes the entire OS and hundreds of applications. Linux is the easiest OS to install, period, and anyone who says differently has either not tried installing Windows from scratch or is lying.

Please, if you want to leave the technical issues to others, fine, but please don't whine about it. Linux doen't owe you anything.



Aaron Ginn October 21, 1999

I'm not a proponent of any operating system but it is obvious that this gentelman should not be claiming any kind of knowledge when it comes to operating systems. Why doesn't his company just hire the 5 year old the author mentions to take care of the Sys Admin duties.

Bill Tapp October 21, 1999

Huau. This is the most idiotic article I read in a good deal of time. I'd venture the author is 10y old, but then again he would know DOS.
Oh, and this goes for the editors too. A respectable magazine wouldn't publish such an idiocy.

Carlos Morgado October 21, 1999

Since I haven't used SuSE, I can't comment on how installin and using it might go. However, I have been nothing but thoroughly pleased with RedHat since the 5.x series as well as Linux PPC for both desktops and servers.

Last year about this time, I started having continuous problems with my Win95 machine at home. I already had RedHat dual-booted but still used Win95 mostly until that point. Since Linux had served me so well at work as a server platform, I switched it more towards a desktop at home. Now, I only go back to play games that don't run under a Windows emulator.

I recently started a new job in a web and print design and
marketing shop, and I convinced them to let me bring in Linux as my desktop. I wouldn't have it any other way at this point. It took me about 2 hours of work to install the system and all the software I needed including MS Office substitutes. In two months, the machine has never crashed and I'm able to get tons of more work done because of the improved UI designs (Enlightenment with GNOME) over the Windows design.

So next time, rather than just filling an article with what sounds like utter contempt, maybe check out why people like it and figure out why you're having so much trouble.

Mike Bohlmann October 21, 1999