PCA Forums

That's right boys and girls, its time for another patented Splitfire rant.

Taken from <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15838.html", target=blank>The Register</a>. Particularly, I have a problem with this paragraph:

The kernel has been released more than a year later than first expected. The main reason for this was the inclusion of high-end enterprise features and the desire to adhere to the open source philosophy of only releasing code when it was ready.

OK, this is really freaking stupid. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with Linux (mainly b/c I don't know anything about it ), nor do I have a problem with anyone who uses Linux over say MS. What I totally don't get is the <i>attitude</i> put forth by those who support Linux. I've also seen this alot with people who use AMD chips over Intel "because Intel sucks." You guys always sound like you have some kind of inferiority complex and you always have to show everyone else why Linux/AMD are better and Intel/MS are bad/evil/whores/whatever. Take this instance: this new release of the Linux kernel is <b>OVER A FULL YEAR LATE</b> and everyone is praising Torvalds et al for being "wonderous supporters of open source code" and "looking our for the good of the end user!?" WTF?? Did I miss something here?? Let's be honest. If MS or Intel was more than a full year late in releasing a product, you people would be calling for Bill Gates's and Craig Barret's collective heads on a platter! This happened with the release of Win2k. I can remember people mocking MS and saying how horrible there development team was for being so late with a new product. But when Torvalds and company do it, THEY ARE PRAISED!?!? What gives here?? Can someone PLEASE explain this to me? And don't feed me any crap about how MS/Intel have established a pattern of being late or some crap like that. You and I both know that is BS. Here's what I think: I think that some of you hardcore "Yea, Linux/AMD!" people have absolutely NO life outside of your computer, and you are so totally self-diluted with your own arrogance that you will take any and every opportunity you can to show why your computer is bigger/better/faster than everyone elses. THAT IS <b>SAD!</b> At least be consistent with your flames! Sheesh, come off of it!



Ahhh... feels better already. <i>*reaches for a cigarette*</i>

Hehe. I think you hit the nail on the head. People like to do things that are cool and different. Some people use linux because it works better for them, while others -because it's the cool thing to do.

Perhaps we should think higher of MS and Intel, when we download linux from a Windows box, and try to benchmark an AMD against an Intel (because of it's reputation).

This ain't nothing new. There are those out there who blast Linux because they support Windows. We've seen it before with cpu's, videocards and soundcards (historical example Splitfire-AgentZero flame war }.

Actually people can not be mad at M$ for releasing Win2k in FEBUARY 2000! This was released in 2000, very early 2000 at that!

What's funny is all the people bitching and whinning about M$ and Intel, when their boxes use both. You can cry about M$ all day, but you use it everyday.

The whole Linux/M$ AMD/Intel Nvidia/ATI/Voodoo is a big "my d!ck is bigger than yours" war. They just want to prove something to someone else to make themselves feel better for spending their hard earned money on the latest USELESS gadget or cpu. What they don't realize is ALL These corporations are the EXACT same and care NOTHIHNG about the customer, only about making a buck. Whos better? None of them, they all suck. Plus, who cares whos is better and faster? If it works, it works. Why do you think companies are throwing out new cpu's every 6 weeks and throwing out app/game updates to buy? TO GET MONEY! Something will be out in 3 months that blows yours away. Then what do you do? You go spend more money (even though what you have is perfectly fast, working, and fine) to get this latest thing, that really isnt all that.

LikeLinus made a really good point - it's all about money. Every day counts when getting a new product to market. If your competition makes that day first, it could potentially add up to millions in lost revenue. So what does the software industry do about it? They release products with known bugs, with the intention of later releasing a "fix". As consumers we are somewhat to blame. Many view this cycle as normal, almost to be expected, thus allowing the software industry to get away with it. In some cases they should, however. To test a piece of software in every application and environment for which it will be used would take years. Problems will initially appear that escaped QA testing. No other industry has this luxury. When you buy a television you're pretty much stuck with what you get. There is no "magic fix" for a problem that was discovered late.

Anyway, on to my point. The open source community doesn't have the financial pressures that most software developers face. It allows them the freedom to work at a leisurely pace, and make it right the first time. I believe the open source community praises the late release of the 2.4.0 kernal because, to them, the additional time simply demonstrates this fact. That it was put through the "ringer", so to speak. Well-tested, cleaned up, fixed, and then released at a later date. Is this attitude correct? In most cases, yes. A privately developed piece of software will be tested in-house (in alpha pase) by no more than a few hundred people. Then it's tested out-of-house (in beta) by a selected audience (although some beta's are made public material). The idea behind open source is that it's not the intellectual property of a single company. Therefore, testing takes place among millions of people. Anyone with the interest and the time can do so. They are much better equipped to catch the quirks that only show up in certain applications and environments. Therefore, the final product, having seem much more scrutiny, reaches the market in much better shape than most software we see today.

Heheh, I had almost forgotten about that one <b>SBP</b>! I remember that even spilled over into a few off topic threads, too! Ahh, those were the days.

I agree with <b>LikeLinus</b> and <b>Solstice</b> that it is all about the money. But my question is why should people expect anything different whether it is or isn't about the money? Does the fact that someone gets paid give them a tighter time table than someone who doesn't? What about companies like Redhat, Mandrake, VA, and Corel who are profit driven yet are based on an open source OS? Is the CEO of Redhat the good guy or the bad? Are these corps subject to the same time tables as MS, or are they loser b/c they use Linux? Do you see what I am saying here? It makes no sense! I just don't get it.

It all goes back to even before James Dean days, when it was considered "cool" to root for the under dog and hate the establishments. Kind of like a rebel w/o a clue who keeps chasing after a fable, knowing what it is but wanting to believe it to be real.

the best answer i have heard from the linux/amd fans (the little guy supporters) is that they don't want to have a monopoly in the market so they should support the little guys. if not this monopoly will take control of the market and then raise prices. to me this is a stupid argument. case in point nvidia. i have heard people say that now that nvidia has such a big market share we should support other companies (mainly ati). thats stupid nvidia got to the top b/c they make the best stuff HANDS DOWN. graphics card prices are still really low (i just got a gts for 150, almost the same price i paid for a tnt that i had purchased years ago when nvidia wasn't king of the hill. windows still cost about $100-150). why should i go out and buy inferior ati readon instead of a nivida card? the same used to be true for amd. people would support buying their chips b/c they wanted competition for intel. thats stupid intel (untill the last year) has always had a better chip than amd. (they are now closer, i think its getting to close to call). when it comes to linux and windows. (in terms of a server, in the desktop market its still windows hands down) they both have different cost and benefits. but to use linux b/c "its not from evil micro$oft" is asinine.

-dan

The major difference with linux is that its free (and open source). You really can't complain when something is free.

Also, if you don't like something or want to add something, write up the code and recompile the kernal.

As for the underdog thing, I think people just have a tendancy to root for the underdog (and also want to avoid monopolies).

Another thing i think is funny is car wars. Ford vs. Chevy. You gotta love people fighting over whos got the fastest car. It's also funny when someone goes "my car will do 0-60 in 6.0, while your's will only do it in 6.5" In all reality you will NEVER get your car to do 0-60 in 6.0 (unless you are a race car driver). Those numbers are extracted by many runs down a race track under good conditions w/ a brand new engine and driven by a track proven and trained driver!

ok thats just a silly little rant on my part. I also really hate all those "piss on" ford or chevy stickers. Maybe these are just here in the south, but they are stupid. They have some little guy pissing on the ford or chevy signs.

What's even funnier (actually this goes for the amd/intel linux/ms debate also) IS these people HATE these other products/companies/cars so much, but they have never even owned or driven the compeition! How can you make a real judgement on something you have no hands on knowledge about?!?!

ok i'm done ranting =)

ding ding. Time's up *L*

Maybe we're just on the same wavelength or something but again I have to agree with LikeLinus. PLEASE people, don't knock it 'til you try it. Obviously we'd like to believe that all of our purchases are made having considered all other options, bargained for the best price, and researched what's available. It's too easy to jump on the "product X supporters" bandwagon simply because we are trying to justify the purchase of product X. We know that product Y exists and has it's share of supporters but we fear trying product Y because it will prove that the purchase of X was, in fact, not the best choice.

Obviously there are significant differences between X and Y which will make both products a reasonable purchase for some, but not for all. Forget about the money you spent, put your biases aside, and try new things. Comparing apples and oranges on visual observation alone will only go so far. You need to taste them both to know what they have to offer you.

That it was put through the "ringer", so to speak.

Things were changing up through at least 2.4.0-test12. I myself probably won't upgrade from 2.4.0-test12 (w/ReiserFS 3.6.23 and low latency patches) until at least 2.4.1.

when it comes to linux and windows. (in terms of a server, in the desktop market its still windows hands down) they both have different cost and benefits.

It's more of an opinion on what one considers a better UI though I would rank Windows as being just below GNOME as having the worst. MacOS, BeOS and KDE 2.x would all be somewhere around the top. As for newbie friendlines, things aren't quite as easy since people knew to a platform will try to use it like they did their old one and aren't always willing to learn new ways of doing things. Of course, it's absurd to expect the new way of doing things to include editing files by hand in VI.

Although editing files in vi can be much faster and easier than doing so in Word if you know what you're doing.

Though I edit the majority of my config files by hand with vi (or ed if vi isn't available), I'm not crazy enough to expect everyone to do that. Automation can be good; look at how sweet <code>apt-get</code> is in Debian.