why do people hate win98 so much? win2k and linux suck so much more

[lucidguy]

<< I have nothing to gain by promoting MS' products, they don't pay me to do it. >>



You could have fooled me. You genuinely sound like a Microsoft employee, or someone who owns Microsoft stock, someone who really has a financial interest in Microsoft's success. Everything you say paints Microsoft in a rosy light.

As for the belittling tone in my voice, I genuinely don't understand how anyone can justify respecting Microsoft. If anyone can tell me what their justification is for respecting this company, I will have learned something new.

 

[HansXP]

They make products that work. No, not all of their products. 9x was crap. Office 2000 and XP are crap - there are no new features. And this product activation really pisses me off. But I still respect them because some of their products - NT4, Win2K, Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player, Streets &amp; Trips, Encarta, etc - work very well and are pretty much bug free.

 

[lucidguy]

As a software developer, one's job is to make products that work. Thousands of software developers all over the world make products that work. How is this any justification for respect? It just means you're doing a good job at what you're doing.

Why is Microsoft any better, any more deserving of respect, than the thousands of other software developers?

 

[konichiwa]

<< MS may be a lot of things, but you wouldn't be running linux on a low-cost PC if it wasn't for them. Like it or not, they played a big part in the evolution of the PC >>

If only we could see the PC industry had Microsoft not entered the business? To be honest, I think we'd see a lot more free, open source software that's constantly developed (like Linux and 90% of the software that runs on it)

 

[HansXP]

<<
Why is Microsoft any better, any more deserving of respect, than the thousands of other software developers? >>



I'm not saying it is. But you keep bashing it, and I have to defend against the lies you seem to think are facts.

 

[lucidguy]

What lies are these exactly? That IIS has more security vulnerabilities than all other webservers in history, combined? That Bill Gates lied on the witness stand and Microsoft submitted fradulent evidence to a court of law? That Microsoft is a legally recognized monopoly? That it is being sued by the US government, 19 states, and thousands of past and present employees? That thousands of bugs had to be fixed in Win2k SP1 and SP2?

I do understand that you do not like these facts, but that does not give you the right to call them lies.

Thanks.

 

[HansXP]

<< What lies are these exactly? That IIS has more security vulnerabilities than all other webservers in history, combined? That Bill Gates lied on the witness stand and Microsoft submitted fradulent evidence to a court of law? That Microsoft is a legally recognized monopoly? That it is being sued by the US government, 19 states, and thousands of past and present employees? That thousands of bugs had to be fixed in Win2k SP1 and SP2? >>



As I've said, I'm not going to argue these points...your head is much too stuck...somewhere...to understand. The fact is that you're spewing a bunch of crap about MS that isn't true. W2K isn't filled with bugs, IIS isn't a disaster in terms of security, and not everything MS makes will crash your computer.

 

[lucidguy]

This is why I think you're working for Microsoft's marketing department. You rate everything using qualitative adjectives, which change from person to person. Of course, to you, a program with three thousand bugs might be considered &quot;not filled with bugs&quot;. A webserver with at least two thousand available exploits might be considered &quot;not a disaster&quot;. The advantage of using adjectives is that the meanings and connotations of adjectives change from person to person, and if I wanted to sue you for false advertising, for example, I couldn't, because you would just say that you used adjectives in a way consistent with their meanings for you. Of course, the entire western world might disagree with how you use those adjectives, but hey, you're a marketer. You get paid partly to find creative ways to evade false advertising charges from the FTC, while still managing to make MS look good.

When I criticize Microsoft, I do so in quantitative and comparative ways. I back up every statement I make with facts. Microsoft's webserver has more bugs than all other webservers ever released, combined. This is a fact. More credit cards have been stolen due to bugs in Microsoft's webserver than due to all other web servers, combined. This is a fact. Win2k has more bugs than any Linux kernel ever did, by at least an order of magnitude. This is a fact. The first two Win2k service packs collectively fixed thousands of bugs. This is also a fact.

I have facts, you have fluffy adjectives. This is the difference between us.

EDIT: Corrected spelling error.

 

[HansXP]

You won't listen to facts. The number of pure bugs in code doesn't matter if I am never affected by any of them! You're spewing useless facts that have no value in the real world, I'm spewing &quot;fluff&quot; that is what we actually have to deal with.

 

[lucidguy]

You know, HansXP, when someone's credit card is stolen due to buggy Microsoft web server software, people really are &quot;affected&quot;. I'm happy to know that Microsoft shills don't give a sh!t about the suffering people had to go through when CD Universe was hacked a couple of years ago, and then again when Outpost was hacked last year. All due to bugs in IIS. I'm glad that Microsoft shills aren't &quot;affected&quot; when a Melissa or Kournikova virus causes billions of dollars worth of data and productivity loss, due to incompetent software. Due to bugs in Word and Outlook. You are not &quot;affected&quot; maybe, because you're a shill and you still get paid by Microsoft. But people suffer, and people are &quot;affected&quot;.

And by saying that you are not &quot;affected&quot; by others' suffering, you lost any credibility that you possibly might have had in this discussion.

 

[konichiwa]

<< The number of pure bugs in code doesn't matter if I am never affected by any of them! >>

That doesn't change the facts:

1) These bugs EXIST, and there are MANY of them
2) People, maybe not YOU, but MANY people, are being affected by these bugs

 

[HansXP]

<< 1) These bugs EXIST, and there are MANY of them >>



I'm not disputing that, but I am saying that these bugs aren't the kind that really cause problems.



<< 2) People, maybe not YOU, but MANY people, are being affected by these bugs >>



Name these serious bugs that &quot;MANY&quot; people were affected by. I just haven't seen them.

 

[konichiwa]

Read lucidguy's last post. He's not making this stuff up.

 

[HansXP]

<< And by saying that you are not &quot;affected&quot; by others' suffering, you lost any credibility that you possibly might have had in this discussion.
>>



Okay, maybe I need to clarify that statement. I wasn't just talking about me. I know many people who run Windows 2000 without all of the problems you describe. They work under varying circumstances, but all of them have never had to deal with the bugs listed.

But fine, you go on spewing BS about a product you've never used. I'm sure it would pop a blood vessel in your brain if you saw that an MS product could be stable.

And just to clarify: I haven't resorted to calling you names, so PLEASE stop calling me an MS shill. I'm not.

 

[murdock2525]

Well.............flame suit donned !...........
If you cannot get a Win 2k system to be totally reliable and easy to control ?
Take up a simpler hobby.....such as Twister or perhaps horseshoezzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[HansXP]

<< Well.............flame suit donned !...........
If you cannot get a Win 2k system to be totally reliable and easy to control ?
Take up a simpler hobby.....such as Twister or perhaps horseshoezzzzzzzzzzzzz >>



Haha! Very well said

 

[konichiwa]

<< Well.............flame suit donned !...........
If you cannot get a Win 2k system to be totally reliable and easy to control ?
Take up a simpler hobby.....such as Twister or perhaps horseshoezzzzzzzzzzzzz >>

Right. That's intelligent.

 

[gunf1ghter]

lucidguy is a troll, and if anyone is a shill here, it must be him. he repeatedly slams MS and promotes Linux so obviously he has stock in Redhat or some other such company. He doesn't even post a profile on Anandtech so he must be someone else's Linux loving alias.

Most of us are adult enough to realize that Linux has it's advantages. We also realize that MS Windows has advantages. The fact that many of us choose to run windows and have stable windows computing experiences is something you can't handle.

Your problem, not ours.

 

[gunf1ghter]

konichawa, you are usually a pretty rational person, but why you are sticking up for lucidguy is a mystery to me.

 

[HansXP]

<< Most of us are adult enough to realize that Linux has it's advantages. We also realize that MS Windows has advantages. The fact that many of us choose to run windows and have stable windows computing experiences is something you can't handle. >>



Very true. I guess I should state this: I have no problem with Linux. I appreciate it's stability, scalability, etc. But to say that Windows has no advantages is to lie.

 

[lucidguy]

&quot;Shill&quot; implies a certain corporate entity backing the propaganda. There is no corporate entity behind Linux. Sure, there are a lot of industry players working with Linux, but Linux doesn't belong to any of them.

The Linux copyright belongs to Linus Torvalds. The copyright of Linux source code belongs to about a hundred individuals. The copyright of the code in a typical Linux distribution easily belongs to tens of thousands of different individuals, in bits and pieces. Therefore, the word &quot;shill&quot; makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

I think the word you are looking for is not &quot;Linux shill&quot; but &quot;penguinista&quot;. This word refers to Linux activists and evangelists. And frankly, yes, I do believe that the future of IT lies in Linux and GPL'ed software, and I would be honored to be called a penguinista.

Math and science has flourished over the past few centuries due to full disclosure, collaboration and peer review. These principles are the very foundations of modern technology. It only stands to reason that the future of information technology will be founded upon the very same principles. And I am proud of what little I can contribute to this pursuit.

Thanks.

 

[konichiwa]

<< lucidguy is a troll, and if anyone is a shill here, it must be him. he repeatedly slams MS and promotes Linux so obviously he has stock in Redhat or some other such company. He doesn't even post a profile on Anandtech so he must be someone else's Linux loving alias. >>

Just because someone slams one thing and promotes another means he or she is &quot;a troll&quot; or has stock in that company? Please. And to address your other post, I am sticking up for lucidguy because he is right. I don't have enough Linux experience to comment on the things he says about Linux, but I certainly have plenty of experience with Windows products and what he says is true.

 

[HansXP]

<< I certainly have plenty of experience with Windows products and what he says is true. >>



What version of Windows do you have experience with? If you're going to say 2000, you can stop right now, because if you had experienced it, you wouldn't be backing him.

 

[konichiwa]

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP

<< If you're going to say 2000, you can stop right now, because if you had experienced it, you wouldn't be backing him. >>

Whatever you say, smart guy.

 

[lucidguy]

<< What version of Windows do you have experience with? If you're going to say 2000, you can stop right now >>



How quaint. No one is allowed to have experiences that are different from HansXP's experiences.