All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Go windows go!

(1/11) > >>

www.unixsucks.com:
Go Windows go (i can never get it too)

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ex Eleven / b0b ]

lazygamer:
Why does an OS always have to suck? What about being "windowsisnotasbadasyouthink.com"? That tends to give you more journalistic integrity with the people here.

Or what about "unixhasitsownissues.com" or "unixhasdownsidestoo.com".

Sucks just makes someone appear heavily biased, of course this place is called Fuckmicrosoft so that's hypocritical.  

www.unixsucks.com:
I'm not a journalist so it does not make any difference to me what site name means.
I actully have more tolerant view of UNIX compared to what UNIX-lovers have of Windows. I did not want to use "f*" as it's really UNIX way of treating people (M$, Microsucks, Internet Exploder, ...), just acting like a bunch of pissed off teenagers, not much support for accusations but a lot of fuss.

BTW, I really like design of this forum, whoever did it - did a good job.

UNIX still sucks

lazygamer:

quote:
The common problem with so called BSD (Blue Screen Of Death) in 90% of the cases called by hardware not being on HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) or drivers not signed by Microsoft or poorely written third party programs.
--- End quote ---


Ok in the interest of both parties, can Linux say that it has much lower BSD risk when using the same drivers? If so, then it proves that Microsoft software is less compatibile in general.(doesn't prove that it's a poorly written piece of shit as that's semi-opinon, but everyone can admit that would prove "less compatibility")

 
quote:So about stability and quality of applications running on Windows. As I specialise in web servers I would compare IIS and Apache. IIS is as stable and Apache, things which might make it unstable are usually caused (as everything else on webservers) by poorely written applications. If you would host plain ASP pages and static content I would guarantee that IIS would run as long as any Apache. Sometimes "Worshipper" would try to point out that longest uptime belongs to Apache, but if you would look behind the scene and check what site he is usually talking about then you would see that it's a site consisting of SINGLE STATIC page likehttp://wwwprod1.telia.com/. Give me colocation space, Windows2000 and I'll guarantee you the same uptime on the same kind of server.
--- End quote ---


So who gives a fux0r about servers. Servers this servers that. HOW DOES YOUR OS FARE UNDER CONSTANTLY MULTI-TASKING, OPENING AND CLOSING A TON OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, OR PLAYING A HIGHLY RESOURCE INTENSIVE GAME? Using "server uptime" for OS reliability is like measuring 3D game performance(ie:timedemo etc.) without using a specfically tortortous route of testing in the game.

 
quote:The story is not actually about technical stuff (though it's a reason for comparison) but the way UNIX worshippers treats anything which comes from Microsoft.
--- End quote ---


Yes that's true. It's because the reasons Unix d00dz have for hating Microsoft could be classified as "conspriacy theories" because it's not very common knowledge to the average person. So windows d00dz think Unix d00dz are full of propaganda because what they say seems to "not be fact". A conspiracy is either fact or fiction, but it's hard to tell what one is correct sometimes. To one side it's always fact, to others it's always fiction.

lazygamer:
Unix sux... hey did you make that site yourself?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page