Author Topic: What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?  (Read 1187 times)

slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« on: 9 October 2003, 21:42 »
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Open Source fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 900 running Windows XP, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even vi is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" OS.

Open Source addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

(note: for the humor-impaired, this isn't a serious post, just a funny troll)

slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #1 on: 9 October 2003, 21:44 »
Here is another fine linux troll:

I teach OS concepts at a major college.

What I've experienced with Linux is thus.

It's for sure an inferior OS to UNIX and Windows because...

    1)It's really hard to use
    2)Not very stable
    3)Has little real security

It's for sure dangerous to businesses and business computing in general because...

    1)It's source code is basically stolen from others work.
    2)It is free and has no market(money) driving it's development so therefore it's not good for the economy and the public interest in general
    3)The philosophy behind the distribution of Linux is Un-American and more like communism.
This cannot be good for our country.
It allows terrorists just enough encryption and power to aid them in their efforts to KILL us.
    4)The source is provided so ANYONE can create scripts and such to slam a linux system.

It's role should just be for teaching OS concepts.
In that role Linux is great. We use it in our classroom but I certainly explain to my students that it is not a real OS like Sun, SCO or Windows.
If a student writes in a paper in my class and lists Linux as one of the OS's that make up the major market then they get an F on that paper.
The reason is because Linux is not in the major Market it is in the minor market - the second rate
special purpose OS's. Linux is not general enough
to be considered an universal OS.

In it's current state Linux is not ready for primetime. It will never be until Linus Torvalds
does the following.

  1) Settle disputes with the IP holder of UNIX (SCO).
  2) Restricted source license.
  3) Make it a TRUE commercail OS
  4) Single source for distributing.(No SUSE, NO RH)

After a couple of years of that you will see
Linux become a first tier OS instead of a novelty
OS.

All I am saying is let's be realistic about what Linux is and is not.

I am in the middle of an experiment.
With the release of RH8 I decided to make it
my exclusive Desktop OS to do all my work on it
for one year.

I bought RH 8 when it came out and the thing I noticed was I had to do about 6 weeks of almost constant tweeking and refining and reinstalling
I finaly had it about 15% as productive as Windows 98! Think about that!
It is also much much slower that Windows98.
Even though I only load the absolutley minimum processes.

    1)It is not faster than Windows
    2)Does not manage memory better than NT or XP.
    3)The GUI is much less stable and crashes much more than winNT, XP or 98.

These are just facts.

slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #2 on: 9 October 2003, 21:45 »
Open Source? More like Openly Racist


The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.
 
Allow me to explain.
 
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
 
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.
 
Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.
 
More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.
 
It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.
 
It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.
 
Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!
 
One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.
 
Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.
 
Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.
 
Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #3 on: 9 October 2003, 21:47 »
can anyone else dig up some good linux/open source trolls?

Stryker

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,258
  • Kudos: 41
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #4 on: 9 October 2003, 10:20 »
ha, i thought you were actually trolling i was about to bin it.

so are these things you've come across or did you make them up?

that racist thing kind of pissed me off though.

[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]


Zombie9920

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,309
  • Kudos: 33
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #5 on: 9 October 2003, 10:40 »
(EDIT) God Damnit you wasted my time with a serious post. I should've read that you were just trolling.   :rolleyes:

[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]


slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #6 on: 9 October 2003, 18:58 »
These are very common trolls that can be found in the nero-online troll database (http://nero-online.org/troll)

Here's a troll I wrote about linux (actually it was my first post on this forum)

Dispersing the Linux Myths

 One of the biggest wails heard by the most vocal and fanatical zealots in the Linux community is that Windows and most of the programs that run on it are bloated and slow, while screaming about how fast and "un-bloated" Linux is. Where this myth started I do not know, but it is obvious that it is a deliberate effort by Linux fanatics to tarnish the good name of Microsoft and Windows and to lure Linux newbies and those curious about the OS into making the fatal mistake of installing it on their computer. The fact that this alleged truth seems to go unquestioned shows how reluctant most Linux advocates are to admit that their once lightweight OS has degenerated into nothing more than piles and piles of spaghetti code and a huge mess of cheesy, mostly unused apps that is characteristic of most Linux distributions these days.

Now to dispel the myths:

Myth 1.) Linux is good for old computers.

This Linux Lie is often perpetrated when a newbie wants to try out Linux, but is reluctant to install it on his or her main computer (with good reason) Others replying to his question will say that it is fine to erase the hard drive of his old Pentium 166 with Windows 98 SE to prepare it for the Linux revolution, but the fact is that Linux performs horribly on slow computers in comparison to Windows. Sure, Linux may turn an older computer into a feeble server or a router, but try running things that you could run fairly quickly under Windows such as anything GUI, particularly an office app or a web browser, and Linux crawls, stutters, grinds the hard drive for 10 minutes, and generally eats up all the RAM in your poor machine's system like an obese glutton.

Myth 2.) Linux is lightweight

Once, yes, but now it couldn't be further from the truth. Linux has quickly snowballed into a gargantuan assortment of apps and bloated libraries that have been stitched together by the slaves of Tux. No amount of RAM will satisfy Linux, it will eat it all until there is nothing left to do but start swapping. Many Linux purists will say that is not true, but since they choose to only use the command line or maybe blackbox or windowmaker they have no say. The very fact that they would be torturing themselves with such rubbish just goes to show that they find straining their eyes and wrists on the geeky command prompt or configuring their blackbox using text files less torturous than suffering through the unbelievably slow load times and bloated programs found in KDE and GNOME.

Myth 3.) Windows is bloated

This absurd statement is the most fictitious, and is spouted over and over again by the Linux faithful in the hopes that they will brainwash themselves into believing this most grievous of the Linux Lies. My computer, an Athlon 1600+ w/ 256 mb RAM running Windows XP, takes merely seconds to start, the whole system taking about as much time to load as KDE by itself takes to start up in Linux. Even on my old 166 Mhz IBM Aptiva Windows 98 SE runs very well, is quite snappy, and is just as featureful as KDE, even considering that Windows 98 is a four-year-old OS. None of this speed or functionality was even remotely matched by any Linux GUI I ran on it. The lie spouted by many Linux users that Windows 9x is an unusable crap OS is something that perplexes me, as I had far more stability/mysterious problems on RedHat 7.2 and KDE than I

solarismka

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 598
  • Kudos: 0
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #7 on: 10 October 2003, 10:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Open Source fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 900 running Windows XP, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even vi is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" OS.

Open Source addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

(note: for the humor-impaired, this isn't a serious post, just a funny troll)



I'm not bothering to read the other posts you've made, just this one.

So you asked why someone would choose linux over faster, cheaper, more stable system.

Well for one thing, i've run linux on 486's and even 386's with 20 or so megs of ram.  And I've never found it slow.  

Its VERY stable and I can do almost anything I want in it.  If you find your machine laging, check what x window your using.

You could use an older X Window like KDE2 or even a more light, snappy up to date one like BlackBox.

Most distros automaticaly come with differnt Xwindows as well Like IceWM/Gnome/KDE just to name a few.  Also linux comes with all sorts of aplications that you do not need to 'upgrade or add!' in order to work, infact you can select the packeges you want and leave out the packages you do not need.

Like if your not into programming then leave out the GCC compiler, you don't need it.  If you want you can get extra software via apt-get.  Heck you can modify it to your harts content!  

You can also modify the file system.  ext2 and ext3 are a little slow but then you have RaiserFS which speeds things up a bit.

Because you can turn services completely off and the programs that you want are on it, there is less chance of spyware, malware or anything else creaping in.  

Also Linux is more stable under DDOS attacks as well as many other kinds of attacks on the system because patches are avilable quickly and installs effortlessly onto the system.  Also patches that do get applied will not break the system in anyway.  So you can continue your use of the OS without any inturuption.

Also its cheap.  Linux, if anything hardly evrr needs fixing, to configure anything it is very simple compared to windows and because of this its not gonna cost you $110 bucks just because you got infected with the latest worm virii and or trojen or you messed up the config files somehow!

Pluse you can download the ISO for free or pick one up for $60 bucks total!  A lot of places will ship you the CD for a flat fee and shipping n' handling.  Compare this to $500 bucks, another $600 bucks for the Office suite or any other programs you need on top of that and don't forget any repairs that might need to be done which might start at $100 bucks, oh and then there is the licencing!  

Linux can be installed on as many machines you want!  

You don't need to be an MSCE or any other shit paper cert because it has a community and there are lots of books on the subject of linux so anyone can addminister linux with confedence!

And lastly Linux is %100 original!  No stolen code what so ever, SCO has alreay been discounted and prooven that FUD just doesn't cut it in this day an age!  

Hay even the americans are doubting bush!  and hes been liying to people for the last 4 yrs!  Same goes with SCO!

But thats politics!

AND Thats a few of the reasons why this IS a superior OS!!!!!.............

[ October 10, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

"Regime Change" starts at home!<p>Islam IS NOT the enemy! Against American Terrorism since Sept/11/2001<p>Jihad:<p>http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm <p>new SuSE Linux User!<p><p>If your gonna point a finger at someone then at least have the proof to back you up!<p>trolls are idiots that demand attention by posting whatever is opposite to the theme to ruffle feathers to make people upset!<p>Often these same trolls always mention grammar/spelling since they have no intelligence of their own.

hm_murdock

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,629
  • Kudos: 378
  • The Lord of Thyme
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #8 on: 10 October 2003, 13:10 »
quote:
I'm not bothering to read the other posts you've made, just this one.

So you asked why someone would choose linux over faster, cheaper, more stable system.

Well for one thing, i've run linux on 486's and even 386's with 20 or so megs of ram. And I've never found it slow.

Its VERY stable and I can do almost anything I want in it. If you find your machine laging, check what x window your using.

You could use an older X Window like KDE2 or even a more light, snappy up to date one like BlackBox.

Most distros automaticaly come with differnt Xwindows as well Like IceWM/Gnome/KDE just to name a few. Also linux comes with all sorts of aplications that you do not need to 'upgrade or add!' in order to work, infact you can select the packeges you want and leave out the packages you do not need.

Like if your not into programming then leave out the GCC compiler, you don't need it. If you want you can get extra software via apt-get. Heck you can modify it to your harts content!

You can also modify the file system. ext2 and ext3 are a little slow but then you have RaiserFS which speeds things up a bit.

Because you can turn services completely off and the programs that you want are on it, there is less chance of spyware, malware or anything else creaping in.

Also Linux is more stable under DDOS attacks as well as many other kinds of attacks on the system because patches are avilable quickly and installs effortlessly onto the system. Also patches that do get applied will not break the system in anyway. So you can continue your use of the OS without any inturuption.

Also its cheap. Linux, if anything hardly evrr needs fixing, to configure anything it is very simple compared to windows and because of this its not gonna cost you $110 bucks just because you got infected with the latest worm virii and or trojen or you messed up the config files somehow!

Pluse you can download the ISO for free or pick one up for $60 bucks total! A lot of places will ship you the CD for a flat fee and shipping n' handling. Compare this to $500 bucks, another $600 bucks for the Office suite or any other programs you need on top of that and don't forget any repairs that might need to be done which might start at $100 bucks, oh and then there is the licencing!

Linux can be installed on as many machines you want!

You don't need to be an MSCE or any other shit paper cert because it has a community and there are lots of books on the subject of linux so anyone can addminister linux with confedence!

And lastly Linux is %100 original! No stolen code what so ever, SCO has alreay been discounted and prooven that FUD just doesn't cut it in this day an age!

Hay even the americans are doubting bush! and hes been liying to people for the last 4 yrs! Same goes with SCO!

But thats politics!

AND Thats a few of the reasons why this IS a superior OS!!!!!.............


I love how you guys present your opinions as facts. you're as bad as the trolls.

Mac OS X is superior still.

Add to all of the benefits of Linux, these things:

highly advanced PDF-based display layer, accelerated though OpenGL

NeXTStep inherited goodies, like single-icon application packages that allow drag-and-drop install/removal, NetInfo,

object-oriented programming model using the YellowBox or Cocoa APIs

backward compatibility with Mac OS 9 by installing on the same filesystem (yeah, a UNIX-core OS and a non UNIX OS coexisting on the same partition)

the most well-designed UI in the world. It has the best concepts from both the original Macintosh UI, and from NeXTStep

however... it does have several cons

price: you have to have the hardware to run it, and Mac OS X itself is $129. however, seeing as 10.3 will run on the blue G3, the cost of getting hardware for it is honestly very nominal ($375 or so?) or you could get a new eMac for less than a grand

oh... that's about it. hardware requirements seem steep, but then, when you consider that 10.2 runs on the beige G3, which was available in a 233MHz model, as well as the Wallstreet G3 PowerBook, which came in a 217MHz model, and the fact that it actually performs reasonably well, considering its nature, is quite nice. the original iMac, another 233MHz machine also will run 10.3. This is 1998 hardware. 5 years old, man.

Linux runs on hardware of the same age, but it doesn't provide the advanced features.

stop making assertions that are really opinions. you feel Linux is best... but based on actual technological advancement... it's not. it might be the best for you, but it's by no means "the best".

sorry   :(
Go the fuck ~

JesusRocks

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://X11.ROCKS.IT
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #9 on: 10 October 2003, 13:13 »
OS X is not Superior, Linux supports more software, is leeter, and I run it!

I see some good ones on /.

hm_murdock

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,629
  • Kudos: 378
  • The Lord of Thyme
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #10 on: 10 October 2003, 13:21 »
you got me on the last one there...

but, then, I run OS X  :D
Go the fuck ~

JesusRocks

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://X11.ROCKS.IT
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #11 on: 10 October 2003, 13:45 »
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
ha, i thought you were actually trolling i was about to bin it.

so are these things you've come across or did you make them up?

that racist thing kind of pissed me off though.

[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]



The racist one was fucking Hilarious

good work Linux User.

solarismka

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 598
  • Kudos: 0
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #12 on: 10 October 2003, 22:05 »
quote:
Originally posted by Agent Jimmy James Smith:


I love how you guys present your opinions as facts. you're as bad as the trolls.

Mac OS X is superior still.

Add to all of the benefits of Linux, these things:

highly advanced PDF-based display layer, accelerated though OpenGL

NeXTStep inherited goodies, like single-icon application packages that allow drag-and-drop install/removal, NetInfo,

object-oriented programming model using the YellowBox or Cocoa APIs

backward compatibility with Mac OS 9 by installing on the same filesystem (yeah, a UNIX-core OS and a non UNIX OS coexisting on the same partition)

the most well-designed UI in the world. It has the best concepts from both the original Macintosh UI, and from NeXTStep

however... it does have several cons

price: you have to have the hardware to run it, and Mac OS X itself is $129. however, seeing as 10.3 will run on the blue G3, the cost of getting hardware for it is honestly very nominal ($375 or so?) or you could get a new eMac for less than a grand

oh... that's about it. hardware requirements seem steep, but then, when you consider that 10.2 runs on the beige G3, which was available in a 233MHz model, as well as the Wallstreet G3 PowerBook, which came in a 217MHz model, and the fact that it actually performs reasonably well, considering its nature, is quite nice. the original iMac, another 233MHz machine also will run 10.3. This is 1998 hardware. 5 years old, man.

Linux runs on hardware of the same age, but it doesn't provide the advanced features.

stop making assertions that are really opinions. you feel Linux is best... but based on actual technological advancement... it's not. it might be the best for you, but it's by no means "the best".

sorry    :(  



First you call my facts 'Opinions'  then present your opinions as 'facts' and naturly your right!  I dunno about OSX but I do know that their users are morons!  You've just prooven that point for me!  Thanx   :D
"Regime Change" starts at home!<p>Islam IS NOT the enemy! Against American Terrorism since Sept/11/2001<p>Jihad:<p>http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm <p>new SuSE Linux User!<p><p>If your gonna point a finger at someone then at least have the proof to back you up!<p>trolls are idiots that demand attention by posting whatever is opposite to the theme to ruffle feathers to make people upset!<p>Often these same trolls always mention grammar/spelling since they have no intelligence of their own.

hm_murdock

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,629
  • Kudos: 378
  • The Lord of Thyme
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #13 on: 10 October 2003, 23:14 »
wow. I suppose listing tech specs, and the consensus of countless reviews of the OS now counts as "opinions"

man, I think you're the worst dude in the world.

that's an opinion, just so you'll know

I will kick your ass.

that's a fact. an assertion. a truth, just so you'll know.
Go the fuck ~

slave

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com
What's the deal with you Linux fanatics?
« Reply #14 on: 11 October 2003, 00:02 »
I've used Mac OS X.  It's almost as easy to use as GNOME.  I would use it but my doctor told me to avoid extremely sugary things like the gumdrop-smothered GUI.

Ha hah