Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:4980 comp.os.linux.misc:33776 comp.os.os2.advocacy:75193 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!ivory.lm.com!not-for-mail From: peterb@telerama.lm.com (Peter Berger) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux thoroughly insulted by Infoworld! Date: 21 Jan 1995 11:26:58 -0500 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA USA Lines: 57 Message-ID: <3frcki$k5k@ivory.lm.com> References: <950116203411@lambada> <D2pK11.EJx@madge1.demon.co.uk> <3fpk32$80i@unix.sri.com> <3fqh6a$sl@manuel.anu.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: ivory.lm.com In article <3fqh6a$sl@manuel.anu.edu.au>, Nathan Hand <nathanh@bin.anu.edu.au> wrote: >Nate Williams (nate@sneezy.sri.com) wrote: >: >Of course it won't actually do you any good, because first they'll try to >: >say it's your fault, then they'll misuderstand the problem, and say that >: >it's fixed by a release which fixes some entirely different bug. If you >: >finally get them to accept the problem, they'll say that it'll be fixed in >: >the next release > >: Hmm, this sounds like about 75% of the answers folks get to questions posted >: about Linux. All of the above happen as much if not more in Linux than >: they do in commerical releases, but with commercial releases you have a much >: better chance of stability at release time. If you don't count patchlevels >:as releases, then Linux is 'released' as often as commercial software. If you >: cound patchlevels as releases then Linux has many unusable/buggy releases >: which would cause most commercial vendors to go bankrupt. > >Are you arguing that *supported* software like MS-Windows *works*? _Some_ supported commercial software works just fine. >Commercial >vendors suffer from the limitation of too little input. They have small teams >(perhaps under 100) working 9-5 with only the very basic experience. Contrib- >utors to Linux amount to thousands of highly-learned professors, scientists, >real-world workers, students and home hobbyists (all of them highly-learned). Uh, ok. I see. "Commercial OS's are written by idiots. All Linux contributors, however, are geniuses." Whatever you say. >I dont find the commercial products nearly as stable as the "unsupported" >Linux. It was because of massive instability (Windows, 'nuff said), slow >performance (Windows, 'nuff said) and massive resource requirements >(Windows, 'nuff said) that I switched. I imagine that many Linux users >will be the same. Look. In picking Windows, you picked a loser. I agree. However, if you honestly think that because ONE commecial product YOU chose sucked, all commercial products are bad, I've got this great bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Maybe if you had weighed your purchasing decision more carefully before deciding on Windows and chosen a better OS and vendor, you wouldn't be saying such wildly ridiculous things now. [Justification for suckiness of linux support elided for space and nausea.] This isn't a discussion of the merits of OS support. This is a religious war. You don't care -how- good the support for a commercial product it; since it's commercial, your catechism says you're not allowed to like it. Whatta maroon. -- ...................................................................... Peter G. Berger, Esq. Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh Internet: peterb@telerama.lm.com Phone: 412/481-3505 Fax: 412/481-8568 http://www.lm.com/~peterb