Vote Up
6
Votes
Vote Down

More Jack Wallen insanity:

1: Marketing

Anyone having seen a Microsoft ad knows that Steve Ballmer has likely contracted the entire marketing department to Sloppy Joe’s Publicity Agency in Bumfluff, Idaho. Stock characters half-heartedly talking about stock things are pretty much all that we, as the unsuspecting individuals on the receiving end, have to determine the kind of doodads the Redmond-based company is trying to sell to us. What’s more – it also appears that Sloppy Joe’s has a strict policy of spending no more than three minutes on understanding every item they are trying to promote plus the target demographics that they are supposed to confuse with their messy, unfocused, over-the-top advertisements:

Cloud Vs Claude – Gallery

Sharing photos while chatting? Is that like the Facebook thingy everyone is talking about? Hey, if the ad didn’t spend over 60% of its duration showing what’s-his-face doing utterly retarded crap, I would at least have a better chance to know a bit more about this “cloud” thing it was supposed to pitch.

So much for MS “marketing machine”.

2: Hardware support

The only thing about hardware that Windows actually supports is a binary driver framework – you know, that “stable kernel ABI” thing that Greg Korah-Hartman decides that You Don’t Really Need™? No binary driver framework means that there is simply no way manufacturers can test a driver set along with the hardware and guarantee functionality over a reasonably large user base. But, hey, you can always trust people who know stuff-all about the silicon (like the Linux kernel dev team) to maintain the driver set for you, right?

3: Smart phone syncing

Yeah, why bother using software that your equipment is designed to work with when you can mess around with reverse-engineered plugins and then bet your data on them?

4: Enterprise presence

When I think of enterprise-level SMB support, I don’t usually picture in my head a wonky implementation of CIFS complete with non-existent Access Control Entities management. Sure, I can’t stop Wallen from fantasizing about deploying Samba for any level of usage, but for the rest of us, the idea of replacing perfectly working Windows file sharing solutions with broken, half-baked substitutes from the 90s is just ridiculous if not utterly insane.

5: Workgroup setup

Again, Samba is horrid for just about any level of usage. Not only it completely disregards NT’s user privilege model – it also lacks a considerable amount of features (such as Active Directory replication unless you don’t mind risking with the perpetually-alpha Samba4) to make itself useful within an AD-based domain. Even on a peer-to-peer basis, you will still need to tune your Windows Vista+ machines in order to accommodate Samba’s dated code base.

It just doesn’t work.

6: Touchscreen

X11… Really, do I even need to explain any of that?

7: Pre-installs

Yup, and wait for everyone to return the machines by the hundreds.

To an average consumer, this is what a Linux desktop is like – an OS with almost no support for any new hardware, shaky behaviors with multimedia, a library of mostly worthless applications and migraine-inducing interactivity laden with command-line arcana.

You might as well go and sell this instead.

8: Support

But what happens when you buy that shiny new computer, wipe off Windows, install Linux, and have a problem? Most likely, you’re going to hear that you have invalidated the warranty or support contract by doing so. PC makers need to learn to support the Linux operating system.

Why? Just, why?

9: Software installation

New users expect to be able to download a single file and double-click it to install.

Again, binary compatibility plays a major role in this sort of things, and that means whoever building the OS will need to expend time and energy on tediously designing and implementing a framework encompassing potentially thousands of run-time libraries and countless backward and forward issues. Seriously, take that to the packagers of your favorite distro and see if they care.

10: Direct X

Yeah, and what did you say about hardware support again, Jacko?

#1 Posted by bassboy on Jun 22, 2011 9:59 PM

Dup. Modded down.

#2 Posted by JoeMonco on Jun 22, 2011 11:43 PM

“Dup. Modded down.”

It’s not a “dup”, moron.

#3 Posted by imgx64 on Jun 23, 2011 12:18 AM

So, let me get this straight: When he criticizes Windows, you lampoon him. When he criticizes Linux, you also lampoon him? You even agree with him on many points.

1: Marketing
If you want an example, Cloud vs. Claude ads are hardly terrible. This one is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-8IufkbuD0

2: Hardware support
This is a very complicated topic. Linux developers want to do things their way, and vendors want to do things their own way.

Frankly, I don’t see why vendors even bother to write drivers for Linux. Just release the specifications for the hardware and let the Linux developers do as they please. What’s so terribly secret about hardware specifications that prevents vendors from releasing them?

3: Smart phone syncing
We (Jack, Joe, me) all agree here. Linux sucks at it.

4: Enterprise presence
We all agree here. Linux sucks at it.

5: Workgroup setup
We all agree here. Linux sucks at it.

6: Touchscreen
We all agree here. Linux sucks at it.

God, I hate X.

7: Pre-installs
I don’t support the idea much. It would be nice if companies offered a choice (for example, when customizing the computer on the Dell website), but I wouldn’t like Linux on computers in stores.

8: Support
Lies. HP happily took my laptop which had Linux installed on it and fixed a hardware problem. No questions asked. I don’t expect them to fix software problems with Linux. Why would they?

9: Software installation
UbuntuPlusOneWillSolveEverything™

10: Direct X
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read today. Linux can’t support DirectX because it’s a Microsoft technology. What next, support Windows Update in Linux? If someone wants to write a game for Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, or PS3, he has to use (a platform-specific version of) OpenGL.

#4 Posted by Conzo on Jun 23, 2011 4:43 AM

I feel your pain with regard to Samba and X11.

Actually one of my major gripes with Samba is not even the horrid disfunctionality of it all, but the fact that you have to wade through layers of the Samba team congratulating itself and telling us how good they are and how bad MS is, in order to get to a hint of a snippet of information that might be helpful if you think about it for a couple of hours, and have enough experience to second-guess what they actually mean.

As to X11 … better not talk about it, I want to keep my libido intact.

#5 Posted by kurkosdr on Jun 24, 2011 6:10 AM

“When he criticizes Windows, you lampoon him. When he criticizes Linux, you also lampoon him?”

YES, because he “criticizes” Linux the way freetards do it, aka pretending that all the issues are purely superficial ussues of Marketing, not having enough pre-installs, not having touchscreen, not enough PixieDust etc and not admitting that Linux is a busted piece of turd with fundamental issues and a trainwreck codebase.

I hate when freetards do that. Aka implying that Linux doesn’t take off because we the users are all too superficial jerks and can’t understand it’s greatness (and as a result, people who use linux are enlighted gurus of something), while the reality is that we don’t use linux because linux is just a busted POS.

PS: I think that UbuntuPlusOneWillSolveEverything should be linked

#6 Posted by KOMMENTER on Jun 24, 2011 8:43 AM

“I hate when freetards do that. Aka implying that Linux doesn’t take off because we the users are all too superficial jerks and can’t understand it’s greatness (and as a result, people who use linux are enlighted gurus of something), while the reality is that we don’t use linux because linux is just a busted POS.

PS: I think that UbuntuPlusOneWillSolveEverything should be linked”

+1

#7 Posted by imgx64 on Jun 24, 2011 11:45 AM

“pretending that all the issues are purely superficial [i]ssues”

The article title is “10 Windows features I would like to see in Linux”, not “The fundamental problems of Linux”. Can’t a person mention some problems if other problems exist?

- Gee, Global Warming is a real problem. – What? All life on earth is going to perish after billions of years because the sun is going to run out of fuel, and you complain about Global Warming? How dare you!

“admitting that Linux is a busted piece of turd”

Obviously, some people disagree with you (TellThatToAllTheUsersWhoRun
Linux™), and I’m not talking just about freetards or Linux Youth. Many proprietary systems use a (possibly heavily modified) modified kernel. If linux was a busted piece of turd, they would’ve used a ready made kernel (Windows, QNX, AIX, you name it) instead of bothering to modify Linux. I could list examples but TMs speak better than me: LinuxRunsSuperComputers™, GoogleRunsOnLinux™, GovernmentLovesLinux™, LinuxCollidesHardons™, TMRepositoryRunsOnLinux™, LondonStockExchange™, MyCompanyUsesLinuxToo™, ScientistsUseLinux™, and there are probably others that I missed.

“with fundamental issues”
Boy. FundamentallyBroken™.

“and a trainwreck codebase.”
Jack doesn’t see it that way; he’s probably not a developer and has never seen any Linux code. Is that something against him? Have you seen Windows’s code and know it’s a paragon of good software architecture?

“I hate when freetards do that. Aka implying that Linux doesn’t take off because we the users are all too superficial jerks and can’t understand it’s greatness”

I agree with your statement (that’s not sarcasm), and I hate when freetards do that. Linux has a LOT of problems (at least on the desktop, I don’t know about other fields). The basic idea of distributions, each with different “philosophies” (just for fun, try to count how many distros claim to have “simplicity” as their philosophy) infuriates me. 99% of distributions are simply to stroke the egos of their so-called “developers” (who are little more than packagers). Small fixes won’t make Linux mainstream on the desktop anytime soon.

#8 Posted by JoeMonco on Jun 24, 2011 12:23 PM

“If linux was a busted piece of turd, they would’ve used a ready made kernel (Windows, QNX, AIX, you name it) instead of bothering to modify Linux.”

This is like saying that scrap paper is not junk because people recycle it for toilet rolls.

“with fundamental issues”

Botched power management? Checked. Broken ABIs at all levels? Checked. No unified API for user-space application development beyond POSIX standards? Checked. Memory-hungry page cache based on a design that sucks at handling non-sequential reads? Checked. Update systems that don’t really update your system properly? Checked. Barely-existing user instructions? Checked. Even more barely existing developer documentations? Checked. Controlled by a core group of crazies that values fruitless semi-political diatribes more that tangible results? Checked.

Seriously, fix these.

“Is that something against him? Have you seen Windows’s code and know it’s a paragon of good software architecture?”

Care to point out which poster here is saying that Windows’ codebase is “a paragon of good software architecture” and how that is supposed to be relevant to the quality of Linux itself?

“I don’t know about other fields”

But that doesn’t mean that we – the ones who aren’t you – don’t know about them, either.

#9 Posted by imgx64 on Jun 24, 2011 1:25 PM

“This is like saying that scrap paper is not junk because people recycle it for toilet rolls.”

Recycling helps the environment, fixing a busted piece of turd is needless masochism.

“with fundamental issues”

I have said that many times before, I agree that Linux has a lot of problems. However, the degree of “fundamentally” is very subjective. When freetards say Windows is fundamentally flawed, they’re just repeating FundamentallyBroken™, and when Windows users say Linux is fundamentally flawed, it’s the absolute truth?

“Controlled by a core group of crazies that values fruitless semi-political diatribes more that tangible results? Checked.”

I very strongly disagree. A huge problem with Linux (as an operating system) is that it’s so fragmented that you could fragment it further just by looking at it.

“Seriously, fix these.”

That’s good. You agree that these problems are fixable (although we both know that they won’t be fixed soon), and thus Linux is not fundamentally broken. Fixing something fundamentally broken means a rewrite from scratch.

“Care to point out which poster here is saying that Windows’ codebase is “a paragon of good software architecture” and how that is supposed to be relevant to the quality of Linux itself?”

My point is that kurkosdr wants Jack to admit that Linux’s code is a train wreck, without Jack looking at it. Does kurkosdr know if Windows’ code is good or bad, and can he make any statement about it?

“But that doesn’t mean that we – the ones who aren’t you – don’t know about them, either.”

Your “we” is not fully inclusive, and as I pointed out above, other people who know about other fields disagree with you. Disagreement does not mean anyone is right or wrong, they’re all opinions.

#10 Posted by JoeMonco on Jun 24, 2011 1:54 PM

“fixing a busted piece of turd is needless masochism.”

Well, as long as there is profit (or saving) in any of that, I don’t think a little S&M action really matters all that much.

Besides, modifying the kernel is easy. Ever tried that “make menuconfig” thing?

And I run HardonColliderOS™ in my headless box, for Pete’s sake.

“You agree that these problems are fixable (although we both know that they won’t be fixed soon), and thus Linux is not fundamentally broken. Fixing something fundamentally broken means a rewrite from scratch.”

See? You just refuted your own argument.

And, yes, in order to fix a good part of those problems, you do need to rewrite large chunks of the code from scratch. (What? Do you think you can replace the page replacement algorithm by not rewriting it?)

“My point is that kurkosdr wants Jack to admit that Linux’s code is a train wreck, without Jack looking at it.”

By that same token, why is he pandering Linux to us, then?

“other people who know about other fields disagree with you.”

Then bring it on – I want to hear about it.

#11 Posted by KOMMENTER on Jun 24, 2011 1:56 PM

“That’s good. You agree that these problems are fixable (although we both know that they won’t be fixed soon), and thus Linux is not fundamentally broken. Fixing something fundamentally broken means a rewrite from scratch.”

But a rewrite from scratch is pretty much what’s needed in this case.

Windows was fundamentally broken in the Windows9X days too. Even with KernelEx it can’t compare with the NT codebase which had some semblance of smart design put into it.

Microsoft killed it for a reason, no point in continuing that.

Even if you were to fix all the problems with linux you’d have to break existing code that assumes this is the way things are supposed to be done.

And you’d have to deal with RMS.
Good luck with that one.

#12 Posted by imgx64 on Jun 24, 2011 2:47 PM

“Besides, modifying the kernel is easy. Ever tried that “make menuconfig” thing?”

That’s configuring, not modifying it. The arguments against the fact that supercomputers, Google, etc use Linux is that they modified the code and didn’t release the code. Why do supercomputer developers modify a fundamentally broken code instead of a) rewriting it or b) using a non-fundamentally-broken kernel?

“And, yes, in order to fix a good part of those problems, you do need to rewrite large chunks of the code from scratch.”

I think we have different (yet somewhat similar) definitions of “fundamentally broken”. In my definition, fixing a fundamentally broken thing means the end product is a different thing, just like Apple developed Quartz instead of fixing X (which I admit IS fundamentally broken).

Since I think the ultimate goal of a debate is understanding the other side’s point of view, I’ll stop at that.

“By that same token, why is he pandering Linux to us, then?”

I don’t care who Jack Wallen is or what he thinks; I’m discussing the article, which does not promote Linux. In the article, Jack is mentioning things he wishes would improve on Linux. kurkosdr said he shouldn’t mention these “superficial” problems and instead should say how the code is bad.

“Then bring it on – I want to hear about it.”

I should trademark IWillRepeatMyself™ since I use it in every other discussion.

Google, supercomputers, London Stock Exchange, Tivo, Palm, Cisco, the whole industry of Linux servers. All these and many more disagree.

“Even if you were to fix all the problems with linux you’d have to break existing code that assumes this is the way things are supposed to be done.”

Linux is way ahead of you, they break things without fixing the big problems.

#13 Posted by KOMMENTER on Jun 24, 2011 4:00 PM

Linux isn’t fundamentally broken on the server. Windows 98 also works pretty well as an MAME cabinet OS.

It’s fundamentally broken as a desktop os.

It’s not the kernel alone (that has issues too, like the lack of a stable driver ABI), but everything. From the over reliance on text based terminal apps (gui’s are only wrappers for these tools most of the time), we all know the horrors of rm -f /, to everything related to package management.

The lack of standards, the poor design decisions in every major DE, the extreme fragmentation.

Not to mention the whole philosophy of the FSF.

It’s broken from the core.

#14 Posted by JoeMonco on Jun 25, 2011 1:02 AM

“That’s configuring, not modifying it. The arguments against the fact that supercomputers, Google, etc use Linux is that they modified the code and didn’t release the code. Why do supercomputer developers modify a fundamentally broken code instead of a) rewriting it or b) using a non-fundamentally-broken kernel?”

Let’s say they really did make direct changes to the code (an assumption as far as both you and I are concerned).

Here’s the problem – if that thing called the Linux kernel isn’t broken in some way, then why would anyone want to spend time and money rewriting it and (supposedly) not giving you the results afterwards?

Now let’s look at the whole situation from a different perspective.

Carrying on with the argument that Linux is indeed “fundamentally broken”, what would organizations have to lose with those computer clusters (or “supercomputers” as you call it) as a result? In other words, how much would the use of Linux be even if the clusters were to be broken into by unscrupulous parties or crap out constantly?

Given Google’s track record of losing email and blog posts, I would definitely say “not much”.

And, hell, what on earth in CERN’s clusters was in fact worth stealing anyway?

On the other hand, why would anyone not want to use a broken pile of turds if by that it means either a) saving money in the long run or b) helping promote a business agenda?

Unless you have got something to say about the actual technical merits of Linux, I think we are done here.

You must be signed in to leave comments.