Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero

Author:

dmg

Topic:

Linux Zealot

Posted:

Nov 28, 2001

Comments:

I am just about sick of the proliferation of lame unfunny poorly drawn web based cartoons.

It seems to be the case that anyone, regardless of artistic talent or wit can simply publish one of these atrocities, and inflict it on the long-suffering users of the Internet

I decided to strike back. One of my main loves in life is Linus Torrvaldee's shareware Linux operating system.

So I have drawn a gentle parody of some of the more extreme advocates of the OS I love.

Enjoy!

More stories by

dmg

	America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
	Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
	Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
	Is it time women covered up at work ?
	The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
	Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
	European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
	SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
	Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
	US in recession. What should we do about it ?
	Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
	Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
	How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
	The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
	World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
	You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
	A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
	Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
	The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
	Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
	Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
	Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
	DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
	The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
	My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
	Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
	Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
	Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
	Great Britain must keep the pound.
	Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
	The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
	Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
	America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
	British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
	Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
	Which is the best way to predict the future ?
	God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
	The History of Rap.
	Theater Review: My Fair Lady
	Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
	Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
	A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

Linux Zealot. #1 in a series of 1

This is Linux Zealot, panel 1

This is Linux Zealot, panel 2

This is Linux Zealot, panel 3

This is Linux Zealot, panel 4

	Get it right! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by because it isnt on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 04:53:50 AM PST

	It's 'Linux Torvaldez', the Cuban software magnate. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	What's the Linux Zealot guy (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 05:31:01 AM PST

	Holding in his hand? A porn mag, illegal software or a diseased organ? I can't make it out. Must be poor eyesight on my part...

	At a guess (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 05:57:51 AM PST

	I would guess is it probably some utterly boring propellerhead techno-wank borefest of a book like for example Larry Wall's Programming in Pearl, 3rd Edition also known as the 'Camel book' since all pearl users are known to be camel fuckers.

	Thanks for the link to Amazon (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:39:06 AM PST

	I think i'll order the book as my little xmas gift to myself. I wanna be a Linux zealot, it sounds a whole heap of fun....

	Check out that link you posted. (none / 0) (#36)
	by chuckx on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:54:50 AM PST

	You'll notice that the book is named, "Programming Perl". It is not spelled "pearl". Of course, this may be the result of Adequacy's own brand of humor, in the vain of previous mispellings such as "Lunix", "Linux Torvaldez", etc. etc. In that case, I guess I'll just have to cope. However, it's just as childish as a Linux zealot running around spouting about the evils of "Micro$oft", "Microshit" or whatever they think makes them look clever. Also, Adequacy.org uses Perl. I don't think the administrators here appreciate you calling them "camel fuckers". - chuckx -

	Read the pearl timeline, dummy. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:13:30 AM PST

	If you check out the history of pearl, you will know that it is an acronym for Practical Extraction And Report Language. PEARL. With an 'A'.

	Funny, I've heard this before. (none / 0) (#51)
	by chuckx on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 10:55:27 AM PST

	If you go to www.perl.com, you will find the home page for the programming language in question. From the URL of that page (and from the title of the book originally mentioned), the correct spelling of the acronym is distinctly apparent. Here's another example, since this simple concept seems to be hard to grasp for some. The acronym 'USA' stands for the United States of America. However, the 'o' for 'of' is conveniently left out of the acronym. To anybody familiar with English, this should not be a new concept. Once again, I do have to submit to the possibility that this is another example of Adequacy's own brand of humor. If so, so be it. But I'll mention again, that it's just as childish as in open source zealot spewing out filth such as "Micro$oft" and "Microshit". This is a site for grown-ups, isn't it? - chuckx -

	what a gyp (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:04:26 AM PST

	The first and third frames are the exact same drawing! In future, please resist the urge to submit easily produced cookie cutter corporate artwork by using the Open Source GIMP instead of Photoshop. Remember, if it's too easy to do, it aint worth doing.

	How wrong you are. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:15:51 AM PST

	Remember, if it's too easy to do, it aint worth doing. I have looked carefully at this artistic comic strip, and it seems to be brimming with a youthful vigor and freshness which is lacking in some of the more sophisticated web comics. The creator seems to be making some kind of satirical point. I think the point is that Linux is not for morons, or your grandma, it is only for tech-savvy geeks who 'get it'. It is in effect one Linux lover's plea to the newbies to stay away from his precious OS.

	yes, yes, yes (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:34:18 AM PST

	but instead of three frames "brimming with a youthful vigor and freshness which is lacking in some of the more sophisticated web comics," we only get two (one and a fraction, actually, since the second frame only differs from the first and third only in the Cracker's head.) Ergo, someone has taken the path of least resistence by using easy to use software instead of Linus apps. I'm sorry, this work doesnt speak to me. I dont see the tortured soul of a Linus user in its panels, and I very much cannot get enough of the idea of tortured Lius users. If it wasnt for their lonesome and tragic efforts to Free us from proprietary code, I sincerely doubt people would obsess over electronic gizmos. The world would be an ugly place if machines were simply useful inanimate objects instead of fetishes, and art must communicate the heroic plight of tortured Linus souls lest we become complacent with our printers and cell phones. We NEED the source code driving our peripherals! RMS was moved to change the world because he couldnt modify the instructions to make his dot matrix printer print lovely banners! Cant you see the intrinsic humanitarian importance in any of this? I cant, not in that comic. Have we become inured to further suffering so soon after the marginal success of the Linus Operating System? I despair.

	I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:46:23 AM PST

	There is a leitmotif here, of the Linux advocate, standing up, being counted, doing his bit to promote Linux even to the point of being abused by his own grandmother. The artists clever use of repetition simply underscores the underlying truth of his situation. Millions of people all over the world are misunderstanding the benefits of an open source OS, simply because it happens to trash their perfectly acceptable existing OS. I think you would be taking Barthesian criticism to extremes if you think the tools used by the author of this artwork have any relationship to the content. Successive governments have seen the power of repetition and tried to opress it. Did you know that in the UK it is actually illegal to listen to "music wholly or predominantly characterised by a succession of repetative beats" ? Its good to see that adequacy does not shirk from controversy, and the artistic use of repetition for effect certainly falls into that category. Even non-controversial artists such as the great Kinkade use repetion in their work. The recurring theme of the country cottage lit by an unearthly glow being just one theme repeated ad-nauseum. The purpose of art is to challenge the viewer, not the creator.

	You don't get it? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
	by aoc on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:52:37 AM PST

	The situation has come full circle: grandma had a problem, zealot installed linux, grandma still has a problem. The repetition of the frame visually emphasized this point beautifully.

	what are you talking about? (4.50 / 2) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:46:48 AM PST

	She doesnt have a problem, she had a problem. Now she has Linux, the solution. She may not immediately realize how fortunate she is to have been Freed from the parsimonious functionality of M$ software and delivered unto the perpetually educational hold of Linux, but she will just as soon as she begins to spend what's left of rapidly her diminishing years learning to format text in TeX.

	READ THE CARTOON, ZEALOT (none / 0) (#34)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:52:18 AM PST

	She doesnt have a problem, she had a problem. Now she has Linux, the solution. Maybe you Linux zealots cannot read. What grandma now has is a TRASHED MBR, and no C: partition. Her linux-loving grandson has destroyed hours of work and rendered a fully functioning PC utterly useless because of his own egotistical attempt to thrust his OS of choice down the throats of unsuspecting senior citizens. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	NO PAIN, NO GAIN, PICASSO (5.00 / 2) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:25:54 AM PST

	And I further must correct your description of Linus "Zealots" as egotistical when it has already been established that these people tirelessly and selflessly suffer the slings and arrows of capitalist reactionaries (albeit adequate ones) in order to give away the altruistic gift of FREEDOM software that they write during stolen moments slaving away for the Man. The so called Linux Zealots you are quick to disparage with unimportant technical trivialities of MBRs and C partitions are for the Freedom of all people, young and old alike.

	I gave you a 5 rating. (none / 0) (#55)
	by error27 on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 01:55:22 PM PST

	not because I agree with you--no sane person would--but because I wanted everyone to see the kind of people we have to deal with. Please don't feel flatterred at all, it wasn't meant as a compliment.

	one other thing (5.00 / 2) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:06:42 AM PST

	"Here, let me install Linus on your box" is not an appropriate way for a grandson to speak to his grandmother.

	Grandma's a Geek? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:15:02 AM PST

	How in God's name would she know what an MBR is? Only a nerd would know something like that. Methinks that she was purposely allowing her nephew to ruin her system, which is wrong. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Who knows ? (none / 0) (#22)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:33:23 AM PST

	Perhaps she is not as stupid as 'Linux Zealot' thinks. Not all Windoze users are morons, after all (except in 'Linux Zealot's' mind). Perhaps 'Linux Zealot' launched into mind numbingly tedious technical explainations while he did the install. Perhaps grandma's PC bios detected the corrupt MBR and flashed a 'corrupt MBR' message on the screen. I don't want to add too much more explaination, as my art stands up to scrutiny on its merits alone. You are however correct that she allowed her grandson (not nephew) to ruin her system, because she assumed he was a computer expert. Little did she know that he was simply a slashdot reading, geek-sex-tips-using, RMS teabagging, ESR-felching Linux fanboy. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	separate zealots from the rest (1.00 / 2) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:37:38 AM PST

	There is where I am going to admit that there some mrons out there that just give Linux a bad name. The exist just like those Microsoft loyalist that run around screaming that MS is holier than thou art. That they've never done anything bad. They don't know what standards are or what the Sherman Act is so they just assume because they don't know MS didn't violate it. The also like to believe that MS has never blatantly stolen patented technologies then dared the company to sue (ie Quarterdeck, Stac, Go, etc). However I must point out so mistakes in you article and cartoon: As trivial as they are if you are going to present an intelligent argument against Linus/Linux then at least spell it correctly. It's Linus Torvald's Linux not Linus Torrvaldee's. One R and no Es. Linux is not shareware. Shareware is defined as software distributed on a trial basis through the Internet, online services, BBSs, mail-order vendors and user groups. Shareware is software on the honor system. If you use it regularly, you're required to register and pay for it, for which you will receive technical support and perhaps additional documentation or the next upgrade. Paid licenses are required for commercial distribution. Shareware and Freeware are both closed source. In your cartoon you make the Grandfather out to be some kind of idiot with no real computer knowledge whatsoever. Then he becomes really smart with knowledge of partitions and the Master Boot Record (MBR). The cartoon has some other major holes in it. The only incomptibility that I can think of is the problem with older BIOS not being able to allow the computer to boot from the CDROM drive. The solution is the same whether you install Linux or Windows. Use a BOOT FLOPPY. Seeing as how it wouldn't boot in the first place it would've have messed with an files, partitions or the MBR. Then you somehow present the problem with the C: partition and the MBR. I am going to assume that this Linux Zealot is trying to install Linux as the sole OS. With if the installation were to have gone through the grandfather wouldn't being saying anything about the C: partition because Windows is the only operating system that uses drive letters to identify partitions. So the first partition on the Master disk, on IDE1 would be C. The next partition on the same drive would be D. Under Linux those same partitions would be HDA1 and HDA2. Another good example would be Novell NetWare where the system partition is called, well, SYS. Before installing ANY operating system (whether after you built a computer or at the factory) you must partition the hard disk. You cannot format the "drive" (partition) until you have created them. Some people create a single partition while other create multiple partitions (one for the OS another for data). It is also necessary to delete existing partitions and repartition the hard when moving from one OS to another, but not always. If you have two partitions and Windows 98 and decide to clean install Windows 2000 (generally because any problem with 98 may not be corrected when simply upgrading to 2000) using a single partition that covers the entire disk. If you are moving from Windows to Linux, BeOS, AtheOS, FreeBSD desktop you will need to "nuke" the Windows partitions and repartition you drive or let the installer(s) do it for you. Some Installers come with a partition management tool so you can do this manually. Disk Druid is one example. How is all this partitioning done? Some OS installs come with dos utilities (found in the dosutils directory on most Linux distros) or use a DOS bootdisk. The one you need is called FDISK, although DELPART is good to have too. Moving from one OS to another or just believe your MBR is messed up? Use FDISK with a switch. What is this "switch"? /MBR So the whole command is FDISK/MBR. Sorry dmg. Didn't mean to completely debunk your article and kid brother's drawing. I take it when you went to take the MCSE preparation course they didn't bother to teach you any basic DOS, A+, or basic networking did they? I ask because if they did you would have written this stupid ass article. Not to mention you would have written a better PC building guide. Why the other editors keep linking to it when they wanna show off the adequacy.org family technical knowledge boggles the mind.

	Response to a Zealot. (none / 0) (#27)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:25:30 AM PST

	In your cartoon you make the Grandfather out to be some kind of idiot with no real computer knowledge whatsoever. Then he becomes really smart with knowledge of partitions and the Master Boot Record (MBR). Nowhere do I make the Grandmother out to be any kind of idiot. It is you Linux Zealots who automatically assume that anyone who uses windows is stupid. Grandma simply acknowledged that her grandson was a computer expert, that does not make her an idiot with no real computer knowledge. In fact, Grandma is quite tech-savvy for her age, after all why else would she be maintaining a database of recipies on her computer ? As for the rest of your mumbo-jumbo response, it is simply a clear demonstration of how anything involving the Linux operating system quickly descends into a nightmare of command-line interfaces, obscure systems utilities, and trashed partitions. Hey, your grandmother doesn't store her recipes on her computer, does she ? time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	no recipes (1.00 / 1) (#29)
	by NAWL on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:41:17 AM PST

	No actually my grandmother does volunteer tax preparation for the elderly. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	transliteration (none / 0) (#33)
	by johnny ambiguous on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:52:14 AM PST

	...It's Linus Torvald's Linux not Linus Torrvaldee's. One R and no Es. So say you! But as everyone who knows linguistics well is aware, "Torrvaldee" is a transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet they use in Finland. So there just isn't one "correct" spelling in the Roman alphabet. It's kinda like the name of that devil Osama bin Laden; some English speakers spell it "Osama" and some spell it "Usama" and neither one is right or wrong, because the original is in Arabic letters, which, of course, can not possibly be rendered literally in the Internet's universal ASCII. Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

	Cyrillic alphabet they use in Finland? (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 02:10:50 PM PST

	WTF are you on? Fins do not, and never have, used cyrillic alphabet, you moron! Cyrillic is used in Russia and some (not all) former Soviet republics, as well as one or two countries on the Balkans.

	a & q (none / 0) (#63)
	by johnny ambiguous on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:32:34 PM PST

	WTF are you on? Why, Sir, I am on Adequacy. Now I have question for you, since you appear to be a bit of a linguist yourself: How does one go about rendering an umlaut in Cyrillic? Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

	No soup for you! (none / 0) (#64)
	by inveigle on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:12:47 PM PST

	The ladies like a man who is a cunning linguist... Hold down alt, hit 148 on your KEYPAD, then release alt. Don't forget to have numlock on. And have a copy of the communist manifesto handy.

	No soup for you either (none / 0) (#83)
	by fluffy grue on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 02:14:25 PM PST

	alt-147 only works in some backwards operating systems such as MS-DOS, which is well-known to be obsolete at this point. Additionally, only characters 0-127 are defined in ASCII; 128-255 are encoding-specific. The appropriate way to render an umlaut is to do &#uml;, replacing the # with the letter you want to umlaut; for example, ö is ö. -- meep

	WHO CARES? (none / 0) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 9th, 2002 at 12:32:16 PM PST

	no offense but who cares.. i mean really its supposed to be funny... and by going out of your way to say all of that is well pathetic...

	Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#26)
	by Jon Erikson on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:11:51 AM PST

	This reminds me so much of some of the people I've worked "with" during my time as a top-flight consultant in the IT world. These are the people that in the face of all real-world evidence assume that Linux and other "open source" solutions are the answer to every problem, whereas the truth is that in many cases, it was the problem. But whenever this was the case and my final report recommended the scrapping of hobbyist systems installed for ideological reasons by some long-haired Communist in his sweat pit it was these greasy losers that would fight the hardest to keep their beloved Linux. Of course, being such unsocialised morons meant that their attempts at office politics were laughable at best, and my common sense prevailed and more efficient Windows solutions were installed. And for those morons that really pissed me off I recommended that sacking them and hiring a fresh MSCE would be much cheaper for the company, resulting in the long-haired idiots being quickly shown the door. God I love my job sometimes! Jon Erikson Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

	I know the feeling. (none / 0) (#28)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:31:58 AM PST

	We had a couple of Linux Zealots on one of the trading floors where I used to work. We quickly got rid of them, when it became clear they knew nothing about DCOM, or Microsoft messaging. I don't mind my sysadmins knowing about multiple systems, but these days to simply know Unix (and not even a commercial grade one like Solaris) a shareware version, just doesn't cut the mustard. I also noticed that the unix guys on trading floor support tended to be much lazier than the MCSE guys. There was a classic problem when the Unix guys simply refused my request to reboot a critical server to restart our application because I quote "this is a Unix system, not Windows NT, you cannot just reboot it whenever you like". Needless to say a few quick phone calls were made and that Solaris box was down and back up quicker than you could say 'P45'. Jon, you seem to have a lot of insight into current technical trends. Have you considered submitting an article to adequacy ? I'm sure some Linux zealots out there would find your views quite controversial. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Another I've noticed (5.00 / 1) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:46:44 AM PST

	about these Linux zealots, is that they refuse to study for their MCSE exams even if the company is giving them study leave and/or paying for their exams. I put this down to wanton idleness on their part...

	Nitpick (3.66 / 3) (#35)
	by because it isnt on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:54:21 AM PST

	I'm sure some Linux zealots out there would find your views quite controversial. You appear to have make a simple spelling error. I can understand it; both words begin with the same letter. controversial: marked by or capable of arousing controversy canard: an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Have we met before? (3.33 / 3) (#38)
	by Jon Erikson on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:59:55 AM PST

	Or do you just make unfounded accusations all the time? While I'm sure you think you are oh so smart with your little piece of "wit" I have to say you are exactly the kind of no-life fool I am talking about, and when the consultants come round, it's your kind that are the first up against the wall. Jon Erikson Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

	No need to thank me (none / 0) (#39)
	by because it isnt on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:05:09 AM PST

	My talent is on loan from God. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	um (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:10:33 AM PST

	There is no god, it is just a faerie tale that your handlers tell you to keep you in line and to keep the checks coming, wake up and smell reality all ready.

	is that your final famous last words? (none / 0) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:30:04 AM PST

	Oh well, another day, another Anonymous Reader mysteriously struck dead by an errant lightning bolt.

	May I ask? (none / 0) (#59)
	by Stretch on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 03:02:39 PM PST

	Why are you replying to yourself? Anonymous Reader, perhaps you should find a different website to spam.

	2 cents (none / 0) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 04:11:33 PM PST

	Sometimes more than user uses the same computer. Here at my work, there are several of us who visit adequacy.org using the same DSL connection. Outside of work, some of us have lives. No internet needed.

	I wouldn't say they're completely unfounded. (none / 0) (#46)
	by chuckx on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:36:46 AM PST

	For example, if you take a look at the so-called Mandrake "review" you'll notice hundreds of comments pointing out numerous mistakes in the article. It seems most Adequacy.org regulars looked at that and said, "Wow, these people must have no lives whatsoever." Which can't be considered entirely off the mark, becuase you do have people repeating the same thing over and over again, which can seem kind of pointless. But, you could also look at it from the viewpoint that if these hundreds of people come here and point out the same mistakes over and over again, there's probably a mistake or two in the original article. Claiming that the article is factually correct would really be an outright lie. No offense intended. - chuckx -

	Adequacy is not perfect. We are human after all. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:42:22 AM PST

	there's probably a mistake or two in the original article I would be the first to agree that it is highly possible, likely even, that the odd mistake or two could creep into our articles at adequacy. After all, we are a free website with no subscription charge, and so we cannot afford to employ as many fact-checkers as we would like to. However having said that, all content is peer-reviewed by the highly educated adequacy.org editorial team, in order to minimize the numnber of errors. I think most errors are likely to be spelling mistakes, which for some reason, Linux zealots appear to find offensive. Perhaps everyone should take a step back, to reflect for a moment. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I wasn't referring to spelling mistakes. (none / 0) (#52)
	by chuckx on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 11:08:16 AM PST

	I specifically meant factual errors. You can be as hardheaded as you want, but claiming that every fact listed in that article is correct would be a lie. Beyond that, just the fact that the review was of software that the reviewer hadn't even actually used doesn't say much for Adequacy's editorial integrity. If an article like that showed up in a newspaper or magazine, I'm sure the paper's editors would be embarassed after getting such feedback from it's readers. Once again, no offense intended, I'm just sticking trying to the facts. I don't think my stance should be too controversial for this site. But if so, sorry for the disruption. - chuckx -

	Hmmm... (none / 0) (#73)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:07:37 PM PST

	I don't mind the spelling errors (certainly understandable for a Microsoft slob who expects MS Word to do the spelling for him; no hard feelings). What bothers me is the absolutely blithering ignorance of the author. His complete lack of knowledge about Linux and the open-source movement is rather stunning as is the fact that he doesn't let that ignorance stop him from blathering on about something he knows nothing about. What's really ironic is that he's attempting to give Linux users a bad name!

	Denial (none / 0) (#79)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 11:40:32 PM PST

	If you read the article, which most Linux users seem unable to do, you would have noticed that he is not what you call a "Microsoft slob." One of my main loves in life is Linus Torrvaldee's shareware Linux operating system. When will you Linux users be honest rather than try to distort the facts? You sicken me. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Ignorance (none / 0) (#80)
	by chuckx on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 07:09:27 AM PST

	If you had paid attention to the thread and specifically the post you are replying to, you would have realized we are talking about the previously posted Mandrake 'review'. Us Linux users? Have you visisted the home page you have listed in your user profile? It would seem that you're part of the group. - chuckx -

	Let it lie (5.00 / 1) (#85)
	by iat on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 03:28:44 PM PST

	Do you not have anything more productive to do than piss and moan about my review of Mandrake 8.1, which was posted over 2 months ago? It's really not good to hold onto feelings of anger and bitterness for such a long period of time, particularly over something as trivial as a software review. I forgot about that article a long time ago (even if I am frequently reminded about it by emails from angry Linux users) and I suggets that you do the same. Perhaps if the Linux community spent as much time developing software as they do complaining about "Micro$oft" and harassing those who dare to tell the truth about Linux's shortcomings, then maybe Linux wouldn't be quite such a poor alternative to Windows or MacOS. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Further distortion. (none / 0) (#86)
	by chuckx on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 05:28:28 PM PST

	Do you not have anything more productive to do than piss and moan about my review of Mandrake 8.1, which was posted over 2 months ago? I didn't bring the subject up. A request was made to provide proof for an accusation that some Adequacy articles are not really all that high caliber. It just so happens that your Mandrake 'review' was the best example of shoddy penmanship I could remember offhand. Perhaps if the Linux community spent as much time developing software as they do complaining about "Micro$oft"... The Linux community does not consist exclusively of developers. As you all are so eager to point out, there's lots of Linux users who just use (as opposed to developing) it becuase "they want to feel l33t" (or maybe just think it better fits their wants and needs). - chuckx -

	Distortion my arse (none / 0) (#92)
	by iat on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 03:45:39 AM PST

	I didn't bring the subject up. A request was made to provide proof for an accusation that some Adequacy articles are not really all that high caliber. It just so happens that your Mandrake 'review' was the best example of shoddy penmanship I could remember offhand. I'm not interested in who raised the subject. My point was, you still seem to be bitter about the review, even over 2 months after it was published. Do you really enjoy being angry about something so trivial for such a long period of time? If so, I really hate to imagine what you'd be like if you ever encountered some real misfortune. The Linux community does not consist exclusively of developers. As you all are so eager to point out, there's lots of Linux users who just use (as opposed to developing) it becuase "they want to feel l33t" I think that's half the problem. The Linux users who were most irate about my article were largely newbies who had been using Linux less than a couple of years. Experienced Linux users, the people who actually have the skills to write software and have contributed to Linux or the Free Software movement in a meaningful way, just laughed at the article and went about their lives. Unfortunately, a large number of vociferous "Lunix weenies" give your whole community a bad reputation. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Anyway (none / 0) (#93)
	by chuckx on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 08:15:25 AM PST

	My point was, you still seem to be bitter about the review, even over 2 months after it was published. Do you really enjoy being angry about something so trivial for such a long period of time? The point I was trying to make was that since I didn't bring the subject up, it wasn't something that was really on my mind. I'm not bitter about your article. Really, I'm not. It's just that when the question was asked, your article was the first thing that came to mind. It's that simlple. Experienced Linux users, the people who actually have the skills to write software and have contributed to Linux or the Free Software movement in a meaningful way, just laughed at the article and went about their lives. It seems as if you're acknowledging that your article is sufficient catalyst to make an experienced Linux user laugh. I would definitely have to agree with that. I already posted my comments in reponse to your article, and nobody suffuciently argued against the main points I brought up. My post was also one of the earlier ones (#30), so it sat there while much of the other discussion was going on untouched. So, from my vantage point, it looks like the points I made still stand. Beyond that, I don't care about your article. Like you, I had since forgotten about it. Within a couple minutes of posting this comment, I'm going to forget about it once again. - chuckx -

	It matters a great deal... (none / 0) (#89)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 10:17:31 PM PST

	If Adequacy was truly concerned about accuracy, that "review" would have been either removed or significantly corrected to reflect the truth as opposed to the author's ignorant and biased rant about a topic that he obviously knows little to nothing about. Why are we concerned about it? Simple: just because the review is "two months old" doesn't prevent it from still doing damage by spreading lies and misinformation about Linux to users who don't know any better. For instance, someone curious about alternatives to Microsoft Windows could conceivably stumble on the article and assume that the author really does know what he's talking about. After reading this "review" (which, for the record, is about 90% wrong), they decide that maybe Linux isn't for them after all, and the Microsoft monopoly is strengthened. If this piece of junk review existed in a vacuum then I wouldn't care, but the world doesn't work like that. "...harassing those who dare to tell the truth about Linux's shortcomings..." Pointing out factual errors and showing where the shortcomings are on the part of the author and not on Linux is not "harassing". If you want to write shit, be my guest. Just don't complain when someone says it's shit.

	You're new to Linux, right? (none / 0) (#91)
	by iat on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 03:37:16 AM PST

	If Adequacy was truly concerned about accuracy, that "review" would have been either removed or significantly corrected If you read the article again, you'll notice that my colleague bc has already corrected the error in my article. For instance, someone curious about alternatives to Microsoft Windows could conceivably stumble on the article and assume that the author really does know what he's talking about. After reading this "review" (which, for the record, is about 90% wrong), they decide that maybe Linux isn't for them after all, and the Microsoft monopoly is strengthened. And why should anyone other than someone like Linux Zealot actually care strongly about this? Not only is my article is factually correct, but it addresses the genuine concerns of Windows users thinking of migrating to Linux e.g. Linux does not run Windows programs natively (don't try to claim that WINE is just as good as running Windows natively - it is incomplete and unstable), Linux doesn't have the industry standard office suite (Microsoft Office) and the open source alternatives have limited abilities to import and export in Office formats, etc etc. It's interesting how you complain about people "spreading lies" about Linux, considering how many lies the Linux community spread about "Micro$oft". Pointing out factual errors and showing where the shortcomings are on the part of the author and not on Linux is not "harassing". Unless you've hacked my PC, you don't know anything about the contents of the emails I recieved. Many of these emails were both abusive and threatening, which is completely unecessary. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Um... (none / 0) (#95)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 05:29:26 PM PST

	"If you read the article again, you'll notice that my colleague bc has already corrected the error in my article." Excuse me, but the error? Like there was only one? Whatever. Try this quote, pulled from your "review", on for size: "Without even installing Linux Mandrake, I have exposed several fundamental flaws..." Yes, that is certainly an example of fine journalism. The fact that you couldn't even figure out how to install it automatically disqualifies you from the group of those qualified to write a review, and to have done so regardless shows nothing but irresponsibility on your part. If that's your idea of a well researched review, then perhaps you'll accept my submission: "A Review of Windows XP: "I went to Best Buy and looked at the Windows XP box sitting on the shelf. Without even buying it, I could tell that it was the same garbage that's been coming out of Microsoft's Redmond headquarters for years. Their bold promise of "rock solid stability", printed proudly on the back of the box, is a sure sign that they've spent lots of time perfecting the "Starting Windows XP" screen, since you're going to be seeing it a lot. If you like constantly rebooting your hardware then Windows XP is for you." There you go. That should fit right in with the journalistic "standards" of Adequacy.org (or should we start calling it Inadequacy.org?)

	Like I said... (none / 0) (#81)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 08:30:42 AM PST

	"One of my main loves in life is Linus Torrvaldee's shareware Linux operating system." First of all, it's Linus Torvald. Secondly, Linux is not shareware. Like I said, ignorance.

	A "consultant", huh? (1.00 / 1) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 08:56:56 PM PST

	Dogbert: "I like to 'con' people, and I like to 'insult' people. Put those together and I get 'consult'!" Frankly, consultants are the lowest form of life in the "professional" workforce today.

	Why would you say that? (none / 0) (#99)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 11:54:28 PM PST

	If you're a vendor, sure you'd have that opinion....DAMN it sucks when you can't rip off your customers and sell them what they don't need, doesn't it?

	I've heard the reboot one before (none / 0) (#37)
	by Jon Erikson on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:55:08 AM PST

	There was a classic problem when the Unix guys simply refused my request to reboot a critical server to restart our application because I quote "this is a Unix system, not Windows NT, you cannot just reboot it whenever you like". Needless to say a few quick phone calls were made and that Solaris box was down and back up quicker than you could say 'P45'. I've had that one before as well, but after my intensive open source research project I came to the conclusion that the reason these people boast about their uptimes and not needing to reboot is because their machines just don't have any of the advanced functionality of say Windows 2000. When all you're running is a DOS clone and a toy web server there probably isn't any need to reboot very often. Jon Erikson Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

	Well.... (none / 0) (#44)
	by chuckx on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:28:35 AM PST

	...just don't have any of the advanced functionality of say Windows 2000 What advanced functions are you referring to? I have both a Windows 2000 and Linux machine running at home. I've found it much easier and much cheaper to implement 'advanced functions' in Linux, rather than with Windows 2000. My roommates and I use the Windows 2000 machine for most all of our generic desktop activities. It doesn't do much more than provide a web browser, provide instant messaging functionality and run games. My Linux machine however is functioning as a firewall, web server and a SSH (remote access) server. I also use it for email, since it's nice having remote access to it. Implementing a firewall would be simple to do in Windows 2000. However, it would require me downloading ad ridden shareware or purchasing bloated software. I prefered taking the time to learn how to do it in Linux. In actuality it didn't take me much time at all, because the functionality is built in and I just downloaded a ready made script to enable it. The web server would also be easy to setup in Windows 2000. I could very easily just enable IIS. But it would be hell to maintain. Just take a look at the news and your read about exploit after exploit plauging IIS. With Apache (the toy web server I assume you were referring to), it was painless to setup (I just had to type the command, "apt-get install apache") and I had a working web server. After tweaking the configuration and installing PHP, I have an easy to maintain, dynamic web platform. It's not used for much now, but it provides me a simple platform to test web applications on and remote access to my computer's at home. The SSH server provides me with remote access to my machine. Using it I can do just about anything from afar that I can do while sitting at the machine. I can access from other Linux machines or from other Windows machine. This functionality is available in Windows, but in order to use it you have to run resource hungry applications on both the client and server computers. Being able to discretely login using a command line based interface is much less resource intensive from both the client/server resource and bandwidth perspectives. Granted, I could spend money buying ready made, possibly easier to use solutions to remedy my requirements. However, being the cash strapped college student I am, I find it much more productive in rewarding to just invest my time in something I was already interested in in the first place. I'm by no means saying Linux is for everyone. Like I said before, I have Windows 2000 on my main machine and my roommates would probably give me hell if I changed that. But Linux can and does work for people. Just because you've had bad experiences doesn't really justify brushing it off altogether. You can't really say that everybody's experience with Microsoft's (or anybody's) software has been or always will be painless. That's just the nature of computing. It's a complex task that takes tons of effort to put in the hands of today's average consumer. I commend the efforts of Microsoft, Linux developers and all computer developers for creating the varied computing environment that we're enjoying (most of the time, when it works right). I admit, this isn't an example of the use of Linux in a production environment. But you can't say that it hasn't been successfully used that way. Just ask the DreamWorks (whether or not you think their products are really worthwhile is another question). You can even take a gander a IBM's site for information on using Linux in a production environment. I could post more links, but I'm sure you all are capable of finding similar information on the web yourselves. - chuckx -

	Interesting... (none / 0) (#74)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:14:53 PM PST

	Such a well reasoned and intelligent post from a "long-haired Linux hippie" and not a single rebuttle from the Microsoft elite. Very interesting.

	Apache? Easy to install? HA (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 10:00:25 PM PST

	Yea, right. Apache is one of the worst programs to install. When you take into account all the modules that need to be added (PHP and SSH junk) each fucking with your makefile in some unknowen way (will this module even get the other module to install? who knows). The whole apache build system is fucked. It's by far one of the biggest pain in the asses I get to install on my servers. This is where windows rules. Everything just installs right. No bullshit makefiles and config shit to edit. It just works.

	You weren't paying attention. (none / 0) (#78)
	by chuckx on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 10:21:47 PM PST

	The whole apache build system is fucked. It's by far one of the biggest pain in the asses I get to install on my servers. When I said all I had to type was, "apt-get install apache", I wasn't kidding. I'm using Debian, a Linux distribution which happens to have an excellent package management system. Installing any peice of software from source is a more complicated endeavor (especially a package as complex as Apache), and I doubt you've ever tried doing the equivalent in Windows (for the most part, it's not even possible). This is where windows rules. Everything just installs right. It's easy to install software on any system where there's a decent framework setup for the process. Whether your using apt, RPM or InstallShield, it can be easy to install programs regardless of what OS you're using. All in all, I find my Linux system much easier to keep up to date than my Windows 2000 system. Just by running the command "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade", my Linux computer will upgrade just about all the software installed on the computer to the latest versions released for Debian. No bullshit makefiles and config shit to edit. It just works. In any computing environment, you're going to have to configure your programs to make sure they are in proper working order. The attitude you're exhibiting seems very irresponsible. Whether you're using Apache or IIS, you need make sure it's configured correctly, or the server will be at risk of being compromised. Just perusing through my Apache logs will give a long list of Windows users who don't take the time to make sure their servers are patched and up to date. - chuckx -

	funny stuff (1.00 / 1) (#53)
	by NAWL on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 11:31:50 AM PST

	When all you're running is a DOS clone and a toy web server there probably isn't any need to reboot very often. I find it utterly funny when people claim that Unix or any other unice are just DOS clones or just a backwards engineered DOS. Kinda hard to backwards engineer DOS to create UNIX if DOS didn't even exist yet. UNIX is older than DOS. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	the yolk's on you (5.00 / 2) (#57)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 02:32:34 PM PST

	UNIX is older than DOS. It shows.

	Design flaw? (none / 0) (#94)
	by jaavaaguru on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 10:12:46 AM PST

	> Unix guys simply refused my request to reboot > a critical server to restart our application - to restart an application, just restart the application, not the entire server machine. - if an application can't restart without the OS restarting, then there's a fundamental design flaw in the operating system. To be fair, I've seen the last option occur in both Linux and Windows (NFSd in Linux did this with me, and in Windows try killing anything that's running with the SYSTEM acocunt's UID when it's gone wrong, without rebooting!). All things considered, either the admin of the server didn't know what he was doing (perhaps not heard of the "kill -9" command) or there was a fault in the software.

	Arrogant. (none / 0) (#98)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 11:13:59 PM PST

	Ok. BRAGGING about being good at inter office politics, and getting people fired, is just pretty pathetic. I've worked in office situations for most of my life, and the people who're good at interoffice politics are usually the ones that are getting by on the work of others (who acually work, rather than running around "politicing"). As for Linux...well, unless you haven't heard, IBM thinks it's a bit more than a "hobby" OS, to the tune of $1 BILLION last year alone. So stop being so pedantic. Just because you can't code in C, doesn't make it a bad OS. It's actually quite good, and any responsible sysadmin should be familiar with an OS running 25% of the internet. Oh, let's not forget that businesses running Windows servers pay higher insurance premiums than Linux servers. As for "fresh faced MCSEs". They pay 2g's, I get them, and they know how to pass that test well, and that's about all I can say. At least the Linux geeks know hardware when I get 'em.

	I believe you need to look at this (none / 0) (#32)
	by Yossarian on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:51:17 AM PST

	USAR FREINDLEY

	My major issue with the comic (5.00 / 2) (#40)
	by Sylvester Q McNamera on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:07:21 AM PST

	Your comic shows these people in their natural habitat, yet the smelly old hag and the young homosexual are both wearing white. Now then, anybody knows that it's not appropriate to wear white after Labor Day. This one major faux paux just ruins this otherwise very accurate depiction of the typical UK family. Shame on the editors for letting such slipshod workmanship slide by their beady little sunken eyes. Best wishes, --S.Q. McNamera

	Huh?? (none / 0) (#49)
	by tkatchev on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 10:28:31 AM PST

	The young homosexual is wearing a t-shirt with the slogan of "anthrax" on it. Since I believe that "anthrax" is some sort of cheap "goth metal" band, the t-shirt must obviously be black in color. I assume the author of the comic simply didn't have the technical ability to draw a black t-shirt with a white slogan on it. -- Peace and much love...

	You insolent pious fool (none / 0) (#50)
	by Sylvester Q McNamera on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 10:41:49 AM PST

	I ask you my good sir, are you blind? The young butt-ranger is wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "Anthrax" on it, which is obviously a white powdery bacteria that is used to kill Windows users. Thus, one can only assume that the shirt was drawn exactly as it was intended to be drawn. One can only wonder what motives a chap like you has in promoting this kind of dubious behaviour. I suspect you have quite a good bit of explaining to do young man. Best wishes, --S.Q. McNamera

	actually (none / 0) (#70)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:58:50 AM PST

	anthrax is far from 'goth metal' sorry -c

	No. (none / 0) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 01:23:47 PM PST

	There are no homosexuals in this comic.

	HOMO! (none / 0) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 09:49:52 PM PST

	That young man's hair is more than shoulder length, and yet the Bible tells us that it is an atrocity for a man to sport long hair. Indeed, his hair is longer than his (alledged) grandmother. (In reality, she is no one's grandmother, as she is, too, homosexual, for reasons to complicated to go into here and to complex for your puny mind to comprehend.) Since we all know that people who do not embrace Jesus as saviour and the Bible as the word of God are either jues or homosexuals, and his tee-shirt clearly precludes him from being a jue (the Elders recently issued a bull banning the use of anthrax (since they lent it all to Osama)), he logically MUST be a homosexual.

	Then please explain something. (none / 0) (#68)
	by theboz on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 05:20:21 AM PST

	Why is the guy is wearing a skirt in the comic? Before you call it a "kilt", I am sure that the Scottish traditional dress does not include an "anthrax" t-shirt so that answer would be false. [Reply]

	Ah ha! (none / 0) (#88)
	by pyramid termite on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 07:36:49 PM PST

	Now then, anybody knows that it's not appropriate to wear white after Labor Day. So, that's why tanning salons do so well in fall. He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

	heh. (none / 0) (#60)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 03:30:53 PM PST

	I'm one of those displaced K5'ers that has been coming here occasionally to see what kind of crack you guys are smoking. I felt personally insulted by the article that told me to go away yesterday. But I came back today, and all of a sudden, while viewing this fine piece of cartoon artwork, it all started to make sense! Thank you, Adequacy, for enlightening me! I will go now. My work here is done.

	You know (none / 0) (#61)
	by dmg on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 03:56:45 PM PST

	If just ONE person reads this and decides that Linux is not for them, then my work is done :-) time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Ahh (none / 0) (#65)
	by Winter on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 07:59:04 PM PST

	But you appear to have not reached true enlightenment. You are ever so close, but you have yet to take the final step. Please try again tomorrow.

	Linux can't compete with real operating systems (none / 0) (#67)
	by error27 on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 11:36:09 PM PST

	Linux is pretty good compared to other free-ware operating systems like BSD but it can't compare to a real operating system like Windows 2000. For example, my company is writing a parallel real time video network multiplexer. Basically it's like a router but only for real time video. Stuff like video conferencing basically. Mostly, of course, we use UDP with our own routing information for prioritizing the traffic. Since this is an embedded product we thought that we could save some money by using free-ware operating systems instead of a real operating system. Customers can configure our multiplexer with IE so it didn't matter for us that Linux has no GUI. The problem we ran into was that the Linux kernel does not support asynchronous IO. Needless to say this was really surprising for us. Of course, we looked around for how other people had dealt with this deficiency. SGI has a async kludge for Linux that uses threads. We tried that, but Linux threads take a lot of memory. With over 100k sockets open at the same time we would need an outrageous amount of RAM. After months of work we eventually had to scrap the Linux platform and re-implement the program on Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is a joy to program for because it has advanced IDE's and programming languages like Visual C++ 2000. We had the program ready much faster than we could have on Linux. And UDP on Windows 2000 can be done async so it beat the pants off Linux on the technical front as well. With Windows 2000 the customer has to pay for a Windows License which we could have avoided by using Linux but the savings in hardware more than make up for the cost difference. Sometimes with operating systems, it's a matter of spending a penny in order to save a penny.

	Nice comments... (none / 0) (#75)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:25:51 PM PST

	Your comments are very well written, and it just goes to show that Linux is not necessarily the answer to every problem (but you can say the same about every computer application). The only thing I take exception to is your "real operating system" label. Linux is just as much a real operating system as Windows, MacOS, PS/2, DOS, and what have you. Just because it's not supported and marketed by a corrupt monopolistic corporation does not make it any less "real" of an OS.

	Oh... (none / 0) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:35:45 PM PST

	And before someone gives me shit about this, I of course meant "OS/2" and not "PS/2".

	Whatever... (none / 0) (#90)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 03:35:51 AM PST

	First of all, Visual C++ is not a language it is a compiler and IDE. Secondly, I think the problem with your program goes far deeper than just Windows vs Linux. Why in this day and age would anyone still be using UDP? Basically all UDP is is a hacked on addition to bare bones IP. I thought that by now everyone would know that IPX (Internet Protocol eXtension) was the only protocol that matters if you are conserned with latency issues. The only reason people still use UDP is that the windows 95 IPX stack was utter CRAP! With windows 98 and higher IPX performance is acceptable. But under Linux, and to a lesser extent BSD, IPX performance is superb. It's time your company faced the reality that UDP is dying. In the computer world, you have to change (and fast!) or die.

	oooook (none / 0) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 07:52:59 PM PST

	well, it seems to me that there are a few of us out there that have nothing better to do than pick apart a pathetically immature "comic strip" and argue the oldest one in the book.. nix vs. windows heh.. "..as linux has no GUI" why does that just sound wrong? i'm quite content to stick with FreeBSD and Solaris. and i dont think ill ever change. all OS's have their ups and downs. i want stability so i stick to an OS that i can count on. linux breeds script kiddies.. that much cant be avoided. and windows... well im just not going to get into this. good day gentleman just-a-girl*

	beg pardon? (none / 0) (#82)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:06:25 PM PST

	just-a-girl I don't believe it for a minute. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	hi. (none / 0) (#71)
	by moggums on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:40:53 PM PST

	the only good 'web comic' that will ever exist, quite honestly, is www.leisuretown.com. that is all.

	I like this one (0.90 / 0) (#84)
	by NAWL on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 02:40:59 PM PST

	www.campchaos.com Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Museum Edition of Linux Zealot Issue 1 Available (none / 0) (#87)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 06:49:28 PM PST

	I would like to announce to everybody that I have a copy of the Museum Edition of the first issue of Linux Zealot on eBay in mint condition. The starting price is $300. It will be on auction for one week. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Comics (5.00 / 1) (#96)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 01:47:28 AM PST

	If you hate net comics so much, why do you bother looking at them long enough to annoy you? Why not just avoid those sites?

	HEHE one thing I have learned... (none / 0) (#97)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 06:49:58 AM PST

	One thing I have learned in my time working in the virtual reality labs of a norfolf virginia based engeneering firm, Is that lunux and unix are not inferior software, just diffrent, I hear all the "linux is not a real OS crap" Honestly, the streamlined nature of linux, while not for the "light user" or the "home workstation" can turn a box that otherwise is to slow to function on the internet, into a fairly decent webserver. This makes linux a permanant aspest of the internet community. Just my two cents. P.S. did you know you are a terrorist loving computer hacker? just ask T. Reg Gibbons....LOL

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.