Yet another public BSOD



  •  No, the real WTF is that someone actually bothered to send in yet another BSOD from a public display. At least this one was sideways.

     Sideways BSOD



  • This is why I love Linux, have you seen a public kernel panic?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ZiggyFish said:

    This is why I love Linux, have you seen a public kernel panic?


    Actually, yes. I have.

    University of Maryland, CS building, on a display in the lobby.



  •  @ZiggyFish said:

    This is why I love Linux, have you seen a public kernel panic?

    Airplane in-seat entertainment systems are notorious for crashing. My seat has been stuck booting linux a few times. Granted, it's not the kernel panicing but the software running on the airplane network locking up, but then again this crash is most definitely caused by a buggy 3rd party driver. 



  • @Nandurius said:

    Airplane in-seat entertainment systems are notorious for crashing. My seat has been stuck booting linux a few times. Granted, it's not the kernel panicing but the software running on the airplane network locking up, but then again this crash is most definitely caused by a buggy 3rd party driver. 

    This is hardly a news, but most BSODs are also caused by buggy third-party drivers or buggy ACPI BIOS.

     



  • @alegr said:

    @Nandurius said:

    Airplane in-seat entertainment systems are notorious for crashing. My seat has been stuck booting linux a few times. Granted, it's not the kernel panicing but the software running on the airplane network locking up, but then again this crash is most definitely caused by a buggy 3rd party driver. 

    This is hardly a news, but most BSODs are also caused by buggy third-party drivers or buggy ACPI BIOS. 

    Although BSOD do mainly happen because of third-party drivers, it shouldn't happen at all. Windows has more support for hardware, than any other OS and should therfore be more stable. Also the difference between the BSOD and kernel panic is, BSOD doesn't restart the system, whereas kernel panic does. 



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    Although BSOD do mainly happen because of third-party drivers, it shouldn't happen at all. Windows has more support for hardware, than any other OS and should therfore be more stable. Also the difference between the BSOD and kernel panic is, BSOD doesn't restart the system, whereas kernel panic does.
    Actually, neither of these is true. Windows has more support for hardware because more manufacturers provide drivers - and thus have more chances of screwing up something. Whether a BSOD restarts the system depends on the settings (the default on XP is to restart). Kernel panics by default don't restart the system, it has to be enabled.



  • I don't think you see BSOD on those kinds of screens because of bad drivers. I think those things BSOD because of hardware failure. That has been the main reason why I have had BSODs and kernel panics. And I think people rather see a BSOD on those kind of screens then an forever rebooting (=blinking) screen.

    (And restarting on kernel panic in linux is a 'simple' panic=[timeout] on the boot parameters)



    1. Take your snide Windows comments.
    2. Shove them up your Linux-loving ass.
    3. Profit!!!

    If a driver causes a BSOD or kernel panic or whatever, it's because it's a buggy driver, not because the underlying OS is not robust. And a BSOD may or may not cause a restart, depending on your computer settings.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    If a driver causes a BSOD or kernel panic or whatever, it's because it's a buggy driver, not because the underlying OS is not robust. And a BSOD may or may not cause a restart, depending on your computer settings.

    but this is what the differnece between Windows and linux, windows gives you pritty print screen, that gives you next to no information,  So if you do have such an error, it very hard for the Manufacture to find the problem, where as Linux, gives you more information (down to the letter T), so all someone needs to do is report the error with the information provided by the panic, and the problem is usually fixed within the next couple of releases. Also if the driver is opensource, a patch can be made and fix the problem.

     Also I'm not a linux fanboy, I just like companies that doen't lock people into their software or buys any companies that compete with it (i.e I like freedom).



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    windows gives you pritty print screen, that gives you next to no information
    Google for "STOP codes," or "BSOD dump files"

    Or possibly "hyperbole."

     



  • Sorry for proving you wrong, but on a typical kernel panic on Linux, you see NOTHING and the machine just hangs.

    This is because Linux has no methods to switch back to text mode before printing the panic, so it prints it to text-mode GPU memory while in graphics mode. Without serial console and the relatively new (and hard to set up) kexec-on-panic, there's no way to get the panic message.

    The most commonly used graphics drivers being non-free and thus unable to be extended for panic printing (and be it just switching to text mode, like Windows does) doesn't help there.

    Sure, IF you can see the panic, you DO have more info. But they most commonly happen while in graphics mode, because some driver messed up again... 



  • @Weng said:

    @ZiggyFish said:

    This is why I love Linux, have you seen a public kernel panic?


    Actually, yes. I have.

    University of Maryland, CS building, on a display in the lobby.

     

    Are you talking about CSIC?  Because I was under the impression that was running Windows.  Now and then you'd see Internet Explorer when the operator got bored and surfed to cnn.com.

    I have, though, seen a kernel panic, at no less than the Verizon Center in DC last month.  It was on the big display outside.  It had rebooted before I could get to my phone to take a picture, sadly.



  • @OperatorBastardusInfernalis said:

    Without serial console and the relatively new (and hard to set up) kexec-on-panic, there's no way to get the panic message.
    I've found netconsole to be more than adequate when I've been debugging drivers.



  • @OperatorBastardusInfernalis said:

    Sorry for proving you wrong, but on a typical kernel panic on Linux, you see NOTHING and the machine just hangs.

    Will sorry to burst your bubble, but I the kernel panic I've had (although I've only had one in the 6 years I've used linux for due to poor support back then) went back to text mode and printed the information.

     

    @OperatorBastardusInfernalis said:

    This is because Linux has no methods to switch back to text mode before printing the panic, so it prints it to text-mode GPU memory while in graphics mode. Without serial console and the relatively new (and hard to set up) kexec-on-panic, there's no way to get the panic message.

    Linux is by default(depending on what distro) set to dump information on to disk.

     



  • The Daily WTF 2: Return to Slashdot (Electric Boogaloo)



  • @PJH said:

    @ZiggyFish said:
    windows gives you pritty print screen, that gives you next to no information
    Google for "STOP codes," or "BSOD dump files"

    I would goole for them if I can get past the BSOD.

     



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    but this is what the differnece between Windows and linux, windows gives you pritty print screen, that gives you next to no information, So if you do have such an error, it very hard for the Manufacture to find the problem, where as Linux, gives you more information (down to the letter T), so all someone needs to do is report the error with the information provided by the panic, and the problem is usually fixed within the next couple of releases. Also if the driver is opensource, a patch can be made and fix the problem.

    That is a complete load of horseshit. Ever heard of a minidump file? Or even a stop error code? More information isn't printed to the screen because there isn't much you can do to save it at that point -- other than handwrite the information or take a picture. So windows saves a file with this information.

    And while we're at it, are you implying that a closed-source driver can't be patched?



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    Although BSOD do mainly happen because of third-party drivers, it shouldn't happen at all. Windows has more support for hardware, than any other OS and should therfore be more stable. Also the difference between the BSOD and kernel panic is, BSOD doesn't restart the system, whereas kernel panic does.
     <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>

    That's patently insane.  I'm so sick of these Linux nerds that think they actually know something about kernels because they ran a build script once.  Here are a few points to consider:

    1. Shy of running everything in a virtual machine, it's completely impossible for an OS to shield itself from (or clean up after) kernel mode drivers.  That's the whole point of kernel mode as opposed to user mode - you need direct access to the machine hardware, which means that the OS needs to get out of the way.  And if the OS isn't intercepting everything that happens in kernel mode, then it can neither audit nor block buggy code (assuming it had even the tiniest inkling of what "buggy"is).

    2. It's hard to imagine any set of circumstances where supporting a broader-range of hardware would make a system [I]more[/I] fault-tolerant.  The more "things" you interface with, the greater the chance of one of those things misbehaving.  Linux seems more "stable" because it hardly supports anything but the most standard hardware - good luck finding any Linux drivers for your touch-screen, and if you get that far, good luck getting them to do anything other than waste clock cycles.

    3. To respond to a later comment you made, Linux may give you "more" information about a kernel panic but that doesn't make it any more useful, either to you or to a manufacturer.  There's a very good reason why Windows doesn't give much information on a BSOD, and that's because it's extremely unlikely that the crash/panic was immediately preceded by the bug in question.  It's far more likely that some piss-poor driver corrupted memory owned by a different, good driver, and when you examine the crash it looks like the good driver was at fault.  The fact is, if you really want to "debug" a BSOD on any system then the only way to do it is to disable all your drivers and selectively re-enable them one by one.

    Please, just go back to slashdot. 



  • @Aaron said:

    3. To respond to a later comment you made, Linux may give you "more" information about a kernel panic but that doesn't make it any more useful, either to you or to a manufacturer.  There's a very good reason why Windows doesn't give much information on a BSOD, and that's because it's extremely unlikely that the crash/panic was immediately preceded by the bug in question.  It's far more likely that some piss-poor driver corrupted memory owned by a different, good driver, and when you examine the crash it looks like the good driver was at fault.  The fact is, if you really want to "debug" a BSOD on any system then the only way to do it is to disable all your drivers and selectively re-enable them one by one.
     

    Right, and I cannot remember the last time I had a legitimate BSOD or similar problem where I couldn't grab the text that was displayed in the BSOD and throw it through google.

    After maybe 3-4 decent hits you can get a pretty good idea exactly what is wrong. (after wading through crap like ZiggyFish would be polluting the intertubez with)

    That is all assuming you didn't do something obvious like you just installed some shitty card and on reboot got a BSOD. Then it is all pretty clear.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    If a driver causes a BSOD or kernel panic or whatever, it's because it's a buggy driver, not because the underlying OS is not robust.

    I refer you to Windows 95/98 where the wrong weather patterns could cause a BSOD.  Nine or ten in a row, in fact. 



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I refer you to Windows 95/98 where the wrong weather patterns could cause a BSOD. Nine or ten in a row, in fact.
    I built my own machine for use with win 98 SE, I honestly had maybe 3 BSODs (over ~4 years?), even with failed cooling (which causes the CPU to warp the MB). First usage of my Win XP laptop from Dell BSoD'ed four times in the first two days, but never after, and always on shutdown.



    That 98 machine was upgraded to XP and didn't BSoD in the ~2 years(?) that it had XP though. I personally think the Hardware manufacturers were just pumping shit during the 9x years, which negatively impacted the image of windows over those years.



  • @Lingerance said:

    I personally think the Hardware manufacturers were just pumping shit during the 9x years, which negatively impacted the image of windows over those years.
     

    The HAL and other hardware subsystems have also drastically improved over the years.

    Swaying a little off topic:

    How many people just click right through the 'driver not signed' warning message when installing some driver and then later complain that MS sucks because they had a blue screen?



  • @Lingerance said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    I refer you to Windows 95/98 where the wrong weather patterns could cause a BSOD. Nine or ten in a row, in fact.
    I built my own machine for use with win 98 SE, I honestly had maybe 3 BSODs (over ~4 years?), even with failed cooling (which causes the CPU to warp the MB). First usage of my Win XP laptop from Dell BSoD'ed four times in the first two days, but never after, and always on shutdown.



    That 98 machine was upgraded to XP and didn't BSoD in the ~2 years(?) that it had XP though. I personally think the Hardware manufacturers were just pumping shit during the 9x years, which negatively impacted the image of windows over those years.

    Maybe it's just me then, but I couldn't keep my win98 box on for more than a day because it would BSOD.  Once I installed win2k on that puppy, I could get online times of multiple weeks on AIM. 



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Maybe it's just me then, but I couldn't keep my win98 box on for more than a day because it would BSOD.  Once I installed win2k on that puppy, I could get online times of multiple weeks on AIM. 
     

    I would agree with Lingerance, sounds like shitty hardware.

    9x was pretty nasty and tempermental... no where near as stable as 2k or XP, but it was not unusable (at the time).



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Maybe it's just me then, but I couldn't keep my win98 box on for more than a day because it would BSOD.  Once I installed win2k on that puppy, I could get online times of multiple weeks on AIM. 
    Lucky, I had to reboot multiple times in a day because my network card wouldn't work for more than 2 hours, until I upgraded the MB/PSU/CPU a few months before switching to a copy of XP. I didn't mention that before because that's a pure hardware fault.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Lucky, I had to reboot multiple times in a day because my network card wouldn't work for more than 2 hours
     

    I used to see a LOT of NIC issues. FWIW now my favorite cheapo NIC cards were the Netgear FA311 (don't quote me on that, it has been many years). I would keep a dozen or so around the shop, and pop them in when I had someone complain about networking issues. Boom, problem went away, and they couldn't be happier. 

    Not saying they were really great cards, I just had great luck with them in that era.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Maybe it's just me then, but I couldn't keep my win98 box on for more than a day because it would BSOD.
    We've got a Win98 machine here running some alarm software that refuses to run on anything NT-based. It's uptime counter just rolled over the second time.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Maybe it's just me then, but I couldn't keep my win98 box on for more than a day because it would BSOD.  Once I installed win2k on that puppy, I could get online times of multiple weeks on AIM.

    Same thing with me.  I ran Win98 and many different hardware configs for several years and usually rebooted 2 or 3 times a day.  Usually it was the result of usermode crashes taking the whole box down or memory leaks that Windows wasn't cleaning up after programs exited, causing the system to grind to a halt.  To be fair, the competing OSes of the day weren't any better.  NT 4 was stable as hell but slow and incompatible with a large quantity of my software and hardware.  Mac OS 9 is the worst operating system I have ever used.  It looked like Win 3.1 and locked up non-stop.  Once Win2k came out I switched and had uptimes exceeding 100 days.  NT is damn stable and the only BSODs I've had were from crappy hardware or my own fault because I was dicking with stuff I shouldn't have been.

     

    Linux is best on server hardware.  There's no need for graphics or audio drivers and there are open source drivers for everything else.  Properly set-up, you can get years of continuous uptime from Linux boxes.  I have 74 days of uptime on my desktop machine, but that's only because I turned it off to save power when I went on vacation.  Otherwise it would be over 200 days at this point.  Still, I've seen that kind of stability from Win2k and XP, so it's exceptional. 



  • I've seen Windows 2000 uptimes in the 240+ days range, and am convinced it would have happily trucked along for longer if I hadn't rebooted for other maintenance work.  A lot of the Linux advocates scare stories are just that - scare stories.  They'd be much better off directing their energy into improving the usability of their OS for the general populace.



  • @mfah said:

    I've seen Windows 2000 uptimes in the 240+ days range, and am convinced it would have happily trucked along for longer if I hadn't rebooted for other maintenance work.  A lot of the Linux advocates scare stories are just that - scare stories.  They'd be much better off directing their energy into improving the usability of their OS for the general populace.

    I don't want Linux to be easier to use.  Then we end up with the viruses and other garbage Windows users have to deal with.  Windows can keep the fucktard sysadmins who give it such a poor reputation for security and stability. 



  • I bought this Dell laptop in March of last year, and it just barely BSOD'ed two weeks ago for the first time (thanks, Netflix!) and then again last week (thanks, DrScheme!).  Of course, it's a laptop, so it's continually being rebooted, hibernated, standby'ed, reinstalled, Vista'ed, de-Vista'ed, Gentoo'ed, de-Gentoo'ed, re-Gentoo'ed, and so on, all the while dual-booting with XP...

    I saw frequent BSODs on a machine whose hard drive was dying, but it was an old Pentium III that was being used far past its useful days.  The machine would randomly BSOD when reading large files from the hard drive (e.g. starting Diablo II).  My old laptop (now my wife's laptop) running XP will BSOD if I leave it running for more than a few days, but it's not consistent... I think that's a RAM issue, but I'm too cheap to buy RAM for a laptop that rarely gets used.



  • @Aaron said:



    @ZiggyFish said:
    Although BSOD do mainly happen because of third-party drivers, it shouldn't happen at all. Windows has more support for hardware, than any other OS and should therefore be more stable. Also the difference between the BSOD and kernel panic is, BSOD does not restart the system, whereas kernel panic does.


    That's patently insane.  I'm so sick of these Linux nerds that think they actually know something about kernels because they ran a build script once.  Here are a few points to consider:


    I could give you more information, but are irrelevant to this discussion. Linux (or Unix for that matter) provides an file based(although they ant like normal files stored on disk) interface to devices(these files are normally 'mounted'(and I say mounted because it's a file system) at /dev). This allows software like X to run outside of the kernel.

    @Aaron said:
    1. Shy of running everything in a virtual machine, it's completely impossible for an OS to shield itself from (or clean up after) kernel mode drivers.  That's the whole point of kernel mode as opposed to user mode - you need direct access to the machine hardware, which means that the OS needs to get out of the way.  And if the OS isn't intercepting everything that happens in kernel mode, then it can neither audit nor block buggy code (assuming it had even the tiniest inkling of what "buggy"is).


    First, as of kernel 2.6.19(released 2006/11/29), the Linux kernel has virtualization (read this for more information http://www.linux.com/feature/59150) support. Secondly I never said that the OS was responsible for 3rd party drivers, but what I said was that Windows should be more stable because of it's market position.

    @Aaron said:
    2. It's hard to imagine any set of circumstances where supporting a broader-range of hardware would make a system more fault-tolerant.  The more "things" you interface with, the greater the chance of one of those things misbehaving.  Linux seems more "stable" because it hardly supports anything but the most standard hardware - good luck finding any Linux drivers for your touch-screen, and if you get that far, good luck getting them to do anything other than waste clock cycles.


    Firstly, Linux only goes into kernel mode when it needs to(i.e thing like X and web browsing, run outside of kernel mode as it should). And as such limits the surface for "components" to halt the whole system and therefore making the system more fault-tolerant. Secondly, I don't know of any touch-screen manufactures, so I can't tell you otherwise, how ever, if you can tell me of such, I would be happy to find the driver for you. But this is the biggest downfall of Linux.

    @Aaron said:
    3. To respond to a later comment you made, Linux may give you "more" information about a kernel panic but that does't make it any more useful, either to you or to a manufacturer.  There's a very good reason why Windows does't give much information on a BSOD, and that's because it's extremely unlikely that the crash/panic was immediately preceded by the bug in question.  It's far more likely that some piss-poor driver corrupted memory owned by a different, good driver, and when you examine the crash it looks like the good driver was at fault.  The fact is, if you really want to "debug" a BSOD on any system then the only way to do it is to disable all your drivers and selectively re-enable them one by one.

    Please, just go back to slashdot.


    Firstly, from you attitude, you have never used Linux, so you can not comment on what information the kernel panic gives. Secondly, can you find that file that windows produces. Moreover it's all well and good that Windows produces such information, but the information is only good, if that information can be found. Where as Linux gives you the information up front and also stores it on disk and as such makes the information accessible. A simple Google search ("Linux kernel dump") produces the following:

    The memory image is stored into a dump device, which is represented by one of the disk partitions on the system. That dump is recovered with an application called lcrash (Linux Crash) once the system boots back up, before the swap partitions are mounted. A report is generated and saved into /var/log/dump.

    That aside, you have your own opinions on the topic. But to prevent this flame war further, let leave it at this (it's an unwinnable debate).

     @everyone: please leave you flamming comments to your self (their irrelevant).



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    First, as of kernel 2.6.19(released 2006/11/29), the Linux kernel has virtualization (read this for more information http://www.linux.com/feature/59150) support.
    That doesn't solve anything - the host kernel still has to run on the machine, and is still dependant on the drivers.@ZiggyFish said:
    Secondly I never said that the OS was responsible for 3rd party drivers, but what I said was that Windows should be more stable because of it's market position.
    How? You mean the Vista x64 way, where you can't load any driver that isn't digitally signed?@ZiggyFish said:
    Secondly, can you find that file that windows produces.
    Depending on the type of dumps you have enabled, it's either %SystemRoot%\MEMORY.DMP or %SystemRoot%\Minidump\Mini-*.dmp



  •  I should know better than to respond to this, but here we go...

     

    @ZiggyFish said:

    I could give you more information, but are irrelevant to this discussion. Linux (or Unix for that matter) provides an file based(although they ant like normal files stored on disk) interface to devices(these files are normally 'mounted'(and I say mounted because it's a file system) at /dev). This allows software like X to run outside of the kernel.

    Almost any modern X desktop is using DRI because rendering through the X server is slow and incapable of handling things like video playback.  This requires several modules to be loaded into the kernel to give direct hardware access to X.  Additionally, X runs as root which means that security holes can compromise the entire system.  Windows runs a good deal of the GUI within the kernel, too, but internally the NT kernel is much more structured than Linux.  The original NT architecture was a microkernel and even had video drivers running in user mode.  This was eventually changed for performance reasons which makes sense -- trying to run everything through user mode APIs is going to be a pain.

     

    You seem to think that the difference between user mode and kernel mode means the difference between safe and unsafe.  Crap code is crap code, no matter where it runs.  There have been plenty of bugs in the Linux kernel that have allowed user mode programs to gain kernel privs or crash the system.  The point is that user mode and kernel mode define an interface that can be used to segregate code by its needed privileges.  NT does this internally by providing several limited interfaces for different parts of the kernel, so that even pieces that run within the kernel are only provided the access they need.  Obviously it would be nice if this could be better enforced through hardware, but this is a limitation of x86 and not specific to Windows or Linux.  The entire user mode/kernel mode dichotomy is a result of x86 only supporting two hardware-enforceable modes of memory access.

    @ZiggyFish said:

    First, as of kernel 2.6.19(released 2006/11/29), the Linux kernel has virtualization (read this for more information http://www.linux.com/feature/59150) support. Secondly I never said that the OS was responsible for 3rd party drivers, but what I said was that Windows should be more stable because of it's market position.

    What does Linux supporting virtualization have to do with anything?  The point Aaron was making is that short of an additional privilege mode in the processor, it is impossible for the kernel to stop bad code.  I also agree with the point that many Windows problems are caused by buggy 3rd party drivers.  The small market share of Linux means that there has to be a significant developer interest before drivers are developed.  Also, most Linux drivers are in source form which means the community can continue to refine and correct the drivers over time, something that is not usually possible with Windows drivers shipped by some no-name Taiwanese hardware manufacturer.  The design of the Linux kernel does not lend itself to binary-only drivers.  The kernel will refuse to export certain symbols to proprietary kernel modules and Linus has refused to implement a driver ABI.  The breakneck speed of Linux development means that driver APIs change frequently and binary-only drivers or older source-based drivers that nobody is interested in porting break frequently.

     

    @ZiggyFish said:

    Firstly, Linux only goes into kernel mode when it needs to(i.e thing like X and web browsing, run outside of kernel mode as it should).

    And Windows goes into kernel mode when it doesn't need to?  The switch to kernel mode is done because programs need access to resources only available to the kernel.  User programs run in user mode, just like on Windows.  The GUI makes extensive use of internal kernel APIs, just like on Windows.  The code that handles windowing objects exists outside of the kernel, which is different than Windows, but it runs as root and generally has enough hooks into the kernel to cause a nasty crash if something goes wrong.  I've had X die on me inexplicably many times and unless I can get to another machine and ssh to the crashing computer and kill X before it consumes all of the memory and triggers the out-of-memory killer, it will take down the entire box.  Then again, I don't run Linux on the desktop because it is more stable than Windows.  When it comes to servers, you might have a point because a well-maintained Linux server has no need for a GUI and is thus much simpler and less likely to fail.  Still, many Windows Server boxes only have to be rebooted for patches, so there's no evidence Windows is significantly less stable in a server environment.

     

    @ZiggyFish said:

    ...blah blah core dump blah...

    Not to offend, but I sincerely doubt you have the expertise to troubleshoot most kernel oops.  Perhaps if it's something as simple as a driver that you can try swapping out, but accurately reading kernel dumps is a black art, even to most kernel developers.  Additionally, if you want to debug the kernel you have to patch support in yourself because Linus refuses to mainline any debugging extensions at this point in time.  The patches are frequently broken by kernel updates and there's always the possibility that the debug patches will add new bugs or mask bugs in the original code.  However, if you seriously need to debug your kernel to get any work done you are either doing something far more advanced than most people or you are just fiddling with the kernel for the sake of it.  The latter is part of the fun of Linux, but it certainly has no bearing on a discussion of desktop kernel stability.



  • @ZiggyFish said:

     @everyone: please leave you flamming comments to your self (their irrelevant).
    For the record, I consider this to be a good discussion.  I am being enlightened left and right on the workings of things Linux and Windows.



  • @ZiggyFish said:

     @everyone: please leave you flamming comments to your self (their irrelevant).

     

    You obviously came here only to get into Linux fanboy flame wars.... And you are offended when you are argued with?

    Especially when just reading from the slashdot linux fanboy almanac? How can you be arguing against Windows when it is clear you have no idea about anything Windows related, and it appears you have only a rudimentary knowledge of *nix?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ZiggyFish said:

     @everyone: please leave you flamming comments to your self (their irrelevant).

     

    You obviously came here only to get into Linux fanboy flame wars.... And you are offended when you are argued with?

    Especially when just reading from the slashdot linux fanboy almanac? How can you be arguing against Windows when it is clear you have no idea about anything Windows related, and it appears you have only a rudimentary knowledge of *nix?

     

    Gotta love the irony of Mr. "plz no flamming[sic] but can I have teh codez" having "One thing is sure with Windows is failure is not an option, It's built in." in his sig. The thing about those statements is that "their[sic] irrelevant". On top of that, there are several blatantly false statements about both Windows and Linux in his rants. 

    Can actual people be nominated for the mug, or just threads? 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Lingerance said:

    I personally think the Hardware manufacturers were just pumping shit during the 9x years, which negatively impacted the image of windows over those years.
     

    The HAL and other hardware subsystems have also drastically improved over the years.

    Swaying a little off topic:

    How many people just click right through the 'driver not signed' warning message when installing some driver and then later complain that MS sucks because they had a blue screen?

     That's true, however, if you buy a piece of hardware and all there is available is an unsigned driver, your choices are somewhat limited!



  • @ziggyfish said:

    This is why I love Linux, have you seen a public kernel panic?

    @ziggyfish said:

    Windows has more support for hardware, than any other OS and should therfore be more stable.
     

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I also agree with the point that many Windows problems are caused by buggy 3rd party drivers.  The small market share of Linux means that there has to be a significant developer interest before drivers are developed.  Also, most Linux drivers are in source form which means the community can continue to refine and correct the drivers over time, something that is not usually possible with Windows drivers shipped by some no-name Taiwanese hardware manufacturer.  The design of the Linux kernel does not lend itself to binary-only drivers.  The kernel will refuse to export certain symbols to proprietary kernel modules and Linus has refused to implement a driver ABI.  The breakneck speed of Linux development means that driver APIs change frequently and binary-only drivers or older source-based drivers that nobody is interested in porting break frequently.

    This is what I've been tring to say. As for the other stuff, it's a bit out of my depth, so I can't comment on it.

    @

    								        <a href="http://forums.thedailywtf.com/members/MasterPlanSoftware.aspx" mce_href="http://forums.thedailywtf.com/members/MasterPlanSoftware.aspx">MasterPlanSoftware</a>: What is slashdot?</p><p>@ <a href="http://forums.thedailywtf.com/members/RayS.aspx">RayS</a>: I'm entitled to my own opion.<br></p>


  • I use linux because it does what I want it to do and is free. Whether windows does what you need is you opion. But I think people should have a choice, not one single company making an OS (does not encourage inervation). 



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    I use linux because it does what I want it to do and is free. Whether windows does what you need is you opion. But I think people should have a choice, not one single company making an OS (does not encourage inervation). 

    Am I the only one wondering whether someone who can't even get close to spelling everyday words should be taken seriously in any kind of intellectual debate? A typo I can understand, but this is obviously a lack of education.

    You seem to have what you want: [quoteuser="ZiggyFish"]not one single company making an OS[/quote]

     There is more than one company making an OS.



  • @slyadams said:

    @ZiggyFish said:

    I use linux because it does what I want it to do and is free. Whether windows does what you need is you opion. But I think people should have a choice, not one single company making an OS (does not encourage inervation). 

    Am I the only one wondering whether someone who can't even get close to spelling everyday words should be taken seriously in any kind of intellectual debate? A typo I can understand, but this is obviously a lack of education.

    I'm use to having firefox, tell me when I've spelt something wrong it's only this forum editor that doesn't tell you. 

    @slyadams said:

    You seem to have what you want: [quoteuser="ZiggyFish"]not one single company making an OS

     There is more than one company making an OS.

    [/quote] 

    But this clearly isn't what Microsoft want's. 



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    But I think people should have a choice,
    One wonders why you seem so intent on pushing only Linux then. That isn't giving choice.



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    MasterPlanSoftware:
    What is slashdot?

    What is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot]Wikipedia[/url]?



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    @slyadams said:

    @ZiggyFish said:

    I use linux because it does what I want it to do and is free. Whether windows does what you need is you opion. But I think people should have a choice, not one single company making an OS (does not encourage inervation). 

    Am I the only one wondering whether someone who can't even get close to spelling everyday words should be taken seriously in any kind of intellectual debate? A typo I can understand, but this is obviously a lack of education.

    I'm use to having firefox, tell me when I've spelt something wrong it's only this forum editor that doesn't tell you. 

    You know, people are allowed to know how to spell. We don't have to rely on computers for every single task. Saying "this editor doesn't spell-check" does not excuse your appalling English.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

    @ZiggyFish said:

     

    @slyadams said:

    You seem to have what you want: [quoteuser="ZiggyFish"]not one single company making an OS

     There is more than one company making an OS.

     

    But this clearly isn't what Microsoft want's. 

    [/quote]

    How do you know? What evidence do you have for this? They are certainly competing against Linux, but that is called business.



  • @slyadams said:

    That's true, however, if you buy a piece of hardware and all there is available is an unsigned driver, your choices are somewhat limited!
     

    You shouldn't be buying that hardware then. MS goes through a lot of trouble to post the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List). Use it, or don't be surprised if you have issues. At least certainly don't blame MS.



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    I use linux because it does what I want it to do and is free. Whether windows does what you need is you opion. But I think people should have a choice, not one single company making an OS (does not encourage inervation). 

     

    I think all children deserve an education sufficient to write intelligible sentences. Clearly we both are lacking exactly what we want.



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    But this clearly isn't what Microsoft want's. 
     

    Why should they? They are a business. This is how business works. Stop being a little fanboy, this kind of crap is old and played out on slasdot already. 

     



  • @ZiggyFish said:

    @ RayS: I'm entitled to my own opion.

    Of course you are. Not only that, in addition to being entitled to your own opion, you are also entitled to your own opinion, too. Or your own onion, if you like onions. Have your own onion by all means.

    However, if you go talking factually incorrect gibberish, expect to be called out on it. If you then accuse people of "flamming" you, when at the same time you have such inflamatory rubbish in your sig, you have to expect that you will be highlighted as a hypocrite and ridiculed.

    This ain't slashdot (yet).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.