Anyone want to decrypt this SQL Server installation error?



  •  



  • I can't help you with the error, but I'm always constantly amazed at how awful SQL Server's installer is on every level.



  • The error seems simple enough, but TRWTF is why SQL Server Setup shows it to you rather than a much simpler and easier to understand message.

    If I understand correctly,  the error message is telling you that the programmer tried to call a function (Invoke of BeginInvoke) that requires some Windows environment setup, without first performing that setup. This function apparently needs a window handle before it can be invoked, and the program hasn't yet established one.

    TRWTF is that the error message isn't helpful to the end-user. It should read something like:

    "Because of a failure in communicating with Windows, this program cannot continue.

    Please call the helpdesk at 1-800-BAD-CODE and inform them that error 9334-242 has occurred. They will assist in remediation of the error."

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @toodle said:

    The error seems simple enough, but TRWTF is why SQL Server Setup shows it to you rather than a much simpler and easier to understand message.

    If I understand correctly,  the error message is telling you that the programmer tried to call a function (Invoke of BeginInvoke) that requires some Windows environment setup, without first performing that setup. This function apparently needs a window handle before it can be invoked, and the program hasn't yet established one.

    Yeah. I ran into this situation yesterday. In my situation, we spin off a thread to run a modal dialog with a progress bar in it while the main UI thread does some heavy lifting (yeah, we could have used a background worker thread, but we didn't. That sort of rearchitecting is for later). Anyway, that other thread creates the window, and then receives commands to change its state periodically. At the end of the spinoff method, the main thread sleeps for a full half second to let the window get created and such before any update commands can POSSIBLY be sent. However, on one specific machine, and ONLY that one machine, the Windows scheduler has a vendetta against us and the window often won't be ready by the time update commands start flying.

     So, the possible solutions are:

    1) Do some actual thread synchronization instead of using the 'hope and pray' method. Time commitment: Probably about two hours
    2) Rewrite the fucker to use worker threads. Time commitment: HUGE
    3) Wrap the update methods in try/catch blocks and swallow the exception and the update will never occur. Hilarity will ensue if the window still hasn't been created when the "close the window, we're done here" message gets sent, but what are the odds of the stupid window not being initialized after several minutes? Besides, it's O'Beer-Thirty and you want some god damned nachos and Rogue Dead Guy. Time commitment: Thirty seconds and a build, and then many hours at the pub.
    4) "Closed: Could not reproduce". Time commitment: None.

     

    I chose #3. The SQL Server Installer team chose #4, as they usually do.



  • @Weng said:

    Yeah. I ran into this situation yesterday. In my situation, we spin off a thread to run a modal dialog with a progress bar in it while the main UI thread does some heavy lifting (yeah, we could have used a background worker thread, but we didn't. That sort of rearchitecting is for later).

    Thanks for letting us all know that you're a shit programmer who would rather write bad code and hide problems in that code with exception handling, as opposed to actually writing the code correctly in the first place. Good programmers are lazy, bad ones are sloppy, and you're sloppy.

    Actually, the fact that you seem to think that worker threads require a huge time commitment to work properly (hint: they don't, threading and thread syncronisation have been around since Framework 1.0, they were easy to use then and they're even easier now) should have been the red flag. Do it once, do it right, for fuck's sake.

    As for SQL Server Setup, every time I have to use it I'm impressed by how much it sucks. Sometimes I wonder if it's maintained by someone at MS who hates the Framework and does the minimum amount of effort to get the thing working (mostly).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @The_Assimilator said:

    Thanks for letting us all know that you're a shit programmer who would rather write bad code and hide problems in that code with exception handling, as opposed to actually writing the code correctly in the first place. Good programmers are lazy, bad ones are sloppy, and you're sloppy.

    Actually, the fact that you seem to think that worker threads require a huge time commitment to work properly (hint: they don't, threading and thread syncronisation have been around since Framework 1.0, they were easy to use then and they're even easier now) should have been the red flag. Do it once, do it right, for fuck's sake.

    This thing gets called all over the f'n place. Seriously. Close to 3500 calls into the "show the progress bar window" method. That's at least 3500 instances where there's major computation in the main thread that would need to be moved to a worker thread. If the problem can happen in one place, it can happen in all of them. Yes, it was a bad design and shit implementation - neither of which I was involved with. Fixing it is on the board for the next major version - fixing it across the board for a top-priority "FIX IT AND PUSH IT NOW! PRODUCTION IS HALTED! (because the only machine that does it is specially equipped and the only machine capable of doing certain tasks)" bug raised at 5:30PM would be both idiotic and ill-advised - not to mention being a huge undertaking in programmer-hours and a huge QA risk.

     

    But you're right. It would have been at most a few minutes of work to move computation for the one crashy call to a background thread - but the problem would just inevitably recur completely randomly at some other call point in the future. Probably during the login process, and probably on every system instead of just one. And probably at 2:00AM when I'm on call. Doing it "right" is not always the best stopgap fix.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Well, in that case the solution is for the window to post a notification of some kind when it's up and running and ready to receive messages; whether that's a lock file or a database record or a named mutex depends on your need, and then you modify the "show the progress bar window" method to look for your sentinel.



  • Yes, mutexes will probably resolve it most elegantly.

    Anytime you choose to call Sleep, with some random amount of time, to wait for something else to complete, then you're probably doing it wrong and you're making sloppy code.



  • Control.IsHandleCreated is the property you are looking for...

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.ishandlecreated.aspx



  • @toodle said:

    "Because of a failure in communicating with Windows, this program cannot continue.

    Please call the helpdesk at 1-800-BAD-CODE and inform them that error 9334-242 has occurred. They will assist in remediation of the error."

    [1800] This is 1-800-Bad-Code, how may I help you today?

    [luser] I've got a problem with my windows thingy and it says I have to call you?

    [1800] What is the problem?

    [luser] My windows thingy says that this program cannot continue.

    [1800] Which program is that?

    [luser] This one!

    [1800] I'm sorry sir-or-madam, but I can't see your screen and if you can't tell us what has broken then we can't fix it.

    [luser] Yes! It's broken.

    ..........

    I prefer the first error message.  It's more helpful for getting the support call started even if it's ultimately less helpful.

     



  • That message is [unfortunately]  common if the target OS is not one that is supported for the SqlServer installation at the base level. Given that the bits are "baked into the image" at the time of a product release, there is always the potential for it not working perfectly under these conditions (i.e. the OS is at a version that did not exist when the product was created).

     If you are seeing this error message, and the OS is one of the ones listed as supported for that version of SQLServer, please drop me a note:  david.corbin@dynconcepts.com

     (And, yes, I am well aware of the ramifications of posting my e-mail in clear on the WTF...but hey, WTF - it only takes about 10 seconds to google and get it....)



  • No idea if the OS is meant to be supported or not. It was Windows XP SP3, which I think is out of support now. However, that message doesn't occur all the time. 

    It basically goes like this: Run setup, get that error (which terminates the installer). Run it again, works fine. 

    Maybe it was some kind of race condition. Ie, if a certain part of code managed to run before another part which depended on the previous part. 

    Still a WTF, regardless. 



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    I can't help you with the error, but I'm always constantly amazed at how awful SQL Server's installer is on every level.

    FTFY



  • @ASheridan said:

    FTFY

    No.



  •  @blakeyrat said:


    @ASheridan said:

     @blakeyrat said:

    I can't help you with the error, but I'm always constantly amazed at how awful SQL Server's installer is on every level.

    Did Not FTFY

     

    No.

    FTFY



  • I've encountered similar errors before when installing from an MSDN ISO (either burned to disk or mounted). Apparently Microsoft creates the images so shittily that the only way to actually install from them is to extract the entire fucking image onto a local disc and install from there. And even then it's a crapshoot.



  • Seen an additional WTF today from another colleague trying to install SQL Server Express. After downloading the 380MB monstrosity, he installed it including the "tools". However, after the full install no items were highlighted in the start menu, so he assumed the tools were not installed. So he downloaded the 180MB SQL Server Studio "Basic". Upon running it just launched the exact same installer as the 380MB beast. No prompts like "This product is installed already" or anything like that, just "Installing setup support files", "Checking rules", and then the standard SQL server setup page. Confused, as he didn't want the server but the studio (and not finding anything about the studio within the menu), he searched for another download, but didn't find anything. 

    Later on, he found out that the studio was actually installed, but not highlighted, so he couldn't see it in the forest of other applications. 

    Running it just confused him more. The package could see the server running on his PC (showing up as normal under "Database engines"), but couldn't connect to it.  Rebooting didn't help, but adding "\SQLEXPRESS" to the end of the server name worked. 

    He then gave me about 15 minutes about how its so much easier and cheaper it is to just use MySQL on a Linux box. I excused myself saying I had an early lunch appointment.



  • @Mole said:

    He then gave me about 15 minutes about how its so much easier and cheaper it is to just use MySQL on a Linux box. I excused myself saying I had an early lunch appointment.

    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of the Start menu.



  • @Mole said:

    He then gave me about 15 minutes about how its so much easier and cheaper it is to just use MySQL on a Linux box. I excused myself saying I had an early lunch appointment.
    Ha, yeah, that's the ticket...  Change your data provider AND platform to use a buggy piece of shit (MySql, not Linux) because perhaps the installer may be better...  Because everybody knows how many hours a day a developer spends installing a database engine. While he's at it, maybe he can tell you how many banks, financial trading companies and just about anywhere where data is worth more than his personal "Top 10 Resteraunts" blog uses MySql...

    Also, the Sql Server installer is the absolute worst pile of shit I have ever had the misfortune of using, but SQL Server itself is awsome, IMO.

    Side note: I think all this confusion about the installer is mostly born from the fact that people fuck with the installer just enough to get it installed once locally, then forget about how they did it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of the Start menu.

    I've never seen a package manager do this, but then, you would know whether whatever you tried to install was actually installed.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of the Start menu.

    I've never seen a package manager do this, but then, you would know whether whatever you tried to install was actually installed.

    I think you might have missed the joke I was going for there.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of the Start menu.

    I've never seen a package manager do this, but then, you would know whether whatever you tried to install was actually installed.

    I think you might have missed the joke I was going for there.

    No, I don't think so.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of the Start menu.

    I've never seen a package manager do this, but then, you would know whether whatever you tried to install was actually installed.

    I think you might have missed the joke I was going for there.

    No, I don't think so.

    Oh.



  • @Mole said:

    Running it just confused him more. The package could see the server running on his PC (showing up as normal under "Database engines"), but couldn't connect to it.  Rebooting didn't help, but adding "\SQLEXPRESS" to the end of the server name worked. 

    He then gave me about 15 minutes about how its so much easier and cheaper it is to just use MySQL on a Linux box. I excused myself saying I had an early lunch appointment.

    So in MySql you can connect to a database instance without giving the correct name? It's magic



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    Also, the Sql Server installer is the absolute worst pile of shit I have ever had the misfortune of using, but SQL Server itself is awsome, IMO.

    The SQL Server installer has a habit of asking a lot of questions that a casual user would have a hard time answering, but I've never had the installer go horribly wrong on me and I've installed SQL Server at least five hundred times over the past fifteen years.  During my time as a trainer, I watched hundreds of students install SQL Server and I never saw one of their installs go wrong either.  I do think the 2008 installer is worse than previous versions.



  • @bjolling said:

    @Mole said:

    Running it just confused him more. The package could see the server running on his PC (showing up as normal under "Database engines"), but couldn't connect to it.  Rebooting didn't help, but adding "\SQLEXPRESS" to the end of the server name worked. 

    He then gave me about 15 minutes about how its so much easier and cheaper it is to just use MySQL on a Linux box. I excused myself saying I had an early lunch appointment.

    So in MySql you can connect to a database instance without giving the correct name? It's magic

    MySQL doesn't have the concept of an instance name. SQL Server's instance name is a level between host name and database name:

    [hostname]\[instancename].[databasename].[schemaname].[tablename]

    MySQL goes from hostname to databasename, and also doesn't have the schema level:

    hostname.databasename.tablename

    In addition, most of the tools and language APIs for MySQL don't have the concept of a fully qualified table name that includes hostname (AFAIK).



  • @Jaime said:

    but I've never had the installer go horribly wrong on me and I've installed SQL Server at least five hundred times over the past fifteen years

    Really? Because I got this little gem just today:

    @SQL Server's Shitty Installer said:

    ---------------------------

    SQL Server Setup

    ---------------------------

    The loading and initialization of 'setup.rll' failed with error code: 0x80070003



    SQL Server Setup will now exit.

    ---------------------------

    OK

    ---------------------------

    That was before I even got the chance to get confused by the unnecessarily arcane UI.

    Edit: and of course the "fix" described in the forum I found doesn't work... so any ideas on that?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That was before I even got the chance to get confused by the unnecessarily arcane UI.
    I won't argue with this.  95% of users used to click "Next" all the way through the install process in SQL 2000 and earlier.  Now, there are several places where you really have to read and think in order to not screw yourself.



  • @Jaime said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    That was before I even got the chance to get confused by the unnecessarily arcane UI.
    I won't argue with this.  95% of users used to click "Next" all the way through the install process in SQL 2000 and earlier.  Now, there are several places where you really have to read and think in order to not screw yourself.

    Even if you read carefully, you can't make heads or tails of the thing. Hang on, lemme find an example...

    Ok, let's say you want to install SQL Server Management Studio, and *only* SQL Server Management Studio. You're sitting at the "Feature Selection" screen in SQL Server's installer... oh, and BTW, despite the fact you're installing a client-only program, you still have to select a SQL instance to install it "into" if one is running, which makes no sense. So to install SSMS, what do I check?

    Well, the most obvious choice might be "Client Tools Connectivity". Let's click the name to get a more detailed description... "Includes components for communication between clients and services." Well, ok, that describes SSMS, right? Of course it describes almost fucking any fucking software fucking ever! Whoever wrote that "description" needs to be shot, in the groin. Although it is better than half the descriptions in the installer, which are just the name of the feature over again... at least someone bothered to type text in that one, even if it's fucking useless text.

    So what is Client Tools Connectivity? Fuck if I know!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     @blakeyrat said:

    Ok, let's say you want to install SQL Server Management Studio, and only SQL Server Management Studio. You're sitting at the "Feature Selection" screen in SQL Server's installer... oh, and BTW, despite the fact you're installing a client-only program, you still have to select a SQL instance to install it "into" if one is running, which makes no sense. So to install SSMS, what do I check?
    My general impression is "you don't". You go get the SSMS standalone installer... Which looks exactly like the SQL Server installer and even asks questions as if it's going to actually install SQL Server, but only gives you the management studio.



  • @Weng said:

    You go get the SSMS standalone installer...

    See, I didn't even know that even existed...

    @Weng said:

    Which looks exactly like the SQL Server installer and even asks questions as if it's going to actually install SQL Server, but only gives you the management studio.

    Ah, well, good to know it's still WTF-y.



  • People pay for that garbage? Sucks.

    That said, I'm 3/3 installing SQL Server 2008 RC2, although all three times have been in virtual machines since I'm running linux :smug:



  • @Power Troll said:

    People pay for that garbage? Sucks.

    That said, I'm 3/3 installing SQL Server 2008 RC2, although all three times have been in virtual machines since I'm running linux :smug:


    I've got some bad news for you; if you're running SQL Server in a VM, then you're running Windows. We have 50 SQL Servers on a three-node VMware cluster. By your logic, we've ditched Windows.



  • @Jaime said:

    @Power Troll said:
    People pay for that garbage? Sucks.

    That said, I'm 3/3 installing SQL Server 2008 RC2, although all three times have been in virtual machines since I'm running linux :smug:


    I've got some bad news for you; if you're running SQL Server in a VM, then you're running Windows. We have 50 SQL Servers on a three-node VMware cluster. By your logic, we've ditched Windows.

    I think he was saying he doesn't pay because he's running some ancient RC version instead of the shipping, patched, supported version legitimate software developers use. Presumably he's also using either a pirated, or RC version of Windows to run it on as well. But I admit I'm confused a bit also.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Power Troll said:

    People pay for that garbage? Sucks.

    That said, I'm 3/3 installing SQL Server 2008 RC2, although all three times have been in virtual machines since I'm running linux :smug:

    Lets not make me bitch about the Debian installer - that's for your entire stupid-assed operating system, not just a huge, highly-configurable piece of enterprise software.



  •  Or perhaps its just a typo and he means R2, rather than RC2...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    So what is Client Tools Connectivity? Fuck if I know!
    It installs the components necessary for a client machine to connect to the server.  Usually, the software that will be accessing the database will install those components as part of its installation process, but not always.  From experience, we had to use that option when installing the GoldMine Sales and Marketing client on our machines because we were using SQL Server 2000 and the client installer installed the SQL Server 7.0 libraries.



  • @smbarbour said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    rhetorical question
    literal answer

     

    Welp.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @smbarbour said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    rhetorical question
    literal answer

     

    Welp.

     

    If I got a nickel for every reply on this forum that totally missed the point, I'd be able to buy a car with it. Actually no, I'd have to roll them and take them to the bank first, because it's not like I can just drive to a dealership with a van full of nickels and dump it out or something. But... point is, it doesn't surprise me anymore.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If I got a nickel for every reply on this forum that totally missed the point, I'd be able to buy a car with it. Actually no, I'd have to roll them and take them to the bank first, because it's not like I can just drive to a dealership with a van full of nickels and dump it out or something. But... point is, it doesn't surprise me anymore.
     

    A new or used car?



  • @RTapeLoadingError said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    If I got a nickel for every reply on this forum that totally missed the point, I'd be able to buy a car with it. Actually no, I'd have to roll them and take them to the bank first, because it's not like I can just drive to a dealership with a van full of nickels and dump it out or something. But... point is, it doesn't surprise me anymore.
     

    A new or used car?

    Matchbox.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted
    the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of
    the Start menu.

    Is that really important? Generally Linux users tend not to be complete retards that need to be reminded about the software they just installed 5 minutes ago. Typically as well, Linux software suffers less from the "lets see how much crap we can shove onto your computer without you realising with our installer" that Windows can suffer from. If I want to install a single app I just run a command like "yum install appname" and it installs what I asked for. I just recently had to install Adobe Flash and Photoshop onto my work machine, and it left 13 bloody entries for largely useless softwarein my programs list. Sure it's easy enough to sort them out and remove the unwanted entries, but why should I have to? Running off on a tangent here, but you did bring up the point about the Start menu in Windows, and you can't mention that without also mentioning what a huge WTF it is at times in itself and the behaviour of software writers that like to cram it full of crap



  • @ASheridan said:

     @blakeyrat said:

    You should have asked him if the MySQL installer correctly highlighted
    the application name in the... whatever distro he's using's version of
    the Start menu.

    Is that really important? Generally Linux users tend not to be complete retards that need to be reminded about the software they just installed 5 minutes ago. Typically as well, Linux software suffers less from the "lets see how much crap we can shove onto your computer without you realising with our installer" that Windows can suffer from. If I want to install a single app I just run a command like "yum install appname" and it installs what I asked for. I just recently had to install Adobe Flash and Photoshop onto my work machine, and it left 13 bloody entries for largely useless softwarein my programs list. Sure it's easy enough to sort them out and remove the unwanted entries, but why should I have to? Running off on a tangent here, but you did bring up the point about the Start menu in Windows, and you can't mention that without also mentioning what a huge WTF it is at times in itself and the behaviour of software writers that like to cram it full of crap

    Seriously?

    Hey Linux users, guys like ASheridan here? This is why you look bad.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Linux users, guys like ASheridan here? This is why you look bad.

    That's actually a relief. I thought it was the extra 70 pounds.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    Seriously?

    Hey Linux users, guys like ASheridan here? This is why you look bad.

    If you'd care to explain, I'd be most appreciative. In-fact, I think I've been far more fair on the situation than your usual "bash open source" stance you usually have. So, if you've got a point to make, make it, don't skirt around the issue. If you don't have a point and merely enjoy seeing your user handle on a forum, then just sit down and stfu. kthx.



  • @ASheridan said:

     @blakeyrat said:

    Seriously?

    Hey Linux users, guys like ASheridan here? This is why you look bad.

    If you'd care to explain, I'd be most appreciative. In-fact, I think I've been far more fair on the situation than your usual "bash open source" stance you usually have. So, if you've got a point to make, make it, don't skirt around the issue. If you don't have a point and merely enjoy seeing your user handle on a forum, then just sit down and stfu. kthx.

    Are you trolling? You don't see that your comment basically says, "I'm super smart and everybody that doesn't use Linux is a moron" and that saying it makes you a dick?

    Yes, blakeyrat is not perfect but your goal should be to be a better human and not to say "If he is kind of a dick, then I can be a dick as well"



  • @ASheridan said:

    So, if you've got a point to make, make it, don't skirt around the issue. If you don't have a point and merely enjoy seeing your user handle on a forum, then just sit down and stfu.

    Those two things aren't mutually-exclusive, you know.

    @ASheridan said:

    If you'd care to explain, I'd be most appreciative. In-fact, I think I've been far more fair on the situation than your usual "bash open source" stance you usually have.

    When I bash open source, I usually:

    1) Have a good reason for it (for example, it's always buggy shit doesn't fucking work, ever)

    2) Don't insult people who decide to continue using open source for their own reasons

    3) Aren't writing seriously-minded replies to what is obviously a goofy joke (and before you argue "it didn't look like a joke", I already posted once in this thread stating that it was, in fact, a joke)

    4) Remain somewhat coherent, depending on how much beer I've had

    @ASheridan said:

    Is that really important? Generally Linux users tend not to be complete retards that need to be reminded about the software they just installed 5 minutes ago. Typically as well, Linux software suffers less from the "lets see how much crap we can shove onto your computer without you realising with our installer" that Windows can suffer from. If I want to install a single app I just run a command like "yum install appname" and it installs what I asked for. I just recently had to install Adobe Flash and Photoshop onto my work machine, and it left 13 bloody entries for largely useless softwarein my programs list. Sure it's easy enough to sort them out and remove the unwanted entries, but why should I have to? Running off on a tangent here, but you did bring up the point about the Start menu in Windows, and you can't mention that without also mentioning what a huge WTF it is at times in itself and the behaviour of software writers that like to cram it full of crap

    But since you asked, and are obviously an aspie who needs some form of support to understand human emotions, I'll give you a hint:

    You called everybody who doesn't use Linux "complete retards"

    The most important point here is that calling people "retards" generally does not endear them towards you. I prescribe a heavy dose of "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" which I hear can help aspies understand emotions, or at least I read an article about that somewhere once.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @ASheridan said:

    Are you trolling? You don't see that your comment basically says, "I'm super smart and everybody that doesn't use Linux is a moron" and that saying it makes you a dick?

    Yes, blakeyrat is not perfect but your goal should be to be a better human and not to say "If he is kind of a dick, then I can be a dick as well"

    I didn't get that from his comment at all, although it's fun to get in a pedantic dickweedery match with blakey. In fact, I took it as him getting trolled by blakey, who for some reason, seemed to be offended that someone actually bit! Does that mean that blakey successfully trolled himself?



  •  Not really, I was pointing out the problem with software developers with regards to the Windows Start menu. Do you write software that fills the menu with unrelated crap that nobody needs? If you answered yes to that, then you are a moron. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't use Linux is a moron though. Hell, if Windows didn't exist than we'd have exactly the same problems with Linux as we have with Windows now (I'm basing this on the assumption that IBM would likely have gone with some sort of Unix derivative that wasn't made by Apple if DOS didn't exist) Having the choice of serveral operating systems is actually a good thing.

    That doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to point out the obvious flaws with any particular OS, even if they're only flaws as I see them. I explained (quite clearly, I thought) the problem as I saw it, and gave a specific example. I used Blakeyrat's post as an example to point out the issue I had rather than leave it as some sort of unrelated fragment of content in an otherwise meandering discussion.

     I think part of your problem is that you take on the viewpoint that anyone who effectively "badmouths" some feature or aspect of Windows is essentially a Linux (or Mac) fanboy. I certainly have a preference for my OS of choice because I think it does the things I need it to better. Sure, it's not perfect, but is any OS? I think maybe you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're not really a Windows fanboy?



  •  I didn't call everyone not using Linux a complete retard, I actually said

    @ASheridan said:

    Generally Linux users tend not to be complete retards

    Which is not saying that all non-Linux users are retards. If you can't figure it out...


Log in to reply
 

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