Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:46 UTC
Linux "For years now, Linux has been a black sheep standing in the shadow of Apple and Microsoft. Despite having a fervent and enthusiastic following, the operating system hasn't been able to grab a sizable share of the computing market and has instead been content to subsist on the customers that come away dissatisfied with the mainstream competition. But that may be about to change. With the release of Microsoft Windows 8 on the horizon, some are saying Linux may have a great opportunity to steal a significant share of the market away from Microsoft, allowing it to finally take the helm as a major operating system service provider." This has to stop, and the only reason I'm linking to this nonsense is to make this very clear: Linux will not magically conquer the desktop or even make any significant gains because of Windows 8. People who don't like Windows 8 (Vista) will continue to use Windows 7 (Windows XP). This is getting so tiring. And does it even matter? Linux is winning big time in the mobile space, server space, and countless other spaces. The desktop is and always has been irrelevant to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 532944
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Yeah...
by ze_jerkface on Wed 29th Aug 2012 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yeah..."
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

I am saying that Windows' security just sucks compared to pretty much everything else out there.

Says the guy who would thinks UAC is worthless. What exactly sucks compared to everything else? Be specific. I work with both Linux and Windows so please enlighten me.

Windows makes it disturbingly easy to get screwed--and the patches Microsoft is putting out just don't help.


WTF are you talking about? So it would make no difference if people turned off updates? That is actually one of the biggest problems.


I would argue that switching everyone to Linux would be a bad idea anyway (didn't I already say that in this topic?). A mono culture is never a good thing.


But wouldn't 100k randomly generated binary incompatible versions of Windows have a better result? So again Windows itself isn't the problem. That's like saying Windows has security problems that can be improved by shutting off the internet twice a week. It's not a systemic problem, reduced exploits through binary incompatibility is a security strategy that is separate from Windows.

People who run Windows 98 today don't have to deal with malware.
Android has far more malware than Windows 98. Conclusion: Windows 98 has superior security. We should switch all smartphones to Windows 98 to solve the Android malware problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Yeah...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 10:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Yeah..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Windows makes it disturbingly easy to get screwed--and the patches Microsoft is putting out just don't help.

"WTF are you talking about? So it would make no difference if people turned off updates? That is actually one of the biggest problems."


Bleh. I give up arguing with you, this is the same kind of nonsense counter-argument I was expecting from you. I point out that Microsoft comes up with cheap little band-aids as "features" to "patch" a problem (and poorly at that), and you try to spin it around to make it seem that I am talking about all security updates (or even security updates at all). Hint: I was NOT talking about Windows Update or security updates/patches in general. I was talking about the many worthless kludges that Microsoft keeps tacking on with little to no benefit and passing them off as breathtaking security "features." You know... *that* kind of patch. I thought for sure I made that clear with my wording, but really, I'm getting the idea that you're just trying to twist what I say around just for an argument, and I've argued my point more than enough.

If this was some god damn security update I was talking about, I would also be complaining about one of the more recent Windows XP service packs. But I'm not talking about security updates--I am talking about a questionable "security feature" that made its way into Vista. Get it? If so, good. If not, someone else can waste their time--I'm done.

Nice cheap shot with the Win98 comparison. How that's relevant to modern operating systems, I don't know--although I get your point, but don't agree with your conclusion. It really sounds like you're trying everything you can to defend your beloved Windows and slam Android. What did Android ever do to you, steal your Windows Phone? Kill Steve Jobs? Rape your dog?

Edited 2012-08-29 10:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Yeah...
by ze_jerkface on Wed 29th Aug 2012 16:50 in reply to "RE[8]: Yeah..."
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Nice cheap shot with the Win98 comparison. How that's relevant to modern operating systems, I don't know--although I get your point, but don't agree with your conclusion.


It's a joke and shows the faulty logic in measuring an operating system's security by its malware rate. I don't actually want to move Android users to Windows 98. Oh and I own an Android tablet.

Reply Parent Score: 1