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 532953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Yeah...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Yeah..."
Member since:

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:

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

RE[10]: Yeah...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 21:51 in reply to "RE[9]: Yeah..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Except, I am more concerned about Windows' weak DESIGN in general, and I thought I made that clear by now. And yes, I have mentioned in my other posts about how it would actually be *bad* for Linux if just one distribution owned 98% of the OS space. So I obviously know this. Your joke still came off as a cheap shot though. Obviously no one gives a damn about Windows 98--it's old, it's outdated, and it sucks. Not even malicious people care, because there's no money to be made out of an OS that no one uses any more.

Still, the Windows of today of a rough (key word there) evolution of the Windows of over a decade ago--just with a different kernel, the complete removal of MS-DOS, and the complete removal of other antiquated technology as well as many major upgrades to main functionality. Everything's basically been rewritten, and what hasn't been yet probably will be eventually. It still has Win32, which is what most of this shit is written for anyway. It still tries to fully obey Win32 to allow full backwards compatibility at the expense of security, which means that even though the kernel may have security features light-years ahead of Win9x and more comparable to UNIX (superior even in some cases), the OS as a whole is still subject to the same questionable security practices that Windows was always bitten in the ass by.

And this is the point I am getting at: despite all the dumb little patches that just poorly hide the booboos of the past and even the much more modern and secure core/foundation (kernel), they still exist and that's pretty much why Windows is still owned in the same ways it always has been in the past. It's just a massive improvement to basically the same old Windows, with the underlying OS having undergone a complete overhaul long ago and with every new release more systems are being completely redone. But it's still running a rickety, poorly-secured layer.

And I don't see Metro fixing that... especially for desktop users, and Secure Boot/Trusted Computing is causing more harm than anything for users of any operating system besides Microsoft's.

Bleh... why am I still going on?

Edited 2012-08-29 21:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2