Coffeehouse Thread

15 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Quite the Linux hate

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Wow, look at the comments of the Linux haters blog:

    http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-browser-needs-16-exabytes.html#disqus_thread

    Never before have I seen such open opposition to Linux and FOSS. Is there a new trend?

    Really funny... according to Slashdot posters from a decade ago, Bill G. should have been living by collecting welfare checks by now, the Microsoft campus should have been destroyed by disgruntled MS haters and Windows should have a market share of 0.5%.
     
    Looks like they got it wrong.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    Do they really hate Linux, or are they just railing against the more obnoxious elements that Linux has unfortunately attracted?

  • User profile image
    Bass

    I think it's a sign that Linux is getting more popular. People wouldn't spend too much effort on sites such as that if Linux wasn't worth attacking.

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    I don't see what 64-bit has to do with Linux.  I run 64-bit browsers on Windows (Firefox and IE).  There are a couple of times when I have to go back to 32-bit IE to get something to work (Flash is not the only offender here... another one, oddly enough, is the Sharepoint wiki editor) but I figure 32-bit's days are numbered.

  • User profile image
    wastingtime​withforums

    Bass said:
    I think it's a sign that Linux is getting more popular. People wouldn't spend too much effort on sites such as that if Linux wasn't worth attacking.
    "I think it's a sign that Linux is getting more popular. People wouldn't spend too much effort on sites such as that if Linux wasn't worth attacking."

    Have you read the comments? Most "haters" on that site are actualy people, who seem to have years of years of experience with Linux and the whole FOSS community. And got dissappointed.

    If it would be a popularity thing, then most haters should be new users with Linux problems.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*
    "I think it's a sign that Linux is getting more popular. People wouldn't spend too much effort on sites such as that if Linux wasn't worth attacking."

    Have you read the comments? Most "haters" on that site are actualy people, who seem to have years of years of experience with Linux and the whole FOSS community. And got dissappointed.

    If it would be a popularity thing, then most haters should be new users with Linux problems.
    There is a good article I've read about the site:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9370

    I don't really agree with your assessment anyway. I'm sure plenty of stupid people as well as smart people hate Linux and post there.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    I don't see what 64-bit has to do with Linux.  I run 64-bit browsers on Windows (Firefox and IE).  There are a couple of times when I have to go back to 32-bit IE to get something to work (Flash is not the only offender here... another one, oddly enough, is the Sharepoint wiki editor) but I figure 32-bit's days are numbered.
    I think what he's ranting about is the fact that a lot of 64 bit Linux distros do not have the option of using a 32 bit browser at all (at least not without a lot of hassle to get it installed and running).

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    Sven Groot said:
    Matthew van Eerde said:
    *snip*
    I think what he's ranting about is the fact that a lot of 64 bit Linux distros do not have the option of using a 32 bit browser at all (at least not without a lot of hassle to get it installed and running).
    *shrug*

    Well, processor emulation is hard.  Do any other OSes provide x86 emulation by default besides Windows?  (WinPEx64 doesn't.)

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    Sven Groot said:
    *snip*
    *shrug*

    Well, processor emulation is hard.  Do any other OSes provide x86 emulation by default besides Windows?  (WinPEx64 doesn't.)
    I don't think Windows does processor emulation, likely it just has both 32-bit and 64-bit copies of all the libraries on the system. The disadvantage of this is added bloat which wouldn't be needed if everything was 64-bit. In Linux I think most everything is 64-bit, except maybe Flash (because it's close source and Adobe has no 64-bit player). I am not so sure though, but that's what I hear.

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    Bass said:
    Matthew van Eerde said:
    *snip*
    I don't think Windows does processor emulation, likely it just has both 32-bit and 64-bit copies of all the libraries on the system. The disadvantage of this is added bloat which wouldn't be needed if everything was 64-bit. In Linux I think most everything is 64-bit, except maybe Flash (because it's close source and Adobe has no 64-bit player). I am not so sure though, but that's what I hear.
    Right, %windir%\syswow64 has the 32-bit .dll's and whatnot, but to actually run a 32-bit .exe there needs to be an emulation layer (WOW64).

    RPC calls across this emulation layer are sometimes quite a pain.

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*
    Right, %windir%\syswow64 has the 32-bit .dll's and whatnot, but to actually run a 32-bit .exe there needs to be an emulation layer (WOW64).

    RPC calls across this emulation layer are sometimes quite a pain.
    It seems I'm mostly wrong; x64 processors support 32-bit mode, and wow64.dll just switches the processor back and forth between 32-bit and 64-bit mode.

    The Itanium-64 version of WOW64 is an emulation layer, though (in Wow64win.dll)

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    wastingtimewithforums said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*
    "I think it's a sign that Linux is getting more popular. People wouldn't spend too much effort on sites such as that if Linux wasn't worth attacking."

    Have you read the comments? Most "haters" on that site are actualy people, who seem to have years of years of experience with Linux and the whole FOSS community. And got dissappointed.

    If it would be a popularity thing, then most haters should be new users with Linux problems.
    No. The reason people are attacking Linux is because they realise that there are more Linux users and potential Linux users who can read their writing.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    Rowan said:
    wastingtimewithforums said:
    *snip*
    No. The reason people are attacking Linux is because they realise that there are more Linux users and potential Linux users who can read their writing.
    That blog is for the natural equilibrium of Linux.

    One the one side you have all these advocates claiming that Linux is the new and only OS. Lord knows we get some of those in here spewing their gospel.

    This blog is exactly the opposite, so it balances out. Wich can only be a good thing.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Maddus Mattus said:
    Rowan said:
    *snip*
    That blog is for the natural equilibrium of Linux.

    One the one side you have all these advocates claiming that Linux is the new and only OS. Lord knows we get some of those in here spewing their gospel.

    This blog is exactly the opposite, so it balances out. Wich can only be a good thing.
    Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

    Just because there are some Linux idiots who think that Windows is a mixture of pure incompetence and pure evil and that Linux can do no wrong, doesn't mean that someone thinking the exact opposite is any less badly adjusted, or that society is any better for having them.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    Matthew van Eerde said:
    *snip*
    It seems I'm mostly wrong; x64 processors support 32-bit mode, and wow64.dll just switches the processor back and forth between 32-bit and 64-bit mode.

    The Itanium-64 version of WOW64 is an emulation layer, though (in Wow64win.dll)

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64
    More bafflingly x64 processors support 16bit mode, which they still have a dirty habit of using (in order to get to BIOS calls, such as changing the screen resolution in a system-independent way).

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.