Linux code is gloriously defect-free Same can't be said of its OS rivals...

Silicon.com ^ | Thu 20 February 2003 11:14AM GMT | Silicon.com

[bvw]

Boy you got that wrong.

[mpresley72]

>>MS does, except that they test their fixes versus the Linux crowd who simply publishes ad-hoc.>>

It's hard to know exactly what M$ does since they are secretive and so protective of the source code. There have been instances where a particular M$ "fix" creates additional problems. The Slammer fiasco even caught M$ off gaurd--evidently they don't even apply all their own patches timely.

I don't know what "simply ad-hoc" means to imply, but, when vunerabilities are found the community reacts pretty fast. For the individual Linux user most of this is moot since the crap that infects Outlook and IE don't mean much to us. I'm reminded of the following analogy I once read:

If you had some kind of sexually transmitted virus, and you woke up in the morning dripping pus, I would hope that you would understand that there was some kind of moral need for immediate action. Even if it was kind of inconvenient and humiliating and personally degrading. But if you're running Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express, it somehow seems kind of okay to spew Klez-H, Sircam, Klez-E, Magistr-B, Hydris-B, Magistr-A, BadTrans- B, Vavidad.E1, Yaha-A, and MyLife-J. (B.Sterling)

[B Knotts]

I hear ya...several previously die-hard Windows people have expressed similar sentiments to me regarding Microsoft's licensing policies. Even though most people know Windows, for many, it's just getting too expensive to continue down the road of paying more and more money to Microsoft just to "keep current."

So, the servers are getting converted first. The desktops will be next. It may take a few years, but I think it really is a matter of "when," not "if."

[B Knotts]

That was a rather...er...vivid illustration. :-P

[PatrioticAmerican]

"It's hard to know exactly what M$ does since they are secretive and so protective of the source code."

That kills any interest in your logic, as you are no doubt an open-source bigot. I have commercial products that I keep the source code secret to as well. So what?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Boy you got that wrong."

Do you work for Microsoft and can say different?

[BlazingArizona]

See, I just don't understand your statement. I've heard it many a time from people who use linux. But it makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I have never had Windows 2k, NT, 98, or ME crash on me in the last 5 years. Never.

I'm "trisexual", running Windows, SuSE Linux and Macintosh on the same network. My Windows machines don't crash either, since I go to the trouble of keeping them tuned up and trash-free. I have also seen Windows installations in the field that are, let us say, the trailer parks of the computer world.

[Publius6961]

I have never had Windows 2k, NT, 98, or ME crash on me in the last 5 years. Never.

What remarkable luck!
And the government is here to help you and I got this bridge I want to sell...

Yep, I believe everything I read.
No problem.

[bvw]

In other words, you just pulled that statement of fact out of your hat.

[mrb1960]

Boy, oh boy, oh boy! The never ending battle of truth vs fiction goes on.

I'm no expect in Linux, so I won't even comment on it. In regards to Microsoft, I've used every operating system since MS-DOS 2. MS-DOS 3.3+ was good, 4.01 completely sucked, 5.0 thru 6.24 were ok. As for Windows, I recommend to anyone I talk to, to get Windows 2000. It's by far the most stable of the pre-activitated OS's that Mr. Gates put out. Windows 95 & 98 would crash 4-5 times a day, 2000 crashes maybe every other month or so.

Bottom line, if you have a computer right now with Windows 95, 98, 98SE, NT or even XP, I always recommend doing the "format thingy" on the hard drive and installing Windows 2000.

[Publius6961]

I always recommend doing the "format thingy" on the hard drive and installing Windows 2000.

I agree totally.
But since MS is pushing XP like a Columbian drug lord, how does one go about finding a Win2K upgrade??

[bvw]

Oh -- just so's you know, the first time I used MS software was in the very early 80's -- the original Basic and a Pascal 8086 compiler they had -- one of the first customers of that product. I've also worked on a couple of distributed development products, not Linux, but I amd familiar with the process and also with Linux.

[mrb1960]

Ebay for one, and I do know personally of at least 2 repair shops in the area that sell 98SE, 2000 and XP. So you may be able to find it locally, assuming of course you don't find a Gates sympathizer.

[537 Votes]

So--- why are linux users so adamant that Windows crashes alot? I would really like to know.

Uh, because it does. Maybe you're the one person in America who has never seen the Blue Screen of Death, but there are enough of us others out there to warrant haiku being written about it.

I know why companies use Microsoft OS. Because it's legacy, because there's a multi-billion dollar marketing machine behind it, because they send Rover the Guardian after you if you stray from the Village.

I have no idea why companies use Linux -- except maybe that it works.

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

Hey, Publius.

I'm not exaggerating, and if you would have read the thread, there is a set of rational circumstances that explain my "good luck". (actually, responsible and moderate care in setup and maintenance)

Your accusation of lying is false, wrong, and foul.

Ad hominem attacks have no place here.

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

I believe that you hit it on the head. I always have very clean installs in my machine (see my testing hobby/job). I always keep them up to date, and I avoid extraneous "applications" that may interfer with my installs. (such as anything by McAfee or Norton - I use Kaspersky Pro - it has NEVER hung or blown a program on any of my machines.)

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

...and no, I haven't had Norton crash my machine - I know through the developers that Norton AV usually hits false positives on betas with bad ALT-TAB functionality. The worst thing I've ever (EVER) run into is a CTD - completely due to the build I'm testing - not because of the OS.

[brianl703]

Linux is just the kernel. All of those things that you get emails about needing to patch are not Linux. Redhat also likes to put a LOT of extra stuff in, hence more to patch.

[yevgenie]

You wrote:

Linux is just the kernel. All of those things that you get emails about needing to patch are not Linux. Redhat also likes to put a LOT of extra stuff in, hence more to patch.

By the same reasoning, explorer is the kernel. I find that most Windows bugs seem not to be in explorer.exe.

[Bush2000]

Linux is just the kernel. All of those things that you get emails about needing to patch are not Linux. Redhat also likes to put a LOT of extra stuff in, hence more to patch.

So, by your definition, you and your ilk will no longer lump IE and IIS bugs in with Windows ... since neither is part of the Windows kernel.