December 25th, 2003
|05:00 am - EXTRA! EXTRA! WINDOWS MAKES USERS SMARTER THAN LINUX!!!|
So I was chuckling at Fizz today while she feebly attempted to play Uplink.
Not because she's an inferior Uplink player, but rather because her windows
box was almost completely unable to figure out exactly how this whole playing
a game thing was supposed to work.
Way slow (the music was choppy) and AIM occasionally broke into the middle of
things. It was an amusing situation after having spent the week in front of
Then she mentioned something about having a book by the computer. And then it
When windows crashes, people do other things that don't break (like, say, reading
books) which can be useful. Linux sucks you into a neverending addiction where
you're unable to get up from bed for just a second because you decide that there's
8 billion different ways that your computer should be cooler and you can accomplish
that with a few short command lines.
Damn you Linux! Now I know why I had way more spare time 7 years ago!
|Date:||December 30th, 2003 06:06 am (UTC)|| |
I totally disagree. Windows users don't read books, they resort to things that Windows can actually do without crashing (at least, sort of). Things like, you know, surfing the net and posting on cosplay forums using AOL, or making Sailor Moon fansites with their pirated copy of Dreamweaver. At least Linux users are instantly obligated to learn HTML. You gotta give it that.
Windows users are still forced to reboot occasionally. During those reboots, they need to entertain their feeble minds somehow...
I don't quite see the link between Linux and HTML.
|Date:||January 1st, 2004 03:39 am (UTC)|| |
Actually, I use Windows XP and I never have to reboot.
And when I do, it takes about 5 seconds. Literally. Of course, Linux is still better than Windows in an OS standpoint, because Microsoft still waters down their OS so that retards can't screw it up and bother them with support questions. But Windows -NEVER- crashes.
Ever. Believe it or not.
(Of course, mine probably never crashes because I actually know how to keep Windows from getting clogged up with all the retarded shit floating around out there. Needless to say, it's MUCH easier to keep Linux from getting bogged down by retarded programs/viruses/adware/generic shit. I'd use Linux myself on my Desktop, but it doesn't have -any- standard commercial graphics software going for it, which greatly saddens me.)
Figured out how to block those nasty 500/UDP IPsec packet streams, then? ;)
Windows does reboot fast, of course. A necessary evolution.
|Date:||March 13th, 2004 03:26 am (UTC)|| |
The only thing I know of that goes through port 500 is IKE, and I've no idea why that has anything to do with anything. Or why it would have anything to do with anything even if there was something reasonably suspect about the port. Or why you can't block the port altogether if you really wanted to; IPSec doesn't need IKE, it's just a convenience, though you might be damned to find an application that would agree.
Not that I really care much to know about the matters, or, again, why IP security protocols have anything to do with anything previously discussed. Which, need I remind you, was just me pointing out that, among all Window's faults, at least it's now pretty stable and reboots fast. But, of course, whenever you give Windows any kind of credit all the prosies in the woodwork have to stand up and say something about it, even if you don't like the stupid OS very much in the first place or if what they say has nothing to do with anything. It's especially annoying when it's brought up again after two and a half months; by said people; doing said things.
Point being, way to completely misread the two and a half month old post, prosy.
The kernel routines that process incoming IPsec packets are pathetic. An even stream of them, sent to a computer running 2K or XP will overload the CPU. Windows' IPsec filters refuse to block port 500. Back when 2000 first came out, people (mostly gamers, for some reason) used to play packet tag, sending them to each other and waiting for them to notice the stream and get really pissed-off at the resulting instability. It lost its novelty quickly, which is the same reason Linux is now hacked more often than Windows. Sorry, I assumed this was fairly common knowledge.
This has relevance because you were discussing stability in Windows. And I replied to the thread because I read through testing4l's lj and I thought the discussion was funny. I am reading this ten-week-old post because he only recently introduced himself to me. Perhaps I should have begun with an apology and disclaimer.
I don't think I misinterpreted you or what you said. I assumed my comments would be interpreted as they were intended; humorously, as I thought I indicated by that charming bit of net expression, the semicolon followed by a closing parenthesis. Again, perhaps a disclaimer is needed.
Even if you were a Windows zealot and proclaimed it loudly (which you didn't), I wouldn't have attacked your choice. I attack Microsoft in my journal and in my personal choice -- if someone else runs Windows or MacOS or CP/M, that's fine with me. If you think I sit around lecturing my girlfriend, my friends, my parents, and the rest of the world about open source, you're wrong.
Yeah, I use GNU/Linux. Yeah, Windows irritates me. Yeah, the post is ten weeks old. Yeah, this comment is prosy. I'm prosy. However, you missed the aim of my previous comment, blunt and colorless as it apparently was. Perhaps I should be even prosier.
I wouldn't say that I lecture, but I do make clear in no uncertain words the superiority of Linux to each of them.
It's why I just put Linux on the router and why I was able to more or less keep it running despite the fact that the hard drive died.
|Date:||March 14th, 2004 06:26 am (UTC)|| |
When I said stable, I meant with local process, you know; it doesn't kill itself. I wasn't at all talking about some kid on another computer trying to vent his issues as a teenager.
Either way, I thought that problem was a natural shortcoming of the IPSec architecture, and not specific to the Microsoft IPSec implementation. But it's not like you can bombard a non-Microsoft computer indirectly using various means, eh?
But most of all, it was the winky face that made your message prosy in the first place. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't had even responded if it wasn't there.
Yah, I knew what you were talking about. If it wasn't all that applicable, blame late nights and boredom.
Nawp, a problem with the kernel routines. But no kernel's perfect. No OS is really ready for the internet.
You and I have different interpretations of the word "prosy." I guess that's more interesting wordchoice than "fucktard," tho. All in all, a brief but entertaining little flame.
|Date:||March 14th, 2004 09:39 am (UTC)|| |
Well, to put it more accurately, there was a little wagon mixup between 'stability' and 'security', the later of which I know Windows can hardly be counted on. Sorry, though; I've been snappy lately for some reason, even to close friends. So I apologize.
By the way, I just meant prosy as 'dull and uninteresting'. Mostly, though, I just like to use insults that are hardly heard anymore, accuracy of word choice be damned.