A few weeks ago, Torvalds called Leopard 'utter crap' and bashed the proprietary OS makers for being greedy, according to Australian reporter Nick Miller in the The Age. "I don't think they're equally flawed - I think Leopard is a much better system," Torvalds said. "(But) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."
Too bad Gnome and KDE suck. Linux on the desktop will never happpen penguin fucker.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 14:51
I often wonder when and why the delusion came up that linux should be used on the desktop. It's not a desktop operating system and it's certainly not a system an average fool should use. Ubuntufags are the best example for this. Luckily most of them get frustrated pretty quickly and leave.
Other than that, who the fuck actually uses Gnome or KDE? Shit is fucking annoying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 15:11
I often wonder when and why the delusion came up that linux should be used on the desktop.
You might want to ask Torvalds about that, since he specifically wrote it to be a desktop OS.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 15:50
Well if that's the case, he failed miserably.
But still, he started an excellent server OS.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 16:40
>>4
Not really, RMS started the UNIX clone GNU. Linus just came along with his kernel and slapped it in place. Hence GNU/Linux
>>2
>I often wonder when and why the delusion came up that linux should be used on the desktop.
When everyone realised what a terrible server it makes compared to real Unix.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 17:19
>>5
Yeah, because there are so many alternative kernels. Is Hurd ready yet, lol?
>terrible server
What exactly makes it horrible? The stability is mostly very good, performance is acceptable and you have a broader range of choice as far as hardware and software is concerned than probably any other contemporary OS. Sure, there are OS that perform better but those are much more niche. For some people that cannot afford extremely expensive stuff like Sun or IBM, linux is more than enough.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 17:26
>>6 What exactly makes it horrible?
The fact that >>5 is a BSD faggot and butthurt over the fact Linux did what BSD has failed to do for so long.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 18:10
>>7
>Butthurt over the fact Linux did what BSD has failed to do for so long.
BSD is a great server platform. BSD is not that good on the desktop but this doesn't bother me.
GNU/Linux however fails horribly as a server and their pushed agenda of "Linux on the desktop" to try and counter this is a miserable failure also.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 18:52
>>8 GNU/Linux however fails horribly as a server
Just repeating bullshit does not constitute an argument.
>>10
This is because BSDfags don't know how to upgrade their kernels or find the off button, or the electrical cord.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 8:38
Real experts ITT. Make sure to use 100% unsubstantiated claims to improve your experticity.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 9:13
That's especially hilarious, given that there's at least three different filesystems that OS X can use natively. ext2 hasn't exactly gotten awards for being not a pile of crap, either.
"Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."
^ Anyone who isn't 100% convinced and swayed by this bulletproog argument is a moron. Fact.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 9:53
GNU/Linux is a good Desktop OS. It only fails in teh gaming department. Otherwise it is pretty good.
And explain why it sucks for desktops.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 10:00
Waiting an hour for your box to boot up because fsck.ext3 has decided it's been too long since it annoyed you (i.e. 30 days) or you've mounted the file system too many times.
Priceless.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 10:37
>>13
So the fact that OSX can mount three whole filesystems excuses the fact that HFS+ (which is the only filesystem 99% of the users will ever use) is a piece of shit, while the fact that ext2, which has been deprecated for nearly a decade and isn't used by anyone anymore, sucks means Linux sucks, even though the Linux kernel can handle dozens of different filesystems out of the box?
Is Pro on the outside but dumb as shit inside.
check=none / nocheck
GTFO, SCRUB!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 11:00
>>19
You'll still be [waiting to use your machine to boot after an unexpected power outage; meanwhile my background fsck_ufs process is running and I'm already logged in checking emails and doing real work.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 11:06
>check=none / nocheck
Have you even read the tune2fs manpage? Probably not, since Pro's like you don't need documentation.
has decided it's been too long since it annoyed you (i.e. 30 days) or you've mounted the file system too many times.
==>
check=none / nocheck
==>
A filesystem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss at that point.
Reading comprehension is a skill which you can learn.
FailCream complained about routine checks; not Kernel forced checks.
>>18
Which doesn't change the point that OSX users are stuck with their shitty excuse for a filesystem, while Linux users can use whatever filesystem they like. There are very few distros that will even try to force a default on you.