🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 21, 2:43 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 6:13 pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>
> > Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> > Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
> > in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
> > such a POS.
>
> Linux is NOT "obviously better".  BOTH are POS!
> There are TWO problems: The problem with Windoze is Bill Gates.
> And the problem with Linux is programmers.
>
> > When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
> > update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
> > reason beame clear.  Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
> > accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
> > of which they were installed.
>
> Here is the understanding in a nutshell.
>
> 1. Bill Gates (the smartest man in the universe)

Ah, yes. The modern era Einstein has born.

> never even foresaw
> the internet,  Bill Gates thinks that HIS time is valuable, but YOURs
> is not. Bill Thinks that if you use his software he "owns" your
> machine.
>
> 2. Hence windoze is full of backdoors and other items which allows
> Bill and his minions to enter into your machine at will, stomp around
> in there, load software, run programs, examine your data, all without
> your permission. Google toolbar is simply a pimple on the ass of
> progress.  All actions take forever wasting your (but not Bill's)
> time. Ever ask yourself why in this day and age you should be waiting
> 15 minutes for a computer to "boot"?  Hell, paper tape never took that
> long! Why should it do that at all?  Why should you have to wait for
> ANY operation save the calculation of atomic bomb parameters?  Shit.
> That's a CRAY supercomputer sitting there on your damn desk!  The
> genius is that they managed to slow it down as much as they have!
>
> 3. Programmers are almost without exception lazy morons. They are so
> caught up in details that they don't have time to ask "how would a
> user interact with this program?"  Nope. They grab a language, use all
> the features built into that language as is with no regard to if they
> suck or not. The "true test" in their view is not is this convenient
> and easy for the user, but rather is there SOME way to do this
> operation? Even if you have to push on walls to find guns and food, if
> it does the job, it stays that way.
>
> 4. Programmers are so imbued with the worship of details they never
> see the big picture. Hence, every job is done backwards from details
> outward. And therefore when added to lazy, you end up with new
> software being created by patching old software. This inspite of the
> well-known rule that says that it always takes less time to write a
> whole new program (and do it right) than to patch and modify an old
> POS. Now you know what "built on NT 'technology'" means. It means our
> heads are still up our lazy butts!
>
> 5. Commercial pressures add a final disaster to the mix encouraging
> patching of old crap and releasing things before they are finished as
> well as an emphasis on hype rather than functionality.
>
> 6. So is Vista the saviour of the world?  All the sales people at my
> micro-store told me they are "really excited" about Vista.  Truth?  Go
> look at all the articles in the gaming mags telling how to strip Vista
> off your machine and put XP back on. Feh.
>
> 7. OK, so is Linux the saviour of the world? Hardly. That OS is SO old
> it has a beard. It's FAR too complex because it came from another era
> of timeshare and terminals.  Basically it's a monument to "patch
> rather than write" rule. Typical Linux flake: First tells you you
> don't have a certain kind of drive when booting up, but then waits 5
> minutes looking for them (I presume just in case you installed one in
> the last few seconds).  Quote the Red Hat factory rep: "Yeah it's a
> real bug but we're not going to fix it..."   In other words we got
> your money so bite me!  Red Hat is dead so bite ME!
>
> 8. People, however ARE aware of these problems.  A "save game" program
> to restore you OS is an excellent investment.  Too bad they seem to be
> harder and harder to find and work less and less well.  So what
> happens when you go to the Logitech mouse site to add "full features"
> to your cool wireless mouse and their "features" crash and lock the
> whole OS? Obviously a "save game" is the answer. But that does NOT
> answer why the morons who put together the OS known as Windoze were
> allowed to sell that POS as if it were a real OS.  It's not. though in
> many ways it's somewhat better than some others out there (Linux).
>
> 9. So now that you understand the problem, just one question remains:
> Is there at least ONE programmer out there with the ability at the
> level to write a decent OS, with the time and motivation to start from
> scratch, considering the way the USER interacts with it foremost, who
> will respect the user's privacy and sovereignty over his own machine,
> and who is willing to do all this without trying to kluge something
> together from some shit that other high school students wrote in their
> basement?
>
> Well, IS THERE?

Ask Jeff.