[SLUG] FW: :)

[Adams, Jamie]

My borther in law, being an avid windows user, sent me this today. How much
of it is true I dont know. I dont often surf around windows sites, but it is
interesting to see what the other camp is saying. I did not even know there
was a website called linuxsucks.com, im guessing it was setup in retaliation
to microsoftsucks.com. Funny none the less.

> ----------
> From: 	
> Sent: 	08 October 2002 16:29
> To: 	Adams, Jamie
> Subject: 	:)
> 
> Lets take a look at the most popular Linux applications on the server
> space:
> Samba, Apache, NFSD, innd, sendmail, in.named, ftpd and ssh.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Ok, let's go.
> 
> If you examine those applications you will notice that they barely "use"
> any
> of the Unix "components" to carry their tasks. If they use them is more of
> an inadvertent side effect.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Reaaallllyyy, I would have never guessed, since I'm a clueless
> Win2K user that posts to linuxsucks.com. I'm not professional, and I don't
> get "real work" done in 2000 and I can't program worth a lick. PS- If they
> use them is more...
> 
> Even worse than that is the fact that none of those applications share any
> code besides the UNIX libc. You would think that those daemons would share
> some code, for instance timeout handling, main loop integration, idle
> handlers, daemon-ification routines, configuration parsing routines,
> security libraries, anti-exploit avoiding routines.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Yes, you would think that, but this is the UNIX world, UNI
> meaning
> 1, meaning I'm #1 Programmer, this is #1 Program, this is #1 way to do it,
> and I'm going to show you all that I'm better!
> 
> But they do not. They share no code at all outside the most basic Unix
> services. None. Ninguno. Niente. Rien.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Duh. We at LinuxSucks.com have been professing this for several
> years.
> 
> Various people like to criticize Microsoft for producing "bloated and
> monolithic applications". Before we criticize Microsoft, lets take a look
> at
> the end user applications that we have on Unix outside of GNOME: Netscape,
> GhostView, XDVI, Acrobat, Mathematica, Maple, Purify, FrameMaker, Star
> Office.
> 
> Dr. Eval: We don't criticize them for that. We praise them for code reuse.
> Just see some of our editors' responses to user posts.
> 
> The only common denominator on those applications is libc and Xlib. Some
> share Motif, but that is about the extent that these applications are
> sharing any code. And of course, the Unix "components" play no role in the
> equation: they are basically never used (I can only think of the printer
> spooler daemon being used, and even in this case: it is not even
> compatible
> across operating systems).
> 
> Dr. Eval: Right, but now you have people implementing the same things
> using
> KDE systems and GNOME systems. C++ rulez C. NO, C rules C++!
> 
> Now, lets look at Microsoft "bloated and monolithic applications" again:
> lets consider "Internet Explorer".
> 
> Dr. Eval: Yeah, why don't we do that.
> 
> Internet Explorer is not a single executable as you might think. Internet
> Explorer is built of a collection of COM components. These components are
> developed individually, debugged individually, exported individually, and
> eventually, all of them create the illusion of an integrated application.
> 
> Dr. Eval: I'm a clueless LinuxSucks.com editor. I did not know that IE was
> modular. I had never in fact noticed the miniscule file size of the
> iexplore.exe file until now. I thank you for enlightening me.
> 
> Now, the beauty of this is that these components can be reused outside of
> Internet Explorer: programmers outside of Microsoft can use those
> components
> in their applications: the HTML rendering engine, the XML engine, the
> JavaScript engine, the toolbars, their scripting engine and so on.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Gee, isn't this what the Mozilla team did and took 3 years to do
> so when they invented XPCOM? But, I know XPCOM is not good enough for you
> anymore, because it's under the NPL/GPL and now .NET has come along which
> further obscures COM's compilcated call structure, and thus XPCOM's as
> well.
> I have programmed COM. I have programmed XPCOM. I have programmed MFC
> using
> COM wrappers, and have programmed ATL. The Mozilla team banned the use of
> templates, so XPATL is not a possibility. I only hope MONO will save you
> before .NET is replaced by the Next Big MicroSoft system.
> 
> Microsoft applications reuse pieces of Internet Explorer.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Duh. So do MicroSoft programmers. Even VB programmers.
> 
> Sure, we have small components, that are small and beautiful, but their
> usage scope is still limited. My thesis is that we can build small
> components that can be reused in many more ways than the traditional way.
> 
> Dr. Eval: Stop pandering. They SUCK behind belief, just like COM's
> complication SUCKS beyond belief. Enter JAVA, improved upon by .NET.
> 
> To sum things up: There is little code reuse in Unix applications. Unix
> lacks a modern component system for building modern and consistent
> applications.
> 
> Dr. Eval: The Non-euphemistic, Dr. Eval version: To sum things up: All you
> Linux geeks that like to rag on MS, you are pathetic, ignorant, arrogant,
> and blind. MS has been doing it right for a long time and is trying to
> make
> it better still. You can either join GNOME, or even KDE if you like, and
> help UNIX/LINUX to play catch up with MS and now .NET, or you can continue
> to spout nonsense about having a complete system. This nonsense was just
> totally disproved by Miguel, albeit in a "too nice" way to avoid insulting
> many of his users and peers. I don't have that fear. Your prized system
> has
> a few good things, like the freeness, but overall it sucks sucks sucks. Go
> make it better then tell us that it doesn't suck!
> 
> The filter-based component system of Unix is incomplete to address the
> needs
> of large applications.
> 
> Dr. Eval: I said stop euphemizing! UNIX SUCKS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> This email and its attachments are intended for the above 
> named only and may be confidential.  If they have come to 
> you in error, you must take no action based on them, nor 
> must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this 
> email and highlight the error.
> Security Warning: Please note that this email has been 
> created in the knowledge that the internet email is not a 
> 100% secure communications medium.  We advise that you 
> understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
> Viruses:  Although we have taken steps to ensure that this 
> email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise 
> that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient 
> should ensure they are actually virus free.
> If you have received this email in error please notify:
> postmaster at pindar.com
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________