Vote Up
13
Votes
Vote Down

Used by freetards as a retort for any problem with Linux. Linux actually is not advanced enough to BSOD (no joke), it will however, kernel panic without any warning.

Related Trademarks

#1 Posted by hoppi on Dec 9, 2009 2:09 AM

yeah because I have seen SO many kernel panics on Ubuntu.

(it hasn’t crashed or hung once in at least a year)

#2 Posted by Chlorus on Dec 9, 2009 2:25 AM

AT LEAST A YEAR?! Dude, I have not had a BSOD on any of my 3 Windows machines since 2004. Yet that doesn’t stop you idiots from claiming that Windows apparently crashes every 30 minutes.

#3 Posted by hoppi on Dec 9, 2009 2:33 AM

I dunno I can’t remember exactly but it’s been a LONG time. I had forgotten PCs even did that till I tried 7.

#4 Posted by Paraboem on Dec 9, 2009 5:50 AM

i’m running 7 for LONG and never seen a BSOD on both my computers.

#5 Posted by GabberGoat on Dec 9, 2009 7:34 AM

Also why just talk about kernel panics when DEs and X crash much more frequently; you’ve still lost what you were doing.

#6 Posted by DrLoser on Dec 9, 2009 4:00 PM

Well, the short answer is that the kernel isn’t supposed to panic.

The kernel is self-contained. It protects itself. The original Unix kernel was, what, 32K or 64K? I’ll accept longjmps to avoid a panic.

We don’t hear much about double panics any more. This is either because LinuxHitsTheSweetPoit, or because the dingbats have learned to longjmp from a double panic to a single panic. I don’t care either way. X will beat them to it.

#7 Posted by hoppi on Dec 9, 2009 4:37 PM

@Gabbergoat In my personal experience of relatively modern Linux (last year or so)... not true. Hell even years ago when I used it wasn’t even true but these days it’s laughable.

#8 Posted by JoeMonco on Dec 10, 2009 4:32 PM

In my personal experience of relatively modern Linux (last year or so)... not true. Hell even years ago when I used it wasn’t even true but these days it’s laughable.

WorksForMe™

#9 Posted by hoppi on Dec 10, 2009 10:32 PM

@Joemonco That’s the thing though Linux (or rather open source OSs in general) is more of a personal experience than Windows, you tailor the desktop to quite often what you deem to be “perfection” although of course there are some bugs or small problems it is possible to put together your dream OS.

These days out-of-the-box Linux distros such as Ubuntu and openSUSE are already pretty good, so it’s starting to match Windows more as an OS that’s suited for everyone, but this is probably why you hear the “WorksForMe” thing a bit more from Linux users than Windows users.

#10 Posted by administrator on Dec 10, 2009 10:53 PM

@Hoppi, you’re dream OS until you do an update. Suddenly all your custom configs get stomped and you have to start over.

I’ll say it again. Computers are APPLIANCES! They’re meant to help you get a task done quickly so you can get on with your life. Linux is like an infant that needs constant care.

#11 Posted by Frak on Dec 10, 2009 11:31 PM

I see Linux as something that needs to be left alone as soon as it is working. Note why Linux is great for servers and not desktops.

#12 Posted by hoppi on Dec 11, 2009 2:37 AM

@admin lol which version did YOU use? Or what kind of wacky update did you install?

I don’t believe I’ve ever really had that problem, although I would guess that if you use a distro that attempts to manage itself such as Ubuntu for example, it would sometimes overwrite say, grub or X or other core config files, but even then very rarely and it would usually make a backup.

If you want a truly customizable system that’s your own making, you are best off with maybe Arch, Debian or Slackware, or maybe Gentoo if you want to put a bit more time in!

I’m not sure about easy distros that fall under that bracket, but I’m sure there are some :)

#13 Posted by administrator on Dec 11, 2009 2:44 AM

Let’s see, Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10. Grub errors and all my settings get stomped. Do you run two monitors? Well you don’t now after you’ve updated, and if you’re lucky, it’ll drop you to the terminal until you can figure out which conf settings to restore so the 2nd display, and subsequently, the graphics drivers in general, work again.

I don’t WANT a “customizable” system, I want one that works! I have work to do, I don’t want to dick around configuring crap. The operating system isn’t a toy to play with, its supposed to be a transparent layer on which you run applications. You shouldn’t have to think about it, babysit it, or configure it unless absolutely necessary!

Besides, if you want to personalize Windows, there are plenty of modding tools and modding sites to do just about anything with it.

#14 Posted by ChrisTX on Dec 11, 2009 10:09 AM

http://kaelri.deviantart.com/art/Enigma-103823591
You know, that was actually all stolen from Linux, that’s why.

#15 Posted by hoppi on Dec 11, 2009 6:38 PM

@admin well then maybe the time is here to say Linux is not for you (for the moment at least, who knows what the future will bring!) and move on, there’s no need to bash it!

#16 Posted by DrLoser on Dec 15, 2009 1:12 PM

@Hoppi

That sounds awfully like what Tiger said to Mrs Woods as he climbed out of the back of the SUV.

We don’t bash it because it WorksForYou™, silly boy. We bash it because it doesn’t work on its own terms (see comment from Administrator, directly above). Evangelising this mess to your granny is just Pure Evil.

And we are all opposed to Pure Evil.

#17 Posted by garegin on Dec 11, 2011 7:24 PM

another day of wasting time configing grub settings and dorking around with kernel parameters. im seriously sick of this child crap. this is pre-alpha grade software compared to windows and mac.

You must be signed in to leave comments.