Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Chip Hell -- the AMD story

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 06, 2002
 Comments:
[editor's note, by jsm] This story was a long time in the writing. It all stems back to a a rather controversial story we published here a while ago, which contained a rather controversial assertion about chip maker AMD. Specifically, it claimed that AMD chips were made in sweatshops in the Third World. Naturally, we at adequacy would never print such an outrageous claim without checking it up. Here are the results of our investigations, with only the lightest of editorial and legal cuts.
globalization

More stories about Globalization
Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
The British Empire - Why it was so good.
There was not enough violence in Genoa
Philip Morris Is Right
How to Smash Global Industrial Capitalism Without Leaving Your Bar-Stool
Welcome to the Third World
The Death of the Channel
Breaking Down the Language Barrier
Shit or Get Off the Pot
A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

More stories by
jsm

The Gay Tax
LNUX = FC?
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Teaching Astrology In Schools
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
A New Kind of Feminist Science
Two high-tech companies. Two chip production facilities. Two products regarded by most of their users as broadly interchangeable. But between the glittering, clean modern plants of Intel, with their antistatic-suited, health-insured, unionised and skilled workers, and the dirty, hot, malodorous infernos of AMD, where malnourished children eke out a dangerous living amid the splashes of red-hot molten silicon, there is a chasm that spans worlds. Very few casual computer users ever realise (their ignorance helped by a smug, complacent industry media) quite the extent of the human cost which goes into AMD's suspiciously budget-priced chips.

Our investigation started on a tip-off from roving East Asian adequacy.org editor Kip, who began married life in the unstable tropical paradise of the South China Sea last year. Setting up house in the Philippines as a high-priced software mercenary, he became somewhat peturbed at the number of children he saw on the streets everyday, begging for food and missing fingers, thumbs or occasionally whole limbs. Children and young women disfigured by burn scars, or blinded and carrying the marks of corrosive chemical spills. Over time, he began to realise that a disproportionately high number of these casualties of a developing economy were wearing polo shirts, baseball caps and beach shorts carrying a logo familiar to him from his days as a high-end embedded systems designer in London; the logos of chip giant AMD.

When I got off the plane at Manila International Airport, I was met by T Reginald Gibbons, the contributor of the original article which had caused all the trouble. Talking on the shuttle bus from the airport into town, I was struck by his mild manner and devout Christian belief. Although I have, rather notoriously, had a few run-ins with right-wing Christians on the staff of adequacy.org, Reginald impressed me with the sincerity of his faith, and the intensity of his passion to expose this scandal.

On my second evening in Manila, after sleeping off the jet-lag, I took a stroll with Reginald into the area of town known as "Chip Hell". This was a short ride by motorcycle taxi away from Reginald's comfortable white-porched villa on the fashionable east side of town, but it might as well have been the other side of the world. A ranshackle assembly of tin huts, chicken-wire and improvised drainage, with pigs running loose in the streets, walls tied together with gaffer tape, and everywhere the stench of ammonia and human excrement. Looming ominously above the shanty town were the two huge corrugated huts which made up AMD's main assembly plant. This was the "fab" (short for "favela", from the Spanish for "slum").

We walked on, trying to ignore the snapping of the stray dogs which roamed at will through the AMD fab, taking in the sights and sounds, and always the omnipresent reek of the toxic PCBs used in chip manufacture. A prematurely aged woman stood by the side of the road, with a gaggle of small children clustered round her ankles as she laboriously turned the handle of an adapted clothes-mangle, while her husband balanced nearby on two factory-second artificial legs, his hands shaking as he poured liquidised window putty through a funnel onto the rollers. The two of them were squeezing out motherboards -- the lowest of the low in the jungle pecking order of the fab. Over the road, a young man sat, himself pinched with poverty, but eyeing the aged pair through his counterfeit Oakley sunglasses with the air of a feudal blacksmith surveying the churls in the fields. In his hands, he held a pair of tin-snips and a small hammer; next to his roadside stool, a stak of scavenged Pepsi-Cola cans. With unbelievable manual dexterity, he took a sheet of motherboard still sticky and viscous from the press, slammed it flat onto an upturned steel bucket in front of him, and began snipping metal from a can, hammering it out flat and applying it to the surface of the motherboard before it cooled. The acrid fumes rising up from his workbench were already turning his eyes yellow, but completed motherboards would sell for US$0.60 a kilogram when the AMD factory cart came round in the morning, and this would provide him with enough money to buy ever-plentiful heroin from the child peddlers who continually tugged at our coats. When he put his hammer down and started looking for a vein, I decided I'd had enough and asked Reginald if we could return to the hotel.

The next day our work started in earnest with the first interview:

Maria-Consuela J was a young union organiser and womens' rights activist nicknamed "Conchita" in Chip Hell. She told us about the long assembly benches in the big halls, where young women sat for ten-hour shifts without so much as a bathroom break, gluing chips into motherboards.

"The cowhide glue is the worst part. They make it out the back of the factory, stirring it up in big vats. Any dead animal, or leftover bones when we have meat, they go into the glue vats. The smell is horrible and it makes your fingers red".

Conchita showed us her hands; every finger had at least one red, angry blister, several of which were burst and weeping. I was amazed at her toughness; despite the obvious physical pain, she maintained the aztlan.net workers' rights website from a scavenged Microsoft ergonomic keyboard and a computer cobbled together from cast-off parts in the back room of a shack which served as the community centre. Her jaw was firm and her gaze unwavering as she told us about the way in which the female workers in the motherboard hall were treated.

"The supervisors are pigs. Worse than pigs. They demand sexual favours and make crude remarks to us all the time. We are a very traditional Catholic country, so the women find this very shameful. If you talk back to them they will give you the worst motherboards; the ones with bubbles in them, or with grease in the plastic. These are harder to make the glue stick, so you end up losing money".

Guido V-R was an elite worker in the heart of the fabrication plant itself. Although this put him practically in the aristocracy of the fab, he was still left in no doubt about his status by the predominantly white senior management.

"I am a craftsman. My father carved miniature religious basreliefs on the sides of cigar boxes. I inherited his tools, and now I use them to carve the silicon chips. But the yanquis do not respect. They abuse us constantly. We spend our days making their chips, and they just shout at us. They call us "Taco" and "Nethack". I do not know why. Filipinos are not Mexicans. They are very ignorant."

Guido was not involved in union activity:

"I do not join the union, because the craftsmen in the chip room are not allowed and I cannot lose my job; I have family to support. But we have our own ways. If the bosses ride us too hard then --kkzzzpt!-- (he gestured in the air with his razor-sharp chip-engraving awl) a hairline scratch across twenty wafers! When the rejects come back from the consumers, they know that we are unhappy and they lay off of us for a while". As one might expect, Guido did not hold AMD's quality control in very high regard: "The qualitores are the old men, the simple ones, those who are no good for anything else. They are only there to keep the ISO9000 people happy. Why should I make good chips for $0.90 an hour?"

Pablo C was lucky enough to be employed at the chip plant, and so was a rung above the unfortunate outworkers of the kind we had seen the day before in Chip Hell. However, as an illiterate, unskilled manual laborer, his position was as fragile as the AMD silicon wafers themselves. His task was to spend the day lifting the 200-pound slabs of silicon from the quarry wagons, then pounding them into fine powder and finally tipping this powder into the furnaces which would smelt it into the molded wafers which formed the raw material for Guido. We saw him at work; the conditions were appalling beyond my ability to describe. Working shifts of up to 20 hours when conditions in the global SDRAM market demanded it, Pablo was forced to the heights of physical exertion, all the time inhaling the choking silicon dust and braving the fumes and satanic heat of the blast furnaces which gave Chip Hell its name.

"Every day I get weaker. The dust burns my lungs until I cannot breathe. The heat makes me feel that I am dying. I need to stop and rest, but if I stop, the furnace will stop and I will not be paid. My eyes are scratched by the smoke and the fumes. I feel my muscles start to fail. Soon I will be too weak to work on the quarry line and my place will be taken by one of the younger boys. I am old now. I am 24 and I am the oldest man on the line. Soon I will be unable to work, and I will join the pourers and pressers of motherboard resin."

We were shocked by this. I had estimated Pablo's age to be 45 at least. His breathing was clearly giving him trouble, and we tried to get medical attention for him, but the meagre clinic with which AMD supplied Chip Hell did not have the scanner he needed. Pablo refused our offer of a trip to a hospital in Manila; he seemed convinced that a popular local remedy of pounded tree bark would cure his advanced silicosis. We saw no hope in the favela for him.


Back in the USA, I spoke to Gordon Moore, chief executive of the American Microprocessing Devices Corporation, an industry body dedicated to lobbying Congress for a level playing field between domestic high-end chip manufacturers and the cut-price Asian operators. He gave us some industry context for the domestic economic consequences of Chip Hell:

"Well, what you've got to understand is that AMD are producing a low-quality, cut-price product, of the kind that it's difficult for us to compete with, because we have respect, for our customers and our employees, and that means that we just can't run the kind of operation they do. AMD basically make chips which are about four years behind our technology here in the USA, like 200KHZ Pentiums, but then they 'overclock' them, which is kind of like turning the dial back on a car, and sell them over here as 1GhZ Pentium Pros. And we're saying to the government that, hey, that isn't right. And so far, they'd rather preserve their globalisation and their GATT Treaty than safeguard American workers' jobs. It's a outrage."

It is not the place of mere weblogs like adequacy.org to comment on important matters of international economy and diplomacy. And, in this post 9/11 climate, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the case for or against globalization. But, as Mr. Moore points out, the AMD policy of raiding the market with its "overclocked" chips, directed squarely toward the lucrative teenage "hacker" and "Linux" market, is bad for the American chip industry. And in Manila, I saw the human consequences of this company's manufacturing practices for myself. When I looked into Chip Hell.


Thank Goodness we have jsm! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by frozenwoody on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 06:52:27 PM PST
I never realized this was going on! Fortunately, someone has notified AMD's stock message board of this tracesty, so I expect we'll see some sort of resolution to this ruthless exploitation.


'travesty' NOT 'tracesty' (eom) (none / 0) (#6)
by frozenwoody on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 06:56:18 PM PST
(eom)


 
But (2.75 / 4) (#7)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 09:02:23 PM PST
oh I forget what I was going to say now
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
This is EXACTLY the type of reporting (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 09:10:42 PM PST
that I expect from Adequacy.org. Hard-hitting, uncompromising, and with no "spin" whatsoever. It would be interesting to get some reactions from people who own AMD-based machines... are they proud of the slavery and environmental rape that they are directly funding? However, since these machines have a maximum uptime of 20 minutes or so before they overheat and must be shut down, I doubt that we will hear much.

Thanks for an interesting read. I've never been prouder to be an Intel owner.


AMD rulez (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 10:15:14 PM PST
I'm own an AMD. I wanted the cheapest product ever and I got it. I never see the reboots you mentio

[TIMEOUT]


 
re: proud intel owner (2.00 / 3) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 09:45:05 AM PST
lol, um, you do realize that this article is a spoof right?


spoof (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:09:11 AM PST
Too many people don't realize it is just a spoof. I can't imagine how they could believe that the same tools used by one man to carve religious basreliefs on cigar boxes could be used by another to carve useable processors out of silicon.

Besides, Intel chips may be assembled in the US, but they are treated with an extract from the bone marrow of pygmies. What do you want on your concience today?

I've given up both manufacturers' products. My computer runs a 1.5Ghz potato chip made from evironmentally friendly bio-degradable material from right here in the good-ole USA... Idaho.


spoof? (2.50 / 2) (#100)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:07:43 AM PST
That potato chip comes from potatos that are grown on land stolen from Native Americans. Besides, the chemicals and pesticides used by corporate agrivulture are leeching into the water supply, causing untold effects on the children.


I am (2.50 / 2) (#102)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:35:07 AM PST
I'm a Native American. Navajo to be exact. By computer runs on corn. My family doesn't use chemical pesticides. Organic baby!


 
The Old Lesson: Don't Believe Everything You Read (none / 0) (#113)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:54:43 PM PST
(Before I tear into this, you should note that I only came across this site via a link to this story, so my critcisms of adequecy.org are based only a half-hour of perusing the site).

My only question is 'how does this website expect to get taken seriously?' This is just another alternative-perspective site that asks to me, a small-c conservative-sceptic, to 'think outside the box' by stuffing me into their 'box;' i.e., by offerring me obviously biased, left-wing polemics against "BIG EVIL," be it government, business, or whatever.

The person below posted:

"that I expect from Adequacy.org. Hard-hitting, uncompromising, and with no "spin" whatsoever."

You call that unconfirmed, unsourced libel-safari into Asia "hard-hitting journalism?" Do you really think that *linking every fourth word or phrase* to a novel on amazon.com is called research, or confirming your sources? Superficially, the links make it look like they done they're homework, but to me it's
mere polish.

"It would be interesting to get some reactions from people who own AMD-based machines..."

I didn't react as an AMD-owner, but as rational, intelligent person, who just wants to speak out on drivel, to prevent it from further dumbing down on-going debate in society.

"are they proud of the slavery and environmental rape that they are directly funding?"

Before you accuse me and thousands of other people of being accessories-after-the-fact to international crimes, why don't we ask someone else *other than* adequecy.org?

"However, since these machines have a maximum uptime of 20 minutes or so before they overheat and must be shut down, I doubt that we will hear much."

Pardon? You must be confused. I understand that pentium4s internally under-cloak themselves by 50% if they exceed temperature tolerances. Is that what you are talking about?

"Thanks for an interesting read. I've never been prouder to be an Intel owner."

I'm not touching that.

Sites like adequecy.org practice sensationalism because they can't particpate in serious debates about social-political issues, and they can't participate because their ideas are convincing only to themselves. Dissing AMD with a contrived, 'from-the-font-lines' expose probably achieved nothing but further alienating people like me. That article was biased to the point of being crass. It's libelous bunk trying to pass itself off as journalism-verite.



I would like to help. (2.50 / 2) (#121)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 03:23:18 PM PST
We have stories just for people like you.

Now open your mouth--here comes the plane!




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
alien (none / 0) (#162)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:40:44 AM PST
If this and any other adequacy.org article in any way alienates you then you are probably an anti controversial alien.


 
Right on the nose (none / 0) (#224)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:03:24 PM PST
If all this is actually true then where are the pics of the fab plant?

"However, since these machines have a maximum uptime of 20 minutes or so before they overheat and must be shut down, I doubt that we will hear much."

Uh... I've run on my AMD chip for 25 days strait without it crashing or restarting. The only reason it shutdown was because the power when out in my house. The 20 min uptime is probably because of the shitty Macroshit Winblows you are running. Get Win2k and your crashing problems will dissappear.



The reason AMD chips are cheaper is not because they use child labour in 3rd world countries. They are trying to steal some of the market share away from intel which they are doing by makeing better products at lower prices. This article is nothing but a pile of Intel promoting Bull Shit.


 
AMD baby, yeah! (none / 0) (#161)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:32:30 AM PST
Ok, while its stable let me be quick to post this. My AMD is awesome. It runs hot, as you would expect, but it was so cheap. I bought mine while I was driving through StarBucks the other day. Cost me less than a cup of coffee. And will probably last me just as long. But it disturbs me that all those children don't have access to this wonderful Starbucks coffee. They wouldn't feel so bad about their fingers or limbs if they could grab some refreshing drivethrough espresso.


 
RE: This is EXACTLY the type of reporting (none / 0) (#215)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 03:13:58 PM PST
What the FU<K is wrong with yoU? You all at adequacy have one hell of a problem. I think you should just kill yourselves and get yourselves out of the gene pool. I have an AMD that clocks at 1003 mhz, and is better than any pentium sh*t you can throw at me. I run my computer 24/7 and it has NEVER overheated, and you can trust me, I found no blood or defects to my motherboard or chip. The processor cannot be made by hand. YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU? Your fingers are too big to handle something you can only see in a microscope, but you'd probably be unwilling to accept the fact that things are made of atoms huh? Another thing, one MACHINE can make a ton of processors/motherboards a day at half the price of 90 cents an hour. I know that for a fact. You go help the world and do us all a favor by killing yourself.


 
This is so BS!! (none / 0) (#225)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 05:56:24 AM PST
This isn't for adults! This is just BullS for proud, ignorant brats over 35 years old!

Hand-manufactured motherboards!?? HAHAHA! Like that could be possible!
You should just see AMD's factory at Dresden, Germany! It's one of the worlds' most advanced factory!

Shame on you, Adequacy! To pretend you did go to Filipines! >:(

Thank God that AMD is giving us the best PC processors available for desktop/laptop PCs! Intel is over-expensive and under-performance, compared to any AMD processor!

Stop this AMD nonsence!


 
Wow... I can't *believe* this... (none / 0) (#232)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:14:22 PM PST
Geez... To try to even begin to reply to this guy is infuriating. OK, to start, I have been an AMD customer for 7 years. I have owned an AMD K-5, K6-2, and currently have an Athlon. AMD processors are the most stable, reliable, and best-performing chips I have ever used in my entire life. They beat out Intel chips in every area possible. I wouldn't switch to an Intel chip if you paid me.
Oh, and by the way: AMD makes CPU's and endorses chipsets... They don't make motherboards or SDRAM. And if any glue were used on motherboards (it's not) it would be made out of polymers, not animal parts (how on EARTH would that make glue???).
And to further enlighten you: AMD's plants are in several different countries, and they are high-tech development facilities, not sweatshops. Chips can't be made by children; you need experienced technicians with complex, expensive equipment.
I can't believe a site that is as full of crap as this one even exists on the Internet. You people obviously have no life and do nothing except be paranoid and put companies down 24/7. It also surprises me that someone hasn't hacked this site yet... I bet if articles like these continue it will soon ;). I look forward to more of these articles so I can laugh again and we can all prove you wrong again.

--Narso


 
WOW!!!!! (none / 0) (#233)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 10:03:53 PM PST
Anyone that believes the crap these morons are spewing out about AMD has to have an IQ of less than 80. Go swing from a tree or jump through hoops at Seaworld you retards.

Hahahahaha



 
Think different! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by gNinja on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 10:23:04 PM PST
AMD's third world child labor has been a concern of mine for a long time. That's one of the reasons I always encourage people to use Apple computers.

The Power PC chips were developed by IBM and are made by Moterola. Together they're as American as apple pie.

Also the new Apple is based on Linux and is completely open source.




uhhh, nope (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:57:01 AM PST
The Power PC chips were developed by IBM and are made by Moterola. Together they're as American as apple pie.

The microprocessor known as the PPC was developed by Motorola (spell it righ jackass). Through a joint partnership between Apple IBM and Motorola (AIM) IBM licensed the technology can also produce the chip. Kind of like how Smasung also manufactures chips for Sony's PS2.

Also the new Apple is based on Linux and is completely open source.

WRONG! MacOSX is based on Rhapsody and NeXTStep. In other words MacOS plus BSD4.4 (support from the FreeBSD community) and Mach 3.0. It's Unix based not Linux based. MacOSX is not open source. It's kernel (Darwin) however is. Most of the remaining portion are closed sourced and propietary. Try actually visiting the open source section of the Apple website first ok?


ATTENTION: NAWL (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:28:24 AM PST
Your lies are transparent. Seek truth before anonymity.


 
uhhhh... yeah. (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:18:58 AM PST
Hi, I am gNinja but I'm not logged in right now.

>>spell it righ jackass

I think you understood whom I was refering to. Quibbling about spelling mistakes does not make for intelegent discussion.

There was no reason to be rude either. If you don't act like an adult people will treat you like a child. Remember, no one likes a teenager.

You also seem to be misinformed about Linux on the PPC. Read this page for more information.

--gNinja


tisk tisk (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:55:05 AM PST
Quibbling about spelling mistakes does not make for intelegent discussion.

It does at this site.


 
Logic (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by jvance on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:33:11 PM PST
Linux was ported to the Mac
Therefore, MacOSX is based on Linux

Linux was ported to PCs
Therefore WinXP is based on Linux

Ergo, WinXP is an illegal hacker operating system.

Your logic is entirely Adequate.

Speaking of Adequacy, how come all the editors are commenting on this article anonymously. Lawsuit threat?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Clarifications (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:56:14 PM PST
Look, just because Linux was ported to a specific chipset doesn't mean the primary OS is associated with Linux.

MacOSX has a Unix core, not Linux. All flavors of Windows NT (Past 3.51, which means Win2k and XP as well) have bits of code borrowed from Linux, but nothing really big. EG: Winsock, originally developed by a third party, was made based on BSD Linux's Sockets functionality, and there would be no consumer internet without it. Microsoft bought that to put into NT. There are numerous other examples of this sort of thing, but I won't bother with that.


Re : Clarifications (none / 0) (#145)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:25:17 AM PST
You need some :
1- Linux is not legally a UNIX, but it is in fact. You can't say it doesn't have a Unix core.
2- Microsoft never borrowed code from Linux (at least it has never been proved). Microsoft won't, because of the GPL. Microsoft borrowed, as many others, from BSD, which is totally legal, and encouraged by the BSD guys.
3- There is no such thing as BSD Linux.


Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#217)
by jvance on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 03:44:00 PM PST
Either you two are stupendously thick twats, or the cleverest meta-trolls I've ever encountered.

Okham's Razor suggests the former.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
whoa, nice research (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:57:30 PM PST
You also seem to be misinformed about Linux on the PPC

Linux distributions which run on the PowerPC have been around for quite some time. It's an old article which simple states that Linux will ve proted to the Mac. It makes no mention of MacOS being based on linux or a Linux distro. Linux distros which run on the PPC are freely available. One of them is Yellow Dog. By the way did you bother to check the date of the article (Feb 5, 1996) or even read it?

The kernel used in MacOSX (Darwin) is a BSD4.4(FreeBSD)/Mach3.0 based kernel. Yes it is open source. However, that doesn't mean it is Linux.
What is Darwin? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Darwin runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers and a version is also available for x86-compatible computers.
Just in case you're an idiot, the x86 version runs on the IBM based PC.


hi, NAWL (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:59:13 PM PST
You bring up a few good points but you are still confusing a number of issues.

You seem to be implying that I think that OSX is a Linux distribution. Anyone can see this is not the case. OSX is based on Linux in the sense that it took what Linux was and made it better by far.

The first thing that they did was replace X11 with a user friendly GUI (Graphical User Interface). Then they improved the sound support for the best latencies available under any operating system. And thirdly they added opengl support so that the OSX updated version of Linux could support fast paced games.

OSX is not the same thing as "old school" Linux even though it is based on the Linux "kernel." You can actually still get the old versions of Linux. There are still a few people who use "old school" Linux for print servers but most people prefer the modern OSX from Apple.

Another thing that you are confusing is the "marketoid" vs the "developer" information. Of course the marketting division is not going to talk about Linux because they want to differentiate themselves from the "old school" Linux.

For future reference, one way you can tell developer information from information meant for ordinairy users is the number of images on the web page. The Linux web page had no images and is clearly meant for developers only. The other web page had lots of images and is only meant for new users.

HTH (Hope That Helps).

-gNinja


still (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:53:25 PM PST
...OSX updated version of Linux ...

Yet you are still calling MacOSX a version of LINUX. Try typing U-N-I-X. MacOSX is not like taking a linux and making it better. Linux is a kernel. The kernel in MacOSX is Darwin (FreeBSD and Mach 3.0).

Is it that difficult to figure out? MacOSX is a UNIX based OS not a version of Linux or Linux based. Version of Linux by the way are expressed numerically (2.4.xx). MacOSX is more like taking FreeBSD Desktop and making it look pretty and addind feature. Also OpenGL can be found in most linux based OSes.

The first thing that they did was replace X11 with a user friendly GUI (Graphical User Interface).

I think you are confusing windowing system with GUI. A GUI is a window manager.

OSX is not the same thing as "old school" Linux even though it is based on the Linux "kernel

Noooo. The kernel used in MacOSX (Darwin) is FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 based. FreeBSD is UNIX. Next you'll be posting the FreeBSD is a version of Linux. U-N-I-X, got it?

You can actually still get the old versions of Linux. There are still a few people who use "old school" Linux for print servers but most people prefer the modern OSX from Apple.

I'm not gonna go into versions but yes you still can get older version of linux like 2.2 instead of 2.4. Older versions doesn't mean they are handicapped. Linux can be geared. There are print servers, mail servers, etc which used stripped down version of the linux kernel.

Of course the marketting division is not going to talk about Linux because they want to differentiate themselves from the "old school" Linux.

If you are going to type stupid shit don't bother. There is no such thing as "old school" linux as linux is a kernel. Kind of like Kernel32 or NTkernel in Windows. I can make a distro and make it look just a pretty as MacOSX. Much of MacOSX is taken from the development of NeXTStep which Apple acquired from Steve Jobs when he left and formed a new OS company.

Compare the history of NeXT to the history of Linux. Which has been around longer? Which has been more popular (popular enough for companies like Apple to take notice. Why don't you head over to FreeBSD.org and announce how MacOSX is based on Linux and not FreeBSD. Watch how fast their developers (which work on the open source kernel along side Apple) get pissed off. I'll be laughing when they attack the shit out of box. Why don't you compare the Darwin source code to that of FreeBSD and Linux. Which one does it resemble more?

The Linux web page had no images and is clearly meant for developers only.

And what Linux website would that be as there is no official site for linux? Would it be Linux.org? Maybe you mean Linux.com? gnu.org and fsf.org are NOT linux websites. The only reason they don't have a bunch of pictures is so that they load quickly.

Think Different.


one more thing (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:12:37 PM PST
You forgot to mention that Linux is licensed under the GNU GPL. Kind of funny how Darwin is NOT.

Apple Public Source License
Apple Binary Driver license
Third Party Driver License

If MacOSX were a version of or linux based it too would have to be under the GNU GPL now wouldn't it?


 
old school... (none / 0) (#76)
by gNinja on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:39:02 PM PST
>There is no such thing as "old school" linux as linux is a kernel.

Old school linux is things like Mandrake and Debian. The new school would be BSD and especially Apple OSX.

>Kind of like Kernel32 or NTkernel in Windows.

Right. That is exactly what I have been saying.

>And what Linux website would that be as there is no official site for linux?

I'm talking about the web pages on the Apple.com website. The one that talk about Linux are for developers only and thus do not have any graphics. (Partly this is also because old school linux did not support graphics until recently).


what!?! (none / 0) (#104)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:41:30 AM PST
Old school linux is things like Mandrake and Debian. The new school would be BSD and especially Apple OSX.

That would make more sense if BSD and OSX were linux. You can't call OSX "old school linux" if it doesn't use linux. And FreeBSD is not linux either. FreeBSD is older than linux.

I think I get it though. You're probably one of those nimrods that believes that linux is some generic term used to describe open source software.
Oh you have an OS. And it's open source? Well, that automaticall means it's linux and therefore under the GPL.
Linux is one of a number of Unix-like OSes. It is not a gerenric term used to describe them all. There are other Unix-like OSes. Most of them are not under the GPL. Some examples of non-linux open source OSes

FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
AtheOS
DarwinOS (from Apple)
and more

The one that talk about Linux are for developers only and thus do not have any graphics. (Partly this is also because old school linux did not support graphics until recently).

First off linux based OSes have supported graphics for quite some time. A GUI has been available with all the pretty colors for a number of years. As far as the Linux developer pages on Apple's website those are about porting Linux apps and utilities to OSX and FreeBSD. It's just like you can find information about porting linux and other OSS to AtheOS with litte to no modification.


NAWL, how many times must you be told? (none / 0) (#122)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 03:24:09 PM PST
Lunix is not a technology, it is a political ideology. Discussions of Lunix are overwhelmingly political and rarely informed by attention to the software engineering practices, facts and theories that are normally of interest to Microsoft programmers. The differing "versions" of Lunix are distinguished by the sectarian politics of their adherents and the internal theological disputes (eg, Open vs. Free) those adherents entertain between updates to porn sites. The BSD versions of Lunix permit capitalism in their license and are therefore known as libertarian instead of communist distributions.

NAWL, your spin doctoring isnt appreciated here; not because it's effective, but because it is an insult to our intelligence. How much longer must we tolerate you angry, annoying Lunix mosquitoes buzzing about our shins?

*slap*

*flick*


who is NAWL? (none / 0) (#129)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:35:51 PM PST
Lunix is not a technology, it is a political ideology
So let me get this straight. Linux is NOT a [now] 16MB kernel created by Linux Torvalds and presented to the world in 1991? It is some political ideology? So in other words you are claiming that it is nothing more than a generic term used to describe free open source software? Man are you stupid.

The simple fact that you sit there and talk about BSD linux is idiotic. Hello, BSD and FreeBSD are MUCH older than linux. Linux is a technology. What amazes me more is that linux was available on the public domain for quite sometime before Linus Torvalds put it under the GNU GPL (which has been around almost as long as the Free Software Foundation, 1985).

Open source software is as much older than linux. I suggest you do a little research into history. You might find that that most of the first software was OSS. You might also find that the US government fostered open source, open source, and open licenses for years until it began consentrating on other things like pathetic cold bullshit during the mid 80s and into the 90s. Now I'm not saying it was all bullshit. But investigated someone because the wore a Red Shirt!?!

Here's a really good resource. Oh and just in case you wanna go off on some pathetic rant about hacked links, you can read the book in its entirety this Fall when it's published by Penn State Press.

One more thing, LUnix is not to be confused with linux. LUnix is LittleUnix for the c64/128 and other 8bit computers.


 
third world child labor facility (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:45:59 AM PST
You can find a picture of the slump mentioned in the article, just follow the link!
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_502_509,00.html


 
Nice shot, wrong target (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 10:36:04 PM PST
I admire the effort that went into this piece - several hours' hard work concocting absolute (albeit amusing) bullshit - but I don't think that satirising the struggle of workers in developing countries is a worthy activity for someone of such evident intelligence and creativity.

Why not have a go at the corporations who run the *real* sweatshops? Why not apply your talent to helping the victims, rather than sending them up?

We in developed countries enjoy much better working and living conditions than people in poorer countries. Let's give workers in the Philippines, and elsewhere in the "South", our support, not our derision.

Sincerely,
Bruce


Nice shot, wrong target, redux (none / 0) (#13)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 11:21:16 PM PST
I admire the global thinking that went into this criticism - several minutes of kneejerk liberal hand-wringing - but I don't think pestering the columnists of adequacy.org is a worthy activity for someone of your obviously superior social conscience.

Why not have a go at the governments and corporations who don't give a damn what happens on adequacy.org? Why not apply your bleeding heart to the injustices that make it ache so?

We of the developed countries can't be bothered reworking your last paragraph to make it adequate. Parade your impotent fist shaking elsewhere.

Sincerely,
T Reginald Gibbons, Manila


Sincerely (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:18:55 AM PST
I sincerely hope that Adequacy.org goes down together with other sites that spread this level off misinformation. And Reginald, keep it up, your narrow-minded, prejudice posts are funny to read for a person more intelligent than your average potato.

/anonymous


 
I have not open sauced my comment (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:32:49 PM PST
TRG

I would like to remind you that my comments are copyright. They are not open source - I don't give you license to mangle them for your own purposes.

What you have done to my comment is tantamount to reverse engineering, and we all know how naughty that is.

Bruce


 
So hold still, I'm reloading... (none / 0) (#49)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:55:51 AM PST
Why not have a go at the corporations who run the "real" sweatshops? Why not apply your talent to helping the victims, rather than sending them up?

Bruce, let me ask you a question. Have you ever BEEN anywhere where they run sweatshops, or do you just read about them on anti-globalization web pages?

Go to Manila sometime. The smell alone is an experience. Better still, go to Guangzhou (aka Canton) the big city on the Pearl River Delta. Take a walk around the train station. Every day, several thousand people get off the train. The folks from the countryside you can spot in a heartbeat. They're shoddily dressed, they're skinny, and they have a look of absolute despair on their face. This is not the "I'm having a bad hair day" look. This is what happens when pretty much every day since you were born was a bad hair day, and things ain't looking up soon. This face will etch itself into your memory forever.

These people stand on the street with signs made of cardboard or scrap wood which say "Zao1 Yuan2 Gong1" (looking for work). These guys know what sweatshop jobs are about. That's why they came here.

Now all this description and detail is to drive a point home. Tell me why these people keep coming off the train, hundreds every day, day in, day out. Tell me why the university-educated men and women I met in Manila dream about getting a job as a maid in Hong Kong or Taipei for the princely sum of $450/month. Explain why these people don't just stay in their happy pastoral farm villages and I'll hear you out on sweatshop conditions.



j.


The Dream (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:15:17 PM PST
Wu Xiansheng

Yes I have been to Manila. I haven't been to Guangzhou, but I've been to Shenyang and seen the signs you describe. I've also been to Bangkok and some places in Indonesia.

Yes indeed, many people would rather seek work in an Asian city than remain in the Asian countryside. This is a similar phenomenon to what happened in England during the industrial revolution. A key difference is that England was profiting handsomely from its empire.

Today, of course, that empire is gone, but Western countries still profit mightily from the imbalance between labour costs in developed countries and those in less developed countries. I can buy a nice shirt with what I earn in two hours. I am happy to pay what I earn in three hours, if the extra 50% went to the people who made the shirt.

If we in the West paid fairer prices for our consumer goods, workers could - I said could, not would - be more fairly paid.

Then the internal immigrants you allude to could pursue a better future, rather than just a dream.

Bruce


... and the awful reality... (none / 0) (#75)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:19:44 PM PST
Wu Xiansheng

Yes I have been to Manila. I haven't been to Guangzhou, but I've been to Shenyang and seen the signs you describe.


Ni de zhongwen bu cuo! Ni zhu zhongguo duo jiu?

A key difference is that England was profiting handsomely from its empire.

Sorry to get pedantic on you sir, but certain people in England were profiting handsomely off the labor of the peasants, just as certain people in China/Indonesia/the Philipines profit handsomely off the laborers there. The people toiling in the shops didn't get much of the benefit in England either.

Today, of course, that empire is gone,

It is? I have no idea what you're talking about. The West has technical expertise, capital, and of course, access to markets. The Empire is very much alive and well, it's just that the control mechanisms are a little more subtle thant the old days.

but Western countries still profit mightily from the imbalance between labour costs in developed countries and those in less developed countries.

See above. If you're resentful, take some of your paycheck and buy Nike shares. It's again, more efficient than the old days when a few old farts in London had access to all the profits and didn't share at all.

That's a slightly flippant response, so I'll address your main point. If you feel guilty about buying stuff made in sweatshops, don't buy it. I will happily introduce you to a nice tailor who will only oppresses laborers in the United States. If you'd like to benefit the devloping world at the same time, you can go to my tailor in Taipei as well.

I'm sorry if this is not working towards your ideas of social justice. Social justice just doesn't work very well with modern capitalism.

Nike (to take a most odiferous example) has a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize their profit. Period. Failure on the part of Nike's officers to be mindful of this will result in their removal at minimum, and potentially lawsuits against their persons for breach of fiduciary responsbility. If the fact that Nike (or more correctly, Nike's Taiwanese subcontracting company) runs appalling factories starts to eat into their market share, then and only then will there be ANY action on the part of the officers of the corporation to clean up their collective acts.

Since you've been on the tour of the miserable bits of Asia, have you been to any of the nicer ones? Taiwan and Japan used to both be big sources of cheap labor. Today, the younger generation in both countries would sooner die than work on a factory floor. Education and rising expectations means that you can probably get a nice job in an air-conditioned office rather than breaking your back like the old man did.

I don't like sounding like a blithering libertarian. I'm not. Unfortunately, all those poor hicks coming off the train each day are going to be a terrible counterweight to any hope of getting reasonable labor laws enacted. China (to use the example which I am most familiar with), is under intense perceived political pressue to deliver jobs. Forcing improved labor conditions will not create more jobs. (How many jobs would or would not be eliminated if labor conditions improved is subject to debate, but if you're a local party boss, such intellectual fine points may be lost somewhere).

You are willing to pay half again as much for a shirt. Go ahead and do that. I agree with you, and do my best to buy goods that come from somewhere besides the lowest bidder. It's nice to be in the top 20% of our great Republic's socioeconomic ladder and have money to spend on the frivolities of life like nice stuff rather than focusing on the boring crap like keeping the landlord paid and keeping the credit card whacked down somewhere out of the "red line" zone. I'll go talk to the nice lady who works for $8/hour down at the local daycare and see if I can get her on board with this program. Wish me luck!

j.


Reality (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:13:20 AM PST
j

We seem to be getting on so well, so now I'm going to spoil it!

>Social justice just doesn't work very well with modern capitalism.

There, that's it! That's the problem. Capitalism *needs* inequality to survive. But the gap between rich and poor is too wide in most countries - the disparities do not reflect the true value of people's effort or talent. I'm not saying we should all be on the same hourly rate, merely that having individuals paid USD$40 M/year while other citizens of the same country are paid USD$15 k/year is obscene.

On a global scale it's even worse. Most of the people alive today will not earn more than USD$15k *in their entire lifetimes* (in today's USDs) unless something happens to narrow the gap.

Now, some people say that's OK, bad luck. I have nothing to say that could influence them, just as they could not possibly convince me that their absurd point of view is valid. But for those of us who do acknowledge global inequity as an important issue, the question of what to do about it can be overwhelming. But buying a shirt at a fair price feels like the right sort of thing to do for a start.

The trickle-down effect seems to be as elusive as the invisible handjob. Change for the better can only come from people acting together, just as it always has.

Nice to have met you, j

Zaijian
Bruce



 
Running AMD... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 6th, 2002 at 11:19:36 PM PST
...and proud of it.

Together with Linux, it gives me all the computing power I need, for an affordable price. The uptime of the machine is 24 days now, from the last time I was tinkering with hardware and had to shutdown it. No spontaneous reboots that wouldn't be caused by power blackouts (which, if it will get annoying enough, will be addressed by a UPS unit). The only problems I ever had with it were with smbfs filesystem, and even that only when talking with Windows machines, so I suspect some of the oh-so-usual intentional little incompatiBILLities.

I am just migrating users from one LAN to another, moving their mailboxes and machines, and having all sorts of problems. When I needed to move an user from Linux machine to another Linux machine, it was "tar -czf", then "scp", then "tar -xzf", and voila - it was done. With Windows? You first have to find where the bloody files are. Then you have to copy them away. Then you have to import them. And kiss your hopes goodbye if it is older machine that runs Outlook Express 4 which doesn't do imports. OE5 does imports from various formats but no exports to anything sane. WHAT THE HELL WAS EVER WRONG WITH UNIX MAILBOX FORMAT THAT BILLY "THE SCUM" GATES DECIDED HE HAS TO INVENT SOMETHING NEW???

But it is enough of material for a whole diary entry so I will shut up now and then summarize my experiences when the job will be done...


Dear Mr "The Mad Scientist". (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:30:28 AM PST
Adequacy.org is not Slashdot.org. Please try to keep your posts on topic. The original article was about the apalling sweat-shop conditions of Asian Micro Devices' manufacturing plants. My heart goes out to the poor Catholic Filipinos. You, however, seem intent on regaling us with the mind-numbing minutiae of your "exploits" with the illegal L.I.N.U.X. operating system. The author mentioned L.I.N.U.X. once in the entire article. This does not give you the right to defend your irresponsible use of a terrorist OS, nor the responsiblity to attack the products of hard working Americans such as Sir Bill Gates.


oh shut the fuck up (2.50 / 2) (#25)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:28:01 AM PST
do you really think you, the author of this article or the article itself is actually funny?

What was the point of this article? It went to far to be convincing and not far enough to be even slightly funny.

Then you do one of the normal "This is adequacy not slashdot", "Please try to keep your posts on topic", blah blah...."This does not give you the right to defend your irresponsible use of a terrorist OS"....
Like you kind of people ALWAYS post this same style of reply on every frigging article at some point. Its not funny anymore. From now on every one of these messages posted, im going to post "12 foot high dog" afterwards and talk about my pet vegetables. EVERY TIME. See how you like it.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

tell me more about your pet vegetables (2.50 / 2) (#27)
by fzr on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:50:17 AM PST
What do you like to do with them?

I'm sure I can make a few suggestions if you get bored of trying to make them run linux.


see (2.50 / 2) (#28)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:03:39 AM PST
see that was quite funny. Its making a piss-take defence of a piss-take article which isnt funny.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I totally agree !!!.... (2.50 / 2) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 11:01:05 PM PST
I mean...where's the humor in this article???

HUH???

Where's the satire?, It's just a repost of another article that someone else wrote....Adequacy put a spin on it...and now it's theirs????

What ever....

MadMax


I'm sorry? (2.50 / 2) (#78)
by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 01:05:30 AM PST
Which article, and at what site? If there is injustice on the internet, it must be righted without delay!


Injustice (none / 0) (#237)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 04:28:27 PM PST
You're the injustice. Don't ever use the internet again!


 
right! (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:21:31 AM PST
quacy.org is not Slashdot.org.

who whould have thought.....

Please try to keep your posts on topic. The original article was about the apalling sweat-shop conditions of Asian Micro Devices' manufacturing plants.

Asian? And I thought the 'A' in AMD stood for Advanced.............wait..it does!!!

My heart goes out to the poor Catholic Filipinos.

philipinos you mean.

You, however, seem intent on regaling us with the mind-numbing minutiae of your "exploits" with the illegal L.I.N.U.X. operating system.

is and never will be illegal, and its linux, it doesn't stand for anything, it was based off of the name of the guy who developed it...linus

The author mentioned L.I.N.U.X. once in the entire article. This does not give you the right to defend your irresponsible use of a terrorist OS,

its not a terririst os...out of all the laptops the US has found in afganistan, no linux was found....

nor the responsiblity to attack the products of hard working Americans such as Sir Bill Gates.

he got knighted in america? Thought we did away with that in the bill of rights.....unless he was knigted in england...but that would be VERY unamerican then wouldn't it....



idiot (none / 0) (#98)
by nathan on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:51:48 AM PST
philipinos you mean...

No, he doesn't mean. You idiot.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You're the idiot... (none / 0) (#159)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:57:17 AM PST
But it is spelled Filippinos.

But you're still an idiot, Nathan.


oh, I am so sorry (none / 0) (#177)
by nathan on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:48:47 PM PST
Wait, I'm not. Ride my wang.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
gee funny (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:27:44 AM PST
Oh yes, motherboard manufacturers. It amazes me that AMD doesn't sell motherboards.

Keep up the fiction though. Although this article is less funny and more bullshit.


hmmmmm (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:35:05 AM PST
I wonder how their tone will change when they read about how INTEL is among the many companies on the shot list to sue their beloved Micro$haft next. Who else is on that list? Let's see Sun Microsystems, AOL, IBM, RealNetworks....

Suing Microsoft, Who's Next?


Completely unconcerned, of course. (none / 0) (#17)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:56:42 AM PST
Nobody has ever successfully sued Microsoft (as all reasonable people spell it). This is because there are simply no valid grievances against the operation system giant. No matter who sues MS, their case will be dismissed in short order.

Face it. MS is the player. Don't be a hater.


Microsoft. (none / 0) (#19)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 01:46:31 AM PST
No matter who sues MS, their case will be dismissed in short order.

We can buy the lawyers.
We can buy the judges.
We can buy the Congress.
We can buy the Supreme Court.
We can buy you.

We are Microsoft!

Face it. MS is the player. Don't be a hater.

I am a IT-everything in a fast-growing company. I got my share of Windows-related problems. (I got my share of Linux-related problems as well, from when I pushed through the abandonment of NT platform for the servers, but they were just minor grievances in comparison with the daily annoyances of Windoze. Both Linux and Windows are a pile of shit, but Linux at least holds in the shape I put it to, while when I want Windows to keep shape I have to run around with spatula. But as I said earlier, it is enough material for a whole separate topic.)

I have enough experiences to have full right to hate Microsoft from the very depth of my soul!


you have more than your share of problems (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:38:46 AM PST
What are you going to do about it? More rock, less talk! is my counsel. Billy is coming after you. Dont you have any weapons to polish, you crank?

And change the printer toner, we're running low.


Indeed. (none / 0) (#29)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:14:19 AM PST
What are you going to do about it?

First, tightly adhere to fully disclosed, open standards. Philosophy that the Net itself is built on.

Second, attempt to do harm to MS in as great range as possible. The best way is to help with development and deployment of MS-independent solutions.

Third, improvise.

More rock, less talk! is my counsel.

Just taking a coffee break. Back to work in a while...

Billy is coming after you.

Billy is coming after us all (or more accurately, our money and our mental health). It's pretty late now, but he still can lose. He pissed enough people by now; he will have to face tremendous firepower sooner or later - the sooner the better.

Dont you have any weapons to polish, you crank?

The guns are already oiled, checked, and loaded. Their matte black finish doesn't require polishing; chrome is for showoffs. The bullets are coated with teflon and their cores are made of depleted uranium. The mines are laid and armed and every alternate access path is boobytrapped. It's time for a coffee break.

Crank today, fighter tomorrow. Watch out what you are saying now; you could happen to find yourself at the wrong side of the barrel.

And change the printer toner, we're running low.

Sorry, not in my department.


at least Bill Gates isnt a homocidal maniac (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:41:21 AM PST
Watch out what you are saying now; you could happen to find yourself at the wrong side of the barrel.

Hacker death threat threshold reached! Heh, like clockwork, it never seems to take you Lunatix very long before you expose your true colors. What about the Freedom you've been promising me?


...he just breeds them. (none / 0) (#39)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:46:51 AM PST
Because desperatedness breeds violence.

Hacker death threat threshold reached!

Yep.

Heh, like clockwork, it never seems to take you Lunatix very long before you expose your true colors.

Having to cope with the brain-deadness of Microsoft ...ahem... products is enough on its own. And then someone comes with that knows-it-all smile and starts their tirade about how Microsoft is the best thing on the planet... I admit, I am not a saint - there are moments when I feel thirst for blood!

What about the Freedom you've been promising me?

Still better than your version - Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein OS.

What about... freedom of not having to "upgrade" each year or two only to be able to read files someone other sends to you? Freedom of not having to invest to new hardware when the old one together with the old software does everything I want it to - except opening the "new and innovative" file formats - even between different versions of the same software? Freedom to use any operating system you want on any hardware you want and still be able to communicate with the rest of the world?

Remember - by sending me a document in proprietary file format, or forcing me to communicate in proprietary protocol, you are infringing on my freedom and I will defend myself - legally or not.


Bollocks (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:20:27 AM PST
Remember - by sending me a document in proprietary file format, or forcing me to communicate in proprietary protocol, you are infringing on my freedom and I will defend myself - legally or not.



So what do you do if someone sends you .doc or .pdf telling you that you have a super-duper job or you have inherited a large amount of money, DOS them or something?


Not entirely. (none / 0) (#43)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:43:32 AM PST
So what do you do if someone sends you .doc or .pdf telling you that you have a super-duper job or you have inherited a large amount of money, DOS them or something?

Sigh, use antiword or pdftotext, thank them, and kindly ask them to send it in plaintext (preferably), HTML, or rtf next time.

The ones that use proprietary formats are just misguided users and have chance to straighten their ways; technically, the only thing necessary to straighten their ways would be changing file format defaults. (Anyone knows how to tell Word to operate in RTF by default??? I don't care if it requires illegal and unlicenced editing of a program's binary, I just want it to do so!)

However, the ones that claim that proprietary formats are the Right And Only Way To Do Things, and actively help their proliferation, deserve to be shot at dawn.


Son (none / 0) (#51)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:12:04 AM PST
Son, you talk quite a game. In your last few posts you have alluded to killing people a number of times, you have made mention of DU ammunition that you don't actually have that fits rifles you don't actually own, and you have shown quite a bit of hostility to a group of people who are just trying to help you out.

You don't know me, but I know you. Your kind like to talk a lot about shooting people at dawn, about laying land mines, the 'matte black finish' on your weapons. Well, I haven't just talked about those things, I've lived them, and I can see right through your type. If you were in my charge and you referred to the 'matte black finish' on a weapon, you'd march with it held over your head until you passed out. I am what your imagination wants you to be.

Heres my deal: Prior to your posts I really didn't care about any of this technology dreck. I have a PC in my home, I think it runs Windows 95. It might be 98, I am not sure and I don't know how to find out. Regardless, from now on I plan to encourage the few people I come into contact with to do everything they can to turn to Microsoft for their every computing need. I want them to think of Microsoft and nothing else any time their minds turn to computers. In doing that I will 'actively help their proliferation', so I invite you out to my farm so that you can try to carry out your death threat. I'm in Sullivan county, PA. Just stop someone along the road and tell them that you are in town to see a man about a rifle, I'm sure they will send you my way.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Yeehaw! (none / 0) (#59)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:51:16 PM PST
Son, you talk quite a game.

Hey - everyone should have the right to daydream!

In your last few posts you have alluded to killing people a number of times, you have made mention of DU ammunition that you don't actually have that fits rifles you don't actually own,

Figurative speech. I like it.

and you have shown quite a bit of hostility to a group of people who are just trying to help you out.

American way of help. Genuinely well-meant, but not allowing any discussions if it is wanted or necessary, and more often than not badly implemented. :(

You don't know me, but I know you. Your kind like to talk a lot about shooting people at dawn, about laying land mines, the 'matte black finish' on your weapons.

Still better than 24-carat gold finish.

Well, I haven't just talked about those things, I've lived them, and I can see right through your type. If you were in my charge and you referred to the 'matte black finish' on a weapon, you'd march with it held over your head until you passed out. I am what your imagination wants you to be.

Not accurately. All I really want to be is a technician being in charge of technology I can trust, in a dimly lit room air-conditioned to 75 degrees F and with unlimited supplies of Chinese green tea. My gun knowledge is fragmented and practical experiences limited to about two hours on a shooting range (though the comments about my skills were generally favorable; I should repeat it sometimes). But still enough to keep up when a "gun nut" starts talking shop; even if I then interrupt often with questions.

Heres my deal: Prior to your posts I really didn't care about any of this technology dreck. I have a PC in my home, I think it runs Windows 95. It might be 98, I am not sure and I don't know how to find out.

Click on start menu. If it is 98, there will be a blue bar on the left side of the menu. If there is "Windows 98" on the bar, it isn't 95.

Regardless, from now on I plan to encourage the few people I come into contact with to do everything they can to turn to Microsoft for their every computing need. I want them to think of Microsoft and nothing else any time their minds turn to computers. In doing that I will 'actively help their proliferation', so I invite you out to my farm so that you can try to carry out your death threat.

I hope you will be their tech support. I hope they will have the number of your pager, cellphone, or they will possess any other means of realtime 24/7 access to you. I hope they will have many "early adopter" friends who will mail them alot of documents in too new - and therefore incompatible anymore with their software versions - formats. I also hope that at least some of them are tinkerers who like to download new software and play with system settings, if possible with Regedit itself. It will be juicier than just killing you. Shame I am too far away to watch...

I'm in Sullivan county, PA. Just stop someone along the road and tell them that you are in town to see a man about a rifle, I'm sure they will send you my way.

You pay for the flight (transatlantic)? I will most likely lose in the resulting shootout - but at least I will never have to deal anymore with that abysmal pile of half-baked code called Windows 95/98/NT/2000...


 
Hrm (none / 0) (#202)
by budlite on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 09:02:42 AM PST
> I plan to encourage the few people I come into contact with to do everything they can to turn to Microsoft for their every computing need.

*shrug* Your funeral. And also the funerals of those people's wallets.

MS's software is extremely overpriced. I can't afford to upgrade from Windows 98 to any other OS, (except Linux, which I run alongside Win98).

I suppose the best thing I can say about MS is that their freeware , such as Media Player (version 6, that is), MSN Messenger (again, previous version) is fairly good, and their mice and keyboards, while pricey, are top-notch.


 
No. (none / 0) (#42)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:41:47 AM PST
What about... freedom of not having to "upgrade" each year or two only to be able to read files someone other sends to you? Freedom of not having to invest to new hardware when the old one together with the old software does everything I want it to - except opening the "new and innovative" file formats - even between different versions of the same software? Freedom to use any operating system you want on any hardware you want and still be able to communicate with the rest of the world?

Microsoft doesn't have to make their operating system the way you want it. Can't you understand that? If you don't like it, use something else.

If Britney Spears puts out a shitty CD, do you bitch and complain about the music being bad, but still buy/pirate it? No, if you dislike the music so much, you don't buy the CD. What makes you think you have the right to expect Y in product X? I'd really love to know what fundamental right you think is being violated. Don't go throwing around the "f" word like so much confetti.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Yes. (none / 0) (#44)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:17:27 AM PST
Microsoft doesn't have to make their operating system the way you want it. Can't you understand that?

Can. Mediocrity and incompatibility are the cornerstones of their business strategy. Which is the primary reason I consider them the scummiest scum of computer industry.

If you don't like it, use something else.

Doing so whenever I can. But occassionally receiving an email with an attachment, and then the rodeo begins. Luckily, Antiword is usually enough...

It gets worse sometimes, when there is a mishap in one of the offices and MS software refuses to operate with MS file format - which happens with mind-numbing regularity.

If Britney Spears puts out a shitty CD, do you bitch and complain about the music being bad, but still buy/pirate it?

Wrong analogy. I never ran into a situation when I would be forced to listen to bad music when I want something (well, except waiting on the phone).

No, if you dislike the music so much, you don't buy the CD.

Right. And the only sort of incompatibility I risk is not getting some Britney-music-related jokes. Which is the risk I will gladly take.

What makes you think you have the right to expect Y in product X?

Common sense? Experiences from the past, that prove that what I want is logical and possible? Vain idealism and hope?

I'd really love to know what fundamental right you think is being violated.

The freedom of choice? The chance of doing real work instead of fighting the battles that wouldn't happen if common sense would have more weight in the world of IT than mere greed and lust for power?

Don't go throwing around the "f" word like so much confetti.

Judging from your claims, you seem to be just a mere end user who never tried anything else. Who maybe even doesn't remember the time when there were also Ami Pro, Word Perfect, Chiwriter, and a plenty of other editors, and no "common standard", and it was usual to have import/export features that actually worked well. The file formats tended to not be overly complicated (ie, Ami Pro was technically plaintext, Chiwriter as well) and in the worst case, you had the chance to look to the file on binary level and see what's in there. (You still can, even with Word, but it's awfully messy - especially when the "QuickSave" misfeature is used.)

Another very important issue is crash recovery; with a simple plaintext-based file format you can recover at least parts of your work, even in case of catastrophical crash. But what can you do when all you are told is "Cannot open file."??? In the pre-MS times recoveries were generally easier...

Guessing from your apparent lack of hands-on experiences (or maybe you just hide them well for the purpose of being adequately adequate) it's unlikely you will (or will want to) understand what I mean. :(


point by point refutation (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:18:31 AM PST
Can.

Cannot.

Doing so whenever I can.

Asking people if they want fries with that.

It gets worse sometimes,

It gets better when they fire you.

Wrong analogy.

Right analogy.

Right.

Wrong.

Common sense?

One of many things you lack.

The freedom of choice?

You've chosen opinionated stupidity.

Judging from your claims,

"Ignoring or uncomprehending everything written; the function of communication is to indulge in my internal monologue."

Another very important issue is crash recovery;

It should be, you run Lunix.

Guessing

Constantly guessing. Incorrectly.

Thanks for your opinion!


Argument Clinic (none / 0) (#135)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:20:03 AM PST
Well, look, this isn't an argument!

Yes it is.

No it isn't! This is just contradiction!

Look, if I'm going to argue with you, I have to take up a contrary position.

Yes, but it isn't just contradiction!

It can be..

Copyright Python Monty productions


 
Crash Recovery. (none / 0) (#136)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:29:10 AM PST
Look, I'm not going to bother with all the other ignorant crap, not the stupid misspellings, as they're intentional and are to be ignored. However, compare this: Linux crashes. Cascade. Kernel breaks and all (damn near impossible, but we'll run with it).

What does one do?

You reboot your machine. Linux identifies everything that was in the swap partition and most of your data is retrieved. (there is a bit of Kernel mod software for this)

Now, Windows crashes. Windows 2000. Hell, it Blue-Screen-Of-Deaths you. What do you do?

Reboot your machine..

NO! Upon boot up, you get another BSoD!!

Reboot again, this time in "Safe Mode"...

NO! Another one! This time it's something about the regisrty hive!

Call tech support.

"Sir, do you have the power cable plugged in?"

Get frustrated with "tech support" (more like Windows Failure Support Group). Call your PC-Savvy friend.

"Hmm... You may have to format your drive and start from scratch"

There's your Windows crash recovery.




Facts Recovery (none / 0) (#141)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:06:47 AM PST
Windows2000 never crashed on me. Lunix crashes. X seizes with regularity. The seizures are so comprehensive they require a reboot. Windows2000 has never crashed on me. Incidentally, Windows2000 has never crashed on me. Windows95/98/ME has, but it is disningenuous to compare the so called reliability of do nothing Lunix to those versions of Windows; it is much, much more appropriate to compare according to functionality. To that end, MS-DOS has never crashed on me either.

HTH


Facts Recovery, part 2 (none / 0) (#148)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 03:23:00 AM PST
Windows2000 never crashed on me.

Windows 2000 crashed on me. Several times.

Lunix crashes. X seizes with regularity.

Not only X; but the problems with smbfs I have aren't frequent enough to be more than very slightly annoying.

I mostly avoid X, commandline and terminal are enough for most things.

The seizures are so comprehensive they require a reboot.

Happened to me in Linux, but only few times and only on some machines. The ones I run as servers without smbfs nor X are reliable.

Plus, after the reboot Linux works well again. Just now I have a machine with Windows 2000 that reboots after reaching certain point in bootup sequence. I gave up yesterday on-site and took the machine home and wrote off the weekend. A friend specialist whom I consulted said, "Bad luck. This is not Linux. Welcome in Microsoft World."

Windows2000 has never crashed on me. Incidentally, Windows2000 has never crashed on me.

You are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself too. Windows 2000 crashed on me. Repeatedly. Not really very often but enough to not consider them 100% reliable.

Windows95/98/ME has, but it is disningenuous to compare the so called reliability of do nothing Lunix to those versions of Windows; it is much, much more appropriate to compare according to functionality.

"Do-nothing Linux"? So why my company runs its critical infrastructure on Linux and only the desktops on Windoze, and even then one facility extensively experiments with replacing them with KDE?

And yes, Windows 98 aren't exactly good thing; memory protection is weak - after all, it's still nothing more than glorified DOS.

To that end, MS-DOS has never crashed on me either.

MSDOS crashed on me as well. But I hadn't met a thing that wouldn't crash on me after a while of playing with. Memory protection of MSDOS (real-mode) is nonexistent so crashes are common.

In summary, when it comes to crash recovery, I will take Linux over any version of Windows anytimes. Experienced both.


think of the bright side (none / 0) (#149)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:01:04 AM PST
Windows 2000 crashed on me. Several times.

Computers are insentient machines and cannot be insulated from the actions of barely lucid homocidal maniacs. It's the GIGO principle at work and it disqualifies your anecdotal experiences from the realm of human contemplation.

Were you typing with a pistol that "accidentally" went off? The only other reasonable explanation I can think of is that you were using a pirated copy of Windows2000 with criminal intent, a moral failure which MS code is purposefully designed to thwart. Let me be succint: there is no way to hack around the V-Chip and IP Token protocols without triggering a general protection fault.

If you take the time to peruse Intel documentation, triggering faults in protected mode is a safety *feature* of modern processor design and professional software engineers differ from Lunatix in their ability to employ all documented chip features as well as undocumented features which are purposefully hidden from hackers for their own good, on the off chance they'll accidentally stumble upon an understanding of those features (remember the cracker motto: "Computers are too hard for normal people." This is a clear case of Freudian projection; for how can an abnormal disgraceful lot to humanity divine the thoughts of normal people? Correct, they cannot, so they compensate by imputing a personal failure onto their superiors. QED, computers are too hard for crackers.)

The bright side, of course, is that you will soon be rotting on death row, free at last from evil Billy Gates and his pernicious Mind Control OS that suggests you kill everyone who disagrees with your Lunix fantasies of world domination.

I will miss your death threats. I find them a refreshing change from banal, technically factual discussion.

In summary, when it comes to crash recovery, I will take Linux over any version of Windows anytimes.

You are certainly welcome to associate with birds of your feather, and Microsoft is grateful at not having to absorb the economic (and social!) cost of a pirated copy of their intellectual property. Good karma all around, I'd say.


Tips from a programmer (none / 0) (#152)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:39:36 AM PST
Look, you're obviously not schooled in coding, so let me school you.

An exception is a safety feature on a processor. They, are a form of interrupt handler, but are a special form of interrupt. They are called by the OS when a problem occurs with memory, DMA, core settings, etc. Most of them have a default action, or some generalized action determined by the OS (read: General Protection Fault, or Exception 0x0D (13)).

Calling an exception 13, for the OS is equivalent to halting the system. It usually provides as much information to the user as possible without getting in the way of a speedy shotdown (ie: most common occurence is a large-scale memory dump using x86 opcodes wherever possible and absolutely no 80386 protected opcodes).

For an OS to call and exception 13, every single error-trapping mechanism has to fail first.

What this means is, if your computer GPFs out (crashes), someone got lazy when it comes to writing error traps, and system stability suffered as a result.

The reason Linux crashes less often than, say, Win2k, is that everything goes through at LEAST 4 layers of error trapping, as opposed to Windows' 2.

Linux Layer 1 - Software: The open-source community tends to ensure that every conceivable error is trapped. You have many people working on the same project, all from different levels and areas of experience and knowledge. Damn near everything gets trapped at this level.

Linux Layer 2 - Object: Many errors are auto-trapped at this level and passed back to software.

Linux Layer 3 - Kernel Module: If anything gets past Layers 1 and 2, the active Kernel modules that are called by the software double-check any memory areas that the program is telling them to access with the kernel. If anything is not kosher, the mod will report it to the program.

Linux Layer 4 - Kernel Memory Protection: The kernel will attempt to trap and isolate processes that cause problems. EG: if a program tries to access a memory area outside of it's allocated space (think of it as juristiction), the kernel immediately kills it and reports an error. Crash averted.

Windows only has two of these layers. Software and Kernel. DLLs (the equivalent of objects) and drivers (Module equivalent) only do self-error checking. They will work with anything passed to them without thinking about it. If the software designer doesn't take that into account and take care of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, you can cause anything from memory leaks (decreasing system performance) to full-on crashes.

This is more frequent than microsoft would have you know. About 30% of all commercial Win32 programs don't completely clean up after themselves.
Adobe Acrobat, for example, leaves a 25k stub in memory after every run. What's in it you ask? Old window handles, from all I can tell.

Microsoft Word is a particularly bad offender here. Once run, MS Word will slowly leech about 3k of kernel memory every minute until closed. After that, about 15% of that memory stays allocated to a process that no longer exists.

Have you ever wondered why it's usually a good idea to reboot your Win32 comp every other day or so? Now you know.


tips from a better programmer (none / 0) (#156)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:35:19 AM PST
The reason Linux crashes less often than, say, Win2k

But it doesnt. Lunix crashes more frequently than any server operating system in extant. One of the reasons for this is the astonishing number and scurrilous variety of profane comments in the code; toilet humor may be distracting to Lunatix, but hardly an acceptable *technical* kludge. This means Lunix has not yet attained acceptable levels of technical competence. This means Lunix crashes more frequently than any other server OS in extant.

If you're going to contradict elementary, empirically verifiable facts such as "Lunix crashes more frequently than any other server OS in extant", your further lengthily worded opinion arent worth the obfuscatory jargon its written in. Accordingly, I stopped reading after the quoted bit.

Notice I didnt even have to mention Lunix's usability defecit. I did not have to mention that Lunix is less user friendly than any other server OS in extant. That means it is thermodynamically ineffecient, performing less work per joule of human effort than *any* other OS in extant, server or desktop. The importance of this metric cannot be understimated; I remind you that computers are meant to reduce human labor. Nothing else matters.


Tips from both the programmer and the admin (none / 0) (#167)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:15:17 PM PST
But it doesnt. Lunix crashes more frequently than any server operating system in extant.

Your claim contrasts sharply with my personal experiences.

One of the reasons for this is the astonishing number and scurrilous variety of profane comments in the code; toilet humor may be distracting to Lunatix, but hardly an acceptable *technical* kludge.

When I checked last time, gcc was throwing out comments at the first phase of code parsing. Which makes comments themselves irrelevant for the compiled code itself. *yawn*

This means Lunix has not yet attained acceptable levels of technical competence. This means Lunix crashes more frequently than any other server OS in extant.

Beautifully faulty reasoning.

If you're going to contradict elementary, empirically verifiable facts such as "Lunix crashes more frequently than any other server OS in extant", your further lengthily worded opinion arent worth the obfuscatory jargon its written in.

Your "fact" was empirically verified as false claim.

Accordingly, I stopped reading after the quoted bit.

Ostrich way of reasoning?

Notice I didnt even have to mention Lunix's usability defecit. I did not have to mention that Lunix is less user friendly than any other server OS in extant.

Server OS doesn't have to pander to users. If you can't afford more than a run-of-the-mill MCSEs who can't think further than the length of their mouse cable, then it could be a factor; otherwise consider any of unixoid brands instead. If you plan to run more than 1 machine, you will get reduced cost of ownership in both short and long term.

That means it is thermodynamically ineffecient, performing less work per joule of human effort than *any* other OS in extant, server or desktop.

Heh. So why I spend much more time per machine with wiping off the asses of Windows machines that apparently can't keep their configuration? Why the only problems with Linux machines I had were either related to power supply (and solved with an UPS), or to dying daemons (rare, and solved by daemonwatch)? Why most of my server problems can be solved remotely without having to waste a hour on the way to the office (another factor to consider)? The increased costs of learning the system are by far overweighted by the considerable savings on maintenance and increase in reliability.

When concerning the cost of learning a system, keep in mind that it's one-time investment, the same for one machine as for one hundred of machines. This way, an apparent loss can easily translate to a longterm gain.

The importance of this metric cannot be understimated; I remind you that computers are meant to reduce human labor. Nothing else matters.

So I run Linux (and consider learning BSD). Despite the amount of time spent learning, the per-machine labor requirements dropped dramatically at least for the servers.


 
Programmer guy again. (none / 0) (#169)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:25:37 PM PST
I'll start with the subject.

"Tips from a better programmer".
Right. And my penis is bigger. So there. "j00 st00pid Mykr0$0ft fucker, ha ha ha".
C'mon, you know that's what you'd LIKE to hear me say.

In fact, you know what? I think I'll stop right there, too. The rest of the post doesn't even amount to a real argument with real facts. For god's sake, you go into the thermodynamics of an OS, which means probably you've toyed with Linux in your time, got frustrated, and ran back home to Billy like the complete idiot you appear to be.

Some of us know how to Read the Friggen Manual.


a million thanks (none / 0) (#192)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:10:16 PM PST
probably you've toyed with Linux in your time, got frustrated, and ran back home to Billy

Repeat, I did not want to mention Lunix's usability defecit, but now that you brought it up, I find it odd that you should make my points for me. Obviously if Lunix is frustrating -- and crash prone, hard to use software is certainly frustrating -- it's not going to be worth using, is it?

I'm sorry my knowledge of computer thermodynamics scared you away. I believe your support line is ringing.


Well (none / 0) (#212)
by budlite on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 06:53:55 AM PST
I also support the idea that Linux is a good server OS, simply because it is. A friend of mine runs 3 boxes - one on Win2K, one on Linux, one on FreeBSD. The conclusion I have come to is that neither is better in general than the others, but the Linux and FreeBSD boxes did have much longer uptimes, despite the fact that they were performing just as many tasks at a given time as the Win2K box.

I also use computers at this University that dual-boot Windows 2000 and RedHat Linux 6.1. I frequently both of these OS's. Win2K crashes at least ONCE each time I use it for more than an hour at a time. Linux has NEVER crashed during the same time.

In fact, the only way I was able to crash my installation of Linux at home was by incorrectly installing an accelerated driver module for my graphics card.

The internet was built around Unix and variants of Unix. I don't think it's a coincidence that significantly larger numbers of servers run Apaches on Linux or FreeBSD than anything else.

I don't think you're thinking this through very well. What is it that drives you away from Linux? Is it the fact that it's free, and you mistakenly believe that free software is inherently poorer quality than payware? Or is it the fact that you have to think a different way in order to use it?

Personally I like Linux's way of working. It has broader support than Windows for just about anything you can think of, filesystems especially. I love being able to read my FAT32 file-store partition from both OS's, and my Windows C: drive from Linux. I like its directory structure, which while it has its problems, is somewhat cleaner than Windows', and infinitely more customisable. I especially like the way you can use absolutely ANY GUI style you like, all without having to pay a penny.

Just think about it all. Linux isn't bad. Windows isn't bad. They're just better than each other in different fields.


 
Oh yes, How stupid of me. (none / 0) (#165)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 10:29:41 AM PST
The open-source community tends to ensure that every conceivable error is trapped

It is hardly ever successful in this.

Please keep your lame attempts at humor away from adequacy.org.


Ahem. (none / 0) (#170)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:34:04 PM PST
Look, that's about two versions of the kernel ago. The good admin tends to monitor those security posts for ANY system, NT or Linux.

The difference there is, if you're a linux admin, you can most often get a kernel patch within days of a security hole's discovery. With Win2k, you usually have to wait weeks for M$ to get out a fix.

Yah, Linux has its bugs, but the great majority of them are NOT fatal. Many more of the bugs you encounter in Win2k/NT end up being deadly enough to force a reboot.


"Lunix has bugs" (5.00 / 1) (#185)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 06:52:02 PM PST
Ha, ha, I love your understated sense of humor. "Lunix has bugs" the way a Mexican whorehouse has cooties.

Look, that's about two versions of the kernel ago.

What's that in people time, 17 days? Windows2000 -- the OS, not the apps that run on it -- has had very few bugs, fyi, despite being an order of magnitude more complex and capable. Face it, Lunix is amateurish junk.


do some real research (none / 0) (#206)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 06:39:07 PM PST
Windows2000 -- the OS, not the apps that run on it -- has had very few bugs, fyi, despite being an order of magnitude more complex and capable. Face it, Lunix is amateurish junk.

Yeah, that's right. Microsoft never issued a 17MB patch (on top of all it's other patches) a few weeks back then pulled it because it didn't fix ALL the exploits. Kind of hard to patch a system if the patch isn't available. How many Service Packs are there for W2K?

Let's talk about Windows or better yet IE. Why IE? Because is so tied into everything Windows it's really part of Windows and not just another app. Should we talk about the hole in IE that allows someone to track you through Media Player? Or may take complete control of your system through MSN Messenger? It's not a problem with the apps. It's a problem with IE or Windows rather. Have you forgotten that UPnP was not XP specific? I hope pick up your copy of XP Service Pack 1 really soon.

Microsoft has got a new campaign called Trustworthy Computing. I think you should check it out.


 
Complexity feeds bugs. (none / 0) (#174)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:50:31 PM PST
The years of development caused sendmail grow to a monster with integrated everything and a kitchen sink. Who ever still has a need for ie. UUCP routing? A mess like that is a bug breeder. (Yes, the offender here is the kernel itself, and this bug is already addressed in the recent one; but programs behaving the way the bug is exploitable share the guilt.)

I am strongly in favor of more modular solutions; a perfect example of such approach is qmail.

The same applies for other popular "bugarium", BIND, which is replaceable by simpler sleeker djbdns.

A rule of thumb, apparently going unnoticed around Microsoft's developers, is that smaller simpler modules are less prone to be buggy and easier to maintain than a big all-in-one monster.


amateurs breed bugs (none / 0) (#186)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 06:56:20 PM PST
The years of development caused sendmail grow to a monster with integrated everything and a kitchen sink.

While you Lunatix were busy believing their slogans, Exchange was written with much more complexity and much fewer bugs.


Fewer bugs in Exchange? Good joke. (none / 0) (#207)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 08:16:57 PM PST
While you Lunatix were busy believing their slogans, Exchange was written with much more complexity and much fewer bugs.

If Exchange is better, then why it doesn't work reliably?

Standardizing on Exchange and Outlook[1] is begging for problems. Especially because alternative solutions exist that are faster, cheaper, and more stable, and with less security risks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, more, and this was just a side effect of searching for something other).

I don't know how you, but if I'd be responsible for a location running Windows machines on mission-critical places, I'd grow peptic ulcers in few months only from the stress coming from distrust against a closed proprietary architecture.

But despite of being open-source I don't consider sendmail good solution, at least if only because qmail is available as an alternative. Though if I'd have to select between sendmail/unixoid and Exchange/Windows, the choice would be clear anyway.

[1] Check this link. It's new Outlook/Outlook Express exploit/bug, faulty handling of UUENCODEd file headers. MS knowledgebase is linked and quoted there, suggesting really interesting solutions.


Great (none / 0) (#208)
by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 09:42:52 PM PST
It's secure, it's stable, pity it's unusable. People use exchange/outlook because it offers the best functionality with the minimum of fuss. Email's no good if people can't use it. Most people aren't nerds, so they can't grasp whatever bizarre, half-complete beta software you insist they should use. In any case, email is outdated. Everyone uses SMS these days.


Very. (none / 0) (#216)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 11:36:51 PM PST
It's secure, it's stable, pity it's unusable.

I managed to install qmail in a single night, with NO previous experiences above shell-account user level! All I needed was to be used to the commandline, plaintext configuration files, and actually reading the documentation. (Documentation that goes straight to the point, without wasting half the space on describing how to click.)

People use exchange/outlook because it offers the best functionality with the minimum of fuss.

If their admins aren't more than drag'n'droppers, or their managers are Microsofties, well, they get what they deserve. I will not allow Microsoft on a mission-critical server; if they are used to outlook express on the desktops, okay with me (not that I won't bitch, but a couple of attachment-sanitizing scripts on the servers does stellar job in keeping worms away).

Email's no good if people can't use it. Most people aren't nerds, so they can't grasp whatever bizarre, half-complete beta software you insist they should use.

Hey! For me and all my company (and all the people I moonlight for) the half-complete beta software for free works far more stable and reliable way than the half-complete beta software marketed as finished product for insane prices.

And users typically are capable of thinking. They only have to be forced to do so. Sometimes with a cat o' nine tails... My *father* was able to learn commandline tools when he had to!

In any case, email is outdated. Everyone uses SMS these days.

Yes and no. Instant messaging, both with mobile and stationary clients, is a complement to email. I personally use both in different situations. (And I have a toy to which I can through short emails by sending it a SMS, and receive email summary in form of a SMS when abroad. A short procmail recipe and few lines of code.)


 
Bright != dark (none / 0) (#166)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 11:06:26 AM PST
Computers are insentient machines and cannot be insulated from the actions of barely lucid homocidal maniacs.

Homicidal, please.

It's the GIGO principle at work and it disqualifies your anecdotal experiences from the realm of human contemplation.

Anecdotal experiences of me and just every sysadmin I ever met. Two worst annoyances in admins' lives are Windows and the users.

Computers do whatever I tell them to. (Except when powered (down) by Microsoft - then they behave in the style "I will do whatever you want, but only if you will want me to reboot consistently in the middle of startup sequence.)

Were you typing with a pistol that "accidentally" went off?

Well-designed pistols don't go off accidentally. Not even when dropped onto hard surface. There was a big affair here when all the police's handguns here turned to be prone to going off when falling on ie. the pavement. Think about it as a faulty error handling.

The only other reasonable explanation I can think of is that you were using a pirated copy of Windows2000 with criminal intent, a moral failure which MS code is purposefully designed to thwart.

It would explain the crashes that happen on my mostly illegal home LAN. It wouldn't explain *exactly* the same crashes on fully-legal office networks.

Let me be succint: there is no way to hack around the V-Chip and IP Token protocols without triggering a general protection fault.

If it exists, it can be hacked. If it exists and is widely-enough used, it is only matter of time until it gets hacked.

If you take the time to peruse Intel documentation, triggering faults in protected mode is a safety *feature* of modern processor design...

Agree. Then it is on the kernel developers to take advantage of it. Microsoft coders apparently fail miserably in both preventing the faults and then handling them.

...and professional software engineers differ from Lunatix in their ability to employ all documented chip features as well as undocumented features which are purposefully hidden from hackers for their own good, on the off chance they'll accidentally stumble upon an understanding of those features

Hey! I had my copy of leaked Pentium undocumented instructions datasheet with only few weeks delay, and I even hadn't to look for it.

(remember the cracker motto: "Computers are too hard for normal people."

A microwave oven is too hard for idi... errm... "normal people". Similar claim applies for hot coffee. See the cases of related lawsuits.

This is a clear case of Freudian projection; for how can an abnormal disgraceful lot to humanity divine the thoughts of normal people?

A couple of friends were working on helplines. They always had fresh supply of horror stories. Helpline duty is the best known cure for getting rid of illusions about humanity; the highest ever necessary dose was about a month, average being about 1-2 weeks.

Correct, they cannot, so they compensate by imputing a personal failure onto their superiors. QED, computers are too hard for crackers.)

Doesn't explain why "crackers" have negligible incidence of attempting to get a computer running without power cable, thinking a mouse is a foot pedal, or using CDROM tray as a cupholder (NOT an urban legend!!!), in contrast to your beloved "normal" people.

The bright side, of course, is that you will soon be rotting on death row, free at last from evil Billy Gates and his pernicious Mind Control OS that suggests you kill everyone who disagrees with your Lunix fantasies of world domination.

First they have to get me alive. In case of a standoff, I plan to take couple of 'em to Valhalla with me. If you want to join the ride, consider yourself invited; I heard Valkyries are pretty chicks.


it's all begining to make sense (none / 0) (#187)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:05:03 PM PST
Anecdotal experiences of me and just every sysadmin I ever met. [...] A couple of friends were working on helplines.

Ok, I think I understand our failure to communicate: some of us understand the term "computer professional". Those few persons arent you or your friends. I'll be sure to solicit your advice if I cant get printing to work and am too lazy to troubleshoot with the manual, but let's stop pretending your high tech janitorial skills compare to software engineering; if I was an idiot I'd memorize obscure command sequences, too.


Professionals (none / 0) (#195)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 10:32:20 PM PST
Ok, I think I understand our failure to communicate: some of us understand the term "computer professional".

Someone who makes living from knowing how computers work and how to make them sing how he wants to? Someone working with computers as his profession? Someone who actually knows what happens in the wires, who is capable of designing his own solution when a click-here-to-install solution is either unavailable or inferior?

Those few persons arent you or your friends.

Wanna bet?

I'll be sure to solicit your advice if I cant get printing to work and am too lazy to troubleshoot with the manual,

...for which I'll be sure to charge you appropriately as if you want to be lazy you have to be rich (...and most likely the printer ran out of the paper or toner, or someone switched it off, which is so routine it calls for at least three-digit greenback "punishment"),

but let's stop pretending your high tech janitorial skills compare to software engineering; if I was an idiot I'd memorize obscure command sequences, too.

Let's stop masking your apparent inability to grasp basic concepts of computing by trying to convince everyone around that it is an advantage.

On a side note, to quote a part of a poem from older times when users still had to know how to code...

The user writes programs which crash when they can
Not assembler code, but unstructured FORTRAN
He works all the day with a mouse in his hand
And has troubles with bitwise binary AND.


Especially the last verse nicely describes the contemporary users; way too many of them are unable even to construct more advanced search engine query - despite that "advanced" here means nothing more than just a few ANDs, ORs, and a handful of brackets.


 
On the subject of "crackers" (none / 0) (#171)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:52:25 PM PST
Right. I know that some of the newbie "hacker" fucks have this stupid illusion about "crackers" (ie: crackers do harm and hackers do not), but in the real world of hacking, "crackers" are a myth.

If you hack for knowledge, you're a hacker. If you hack to get credit cards or somesuch, chances are you've got no fucking idead what you're doing and are having a script do all your work for you (read: Script Kiddie). If you are not, in fact, a script kiddie, you are then a criminal.

Now me, I'm all for hacking. Find out as much as possible, just don't do anything illegal when you do it. Avoid unethical practices while you're at it. Hell, I even indulge in scripting now and then (my job is clerical, but I end up using Perl scripts to automate quite a few of my functions as they are, yes, functional and thus easy to have a computer do unaided). I run under Win32, but reluctantly.

I also run the Win32 ports of StarOffice, GhostScript/GSView, cURL, PHP, Perl and lcc-Win32. There isn't a thing I can't do to my work computer, even circumvent admin (direct writes to a finely calculated are of the hard-drive while the OS isn't looking can give my account administrator priveldges). This is not to say I have done this, but merely a testament to the power available to a well-informed secretary.

Does this make me a "cracker"? No. No goddamn such thing. Does it make me a criminal? Is a locksmith a criminal? How about someone who taguht himself to pick locks for no reason other than the knowledge of how to do it? No. How about a "Script Kiddie"? Nope. Script Kiddies download their scripts. I write my own.

I, dear friends, am a hacker. And, guess what. My boss couldn't love it more. I get my work done quickly enough that I have copious amounts of time to fuck about the rest of my work day. I get work done more quickly than she can give it to me. I get work done SO quickly, I have time to waste on schooling a malinformed, prejudiced, idiot-populated message-board such as, say, Adequacy.org.


hacker = cracker (none / 0) (#188)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:19:08 PM PST
Crackers are dry, unleavened wafers suitable for dipping into lo-cal cheese goop. Sorry, no sane person is interested in listening to you Lunatix weave sophistry from whole clothe. Tell it to the judge; and receive a stiffer sentence for evading personal responsibility and demonstrating an inability to demonstrate remorse.

Hackers are criminal scum, wired goons dropping LSD at the perimeter of the digital divide, communists and scofflaws who, unable to create their own intellectual property, steal the intellectual property of others.

Thanks for the official Lunatix doublespeak, but I can read and understand news copy just fine without the interference of Lunatix spin doctors.

I'm sure you're just following someone's orders.


 
uhhh, wait (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:05:30 PM PST
Microsoft doesn't have to make their operating system the way you want it. Can't you understand that? If you don't like it, use something else.

Wait. Could it be? I DO use something else. I use MacOSX, but they bitch about that. I use Linux and they bitch even more. I use an older version of Windows becaused it's patched and safe guarded (third party software) much better than any newer MS offering could eveer hope to be. Yet they still bitch.

The one way to stop them from bitching is if I become another mindless drone running the NEWEST Windows OS and ALWAYS upgrading (great licensing model there Billy), on an Intel based machine and connect to the web using AOL. What I can't use MSN?

Microsoft should make it the way I want it. It is the EverybodyOS. But wait, they just include the stupid little features that NOBODY WANTS but MS tells you that you do. Should I care if Media Player can be uniquely identified on the web? Hell NO! I hope you downloaded the patch for the probelms THAT caused. What was that slogan? THINK DIFFERENT!


You are an idiot. (none / 0) (#83)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 06:23:14 AM PST
Who bitches? Huh? You're the bitch here, cunt. Unless you're talking about your slashbot friends bitching.

Would you think--for one fucking segundo, please--what the world would be like if people had to make things the way you told them to? Just think about what kind of precedent it would set if MS was forced to include Netscape with their OS. Can you wrap your fucking head around this? You don't dictate what they sell.

If you want your OS to be exactly the way you want, all customized and shit, then use linux. If you want something that will let you browse the internet, listen to music and play multimedia without having to do too much set-up, then use windows. Or whatever--the point is that it is your choice. Just like it is MS's choice to put out whatever the fuck they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And no, I'm not an 'end-user' (by the way, I love how you geeks use that as such a deragatory term). I'm an analyst for a local government complex running a windows network. However, we do have SUN Sparcs on their own little network, and I'm the only one around here who knows enough about UNIX to do anything to them. So don't start a fucking geek tantrum with me.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Stop making me look bad. (none / 0) (#137)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:43:52 AM PST
Look, you can BE an idiot. That's fine. But for God's sake PLEASE don't mention you're from Philadelphia. Granted this city is chock full of idiots, but I'd rather not have them represent the city by posting their origin.

It is Microsoft's choice to put out whatever they want. A free market economy, however, insists that unless a company has become a monopoly, their products will be created as a response to market presssure. This is something Microsoft hasn't done for a while. Current market pressure is, (and I think most of you will agree on this) inexpensive and fast in a small package. Microsoft products, as a general rule, are exorbantly priced, slow, and a HELL of a lot larger than they need to be.

You think this is fallacy? Compare Microsoft Office to Sun Star Office:

Microsoft Office:
  1. Comes with Productivity software
  2. Is compatible with most standard formats
  3. Is 650-1300 MB, depending on which version you get
  4. an independant "Office Mark" used to time the creation of documents, recently rated it as 5380 Marks (higher is slower)
  5. Costs anywhere from $99 to $399.


Sun Star Office:
  1. Comes with productivity software
  2. Is compatible with damn near all standard formats
  3. Is appx 80MB. Period.
  4. Office Mark: 2520 on same computer, same user, performed on Win32 version. (this means faster, folks)
  5. Costs nada. You can download it right now.


So you want choice? There it is. The monopoly practise is that Microsoft continually advises against using such software, becuase, as they claim, their "tests" have shown that they may cause problems. No independant testhas been able to replicate these problems, though.. I wonder...

I am curious, however, when MS is going to start writing its OS to specifically cause problems with OpenSource software. It's only a matter of time..


DO NOT DOWNLOAD STAR OFFICE! WARNING! (none / 0) (#150)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:50:09 AM PST
Many months ago, I experimented with the "star office" program, at the behest of another earnest young supporter of free software. My first thoughts upon looking at the interface of this software were that the authors are probably either hiding in some foreign country or languishing in copyright violator's prison. The interface has been stolen completely from Microsoft's product! I was appalled!

It gets worse, of course. Ever willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a new idea, I tried to work on one of the many spreadsheets I use to coordinate my speculations in the futures market. I was able to work quite happily within this program, despite a few glitches here and there, which I assume relate to the product's "unreleased beta" status. Little did I know that the open source nazis had laid a clever trap, and its jaws were about to snap shut!

I returned to the spreadsheet after a few days, only to find that the entire spreadsheet had been destroyed. Not a single field was recoverable! I was extremely annoyed with Sun, who provided me with the "free" office program, a price which, upon careful consideration, I find to be far too dear.

Naturally, Sun was well aware of the impact that their product would have on the business of any people foolish enough to attempt to use it seriously. Having lost several months hard work in a single afternoon (not to mention hard-earned money), I contacted Sun's customer service department with the intention of collecting upon Sun's warranty. I was informed that the product which had destroyed my spreadsheet came without any warranty of any sort! Sun had cost me weeks of time, and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (these losses, you'll be glad to hear, I was able to avert) and they were going to get off scott free.

I must strenuously warn all readers not to make the same mistake I made. Trusted software like Microsoft Office is trusted for a reason: It is guaranteed not to cost you any more than the price you paid for it. The same cannot be said of so-called "free" software.


Point taken, point given. (none / 0) (#153)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:46:10 AM PST
Ok, I'll give you that Star Office's compatibility with existing documents is a teency bit glitchy (about 5% of my documents, like a page or so, come out formatted worng).

But destroyed? Baka. You allowed it to save as it's "default" staroffice format, giving it the extension .xls. I've done this before, and it took me about five minutes to realize what I had done wrong (I've had this problem with Paint Shop Pro, saving an image under the default .psp format, but naming it .jpg). I renamed the file, and it opened back up just fine, then I saved it to .xls.

Just like anything, if something goes wrong, its not wise to immediately assume it's the software's fault and think about the problem first.


 
obnviously you are an idiot (none / 0) (#175)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:28:41 PM PST
Let's see, you downloaded BETA software and it messed up? Ever wonder why there is no warranty? Next time opt to become a beta tester for Microsoft. When the same thing happens with their beta software, what do you think they will say? I give you a hint. THE SAME DAMNED THING.

You sir are an idiot.


I am rubber, you are glue (none / 0) (#180)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 05:54:13 PM PST
You zealots are always demanding that we all use this free software, for its supposedly superior quality. When the chips are down, however, it seems I'm an idiot for using it, because I should have known, despite your constant cajoling, that it simply would not work. Well, well, well.


well known (none / 0) (#181)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 06:26:44 PM PST
It's a well known fact that there are usually issues with beta software. That's why most companies post a notice before you download it. It's really just there for stupid people.


ahem (none / 0) (#189)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:27:11 PM PST
It's a well known fact that there are usually issues with beta software.

It is well known that Lunix and Lunix apps are perpetually beta if not alpha. Thanks for the quick admission, comrade. Normally, getting you Lunatix to admit defeat is like squeezing blood from a stone.

Incidentally, Lunix wouldnt be in perpetual beta if it wasnt consumed with copying yesterday's Windows functionality. See, time flows, Windows gets better and better, and yesterday never catches up with today. In 10 years, Lunix will be as useful as Windows95.


Alpha, Beta... (none / 0) (#194)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:57:26 PM PST
It is well known that Lunix and Lunix apps are perpetually beta if not alpha.

Microsoft isn't any better. They just misstate their software status by a step; Microsoft Beta is real Alpha, and Microsoft Final is in fact just a beta. Whatever it is, they tend to not manage to do it more than very partially right until Release 2.

How otherwise you could explain the perpetual showers of servicepacks?

Linux versioning is at least more conservative. Plus, many cases of "betaness" are just alibism of the coders, while the code itself is already stable - which is fairly common when the commercial pressures to maintain "appearance" aren't there.


 
What's wrong with Star Office? (none / 0) (#223)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 10:08:28 PM PST
I've used SO for several months now. I've successfully used its word processor and spreadsheet program with no trouble. I've had a bit of trouble with the database, but I expect it's because my copy was Beta. Don't you make backups?


 
you're like a wind up toy (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:21:55 AM PST
Having to cope with the brain-deadness of Microsoft ...ahem... products

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have to be blind stupid or an outright masochist to prefer Lunix half-finished crap to MS software. There isnt a damn thing running on Linux that doesnt run better on Windows. And another thing. Where reasonable people evaluate software according to engineering criteria, you cant seem to stop vomiting political slogans.

I honestly suspect you know nothing about computers that a keen amateur with a boring life and access to the internet cannot learn in a month. You have to be the most unsophisticated Lunix goon imaginable to make the kind of absolute statements you're fond of repeating. You're nothing but a personification of slashdot.

Remember - by sending me a document in proprietary file format, or forcing me to communicate in proprietary protocol, you are infringing on my freedom and I will defend myself - legally or not.

Defend yourself from what? The only thing people need to communicate to you is orders for more coffee. How much longer must we suffer your inflated, unwarranted opinion of self? You're quite clearly, certifiably insane.


Just wound up after last week. (none / 0) (#53)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:44:59 AM PST
You have to be blind stupid or an outright masochist to prefer Lunix half-finished crap to MS software.

No. I am just not lazy to read manuals. And I am not blind stupid to believe that Windows crap isn't half-finished too; Linux at least *admits* it. (Windows NT SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4...)

And tell me about a piece of software that is finished - except the core of TeX?

There isnt a damn thing running on Linux that doesnt run better on Windows.

Whatever it is - DHCP, SMTP/POP3/IMAP, fileserver, nameserver... - whatever mission-critical service it is, Linux (and all other unixoids as well) runs in circles around Windows. The only thing missing is truecolor icons. Who needs them - if the configfiles are sane (which they usually are) - they have enough of comments to explain what option has what meaning. Tell me a service, and I will advise you to not run it on Windows, and sometimes even add some horror stories - I had to admin both, and after phasing the most critical services from NT to Linux I am much happier. Qmail, squid, djbdns... what more can an admin wish for? (Maybe clueful users...)

And another thing. Where reasonable people evaluate software according to engineering criteria, you cant seem to stop vomiting political slogans.

What political slogans? Mere experience. And as you talk about vomiting - I feel about that way when I have to work more intimately with your beloved windowed mouse-controlled darling. Moving machine from one office to another, tell it that there is not a domain anymore but that the network is a workgroup instead, and finding that as a result it lost all user-related settings. (Applies both to Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000.) Without any warning! Attempt to reset it back failed because there was no domain server there. I had to create new user and reimport mailboxes, essentially to develop a recovery process from scratch. And this is called advanced technology. BAH!

I honestly suspect you know nothing about computers that a keen amateur with a boring life and access to the internet cannot learn in a month.

Heh. So why I have a stable, well-paid job, and job offers from places like San Jose? Or is there so few of keen amateurs?

With Windows, your life is never boring. If you don't count the time wasted while babysitting reinstalls. But, frankly, I don't like this kind of thrill...

You have to be the most unsophisticated Lunix goon imaginable to make the kind of absolute statements you're fond of repeating.

I am just a very pissed techie who seen both how the things could be done and how they are done and who became disgusted with the difference.

You're nothing but a personification of slashdot.

Heh. If I'd at least read them more than scarcely.

Defend yourself from what?

Idiocy? Unnecessary hassle? Problems that shouldn't exist?

The only thing people need to communicate to you is orders for more coffee.

At this moment, *I* am the one who puts orders for more coffee - double sugar, please - and who, when on-site, gets them fulfilled immediately.

How much longer must we suffer your inflated, unwarranted opinion of self?

Don't know. Don't care. Most likely until the machines will do what they are asked to, or until I'll finally get that stroke my heart is promising me, whichever comes sooner.

You're quite clearly, certifiably insane.

I am a diagnosed psychopath. So I can afford to tell the truth.


 
haha (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:43:20 AM PST
Nobody has ever successfully sued Microsoft (as all reasonable people spell it). This is because there are simply no valid grievances against the operation system giant. No matter who sues MS, their case will be dismissed in short order.

Gary Kildall
MS knowingly purchased QDOS (and renamed it MSDOS) which its developer had used code licensed to his company (not him specifically).--MS settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money


STAC
STAC Electronics developed a hard-disk compression scheme that allowed PCs to store 1.5 to 2.5 as much data on a hard drive. Even today, this would be quite useful for notebook PCs and embedded systems.
However, Microsoft copied this code and embedded it into MSDOS 6.0 as "DoubleSpace." Microsoft was found liable in civil court and later paid $83 million in damages, according to reports on the case. More on that here

Sun Microsystems
Here's that story
MS settled and paid Sun $20 million dollars

Shall I continue? I can compile a list that would run a couple of megs if you like.

Next time do your research.


you're wrong, NALW, as per usual (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:45:33 AM PST
Gary Kildall didnt write QDOS, you twit, and obviously if you dont know the history of Microsoft, you dont know the history of computing. The two are synonymous, see?

Shall I continue?

Yes please, I have a spot of insomia.


oh man (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 11:47:54 AM PST
Gary Kildall didnt write QDOS, you twit, and obviously if you dont know the history of Microsoft, you dont know the history of computing.

No kidding. I believe the post you are referring to went like this--

MS knowingly purchased QDOS (and renamed it MSDOS) which its developer had used code licensed to his company (not him specifically)

Gary Kildall's company, Digital Research, developed the OS (CP/M). Seattle Computer originally sold it. Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products developed his own operating system, called 86-QDOS (as CP/M-86 would not be available since the latest version was released before the releases of the 8086 processor). QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) was written in only 2 months time.

Here's the problem. Compare QDOS with Linux. Linux is an OS that was written to work like Unix (well actually Minix and add functionality). It was written using none of the officially licensed Unix code. Tim Paterson claimed this is what he did.

The simple truth is, is that SCP had CP/M and was to be contracted to sell CP/M-86 in the future. Much of the QDOS core was actually code taken from CP/M. The rest was backwards engineered. Basically QDOS was different enough that the legality of it was blurred.

Many people like to site that CP/M was a blatant rip off of this or that. The truth is, is that all desktop OSes at the time were designed in some way to work like their bigger brothers (for familiarity). CP/M was also written in PL/M which was a language Kildall had also developed. Intel bought rights to it shortly afterwards but not CP/M. Well at least it was that way. Windows had QDOS (which they renamed MSDOS). Windows looked too much like MacOS (don't forget that Apple had a GUI before that on the Lisa computers). Windows 95 also looked surprisingly similar to OS/2 Warp (which wound up being released before Win95 when MS delayed it). As many concepts of the GUI were not actually developed by MS (including things like the TaskBar), KDE and GNOME users can rightfully claim familiarty and not copying.

Also Apple too successfully sued MS as well. MS also settled with Apple later. It would not be a total wipe as it had hope. Apple only meant to shut up while MS was porting their software to the Mac. The five year deal ends this August. If MS pulls out without warning Apple will raise hell about it.

1985
Sculley (then the defacto head of Apple) became locked in a battle with Microsoft's Bill Gates over the introduction of Windows 1.0, which had many similarities to the Mac GUI. Gates finally agreed to sign a statement to the effect that Microsoft would not use Mac technology in Windows 1.0--it said nothing of future versions of Windows, and Gates' lawyers made sure it was airtight. Apple had effectively lost exclusive rights to its interface design. This would prove to be an important document in future lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft, involving the Windows interface.
1997
Jobs, who by now was being referred to as "interim CEO," made the keynote speech, and spoke of the company's upcoming aggressive advertising campaign, upcoming new Macs, and Rhapsody. He also announced an almost entirely new Board of Directors, including Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle. But he saved the best for last. In a ground breaking decision, Jobs announced an alliance with Microsoft. In exchange for $150 million in Apple Stock, Microsoft and Apple would have a 5-year patent cross-license and, more importantly, a final settlement in the ongoing GUI argument. Microsoft agreed to pay an unreleased sum of additional funds to quiet the allegations that it had stolen Apple's intellectual property in designing its Windows OS. Microsoft also announced that Office '98, its popular office package, would be available for the Mac by years end.



good resource (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:38:41 PM PST
Here is a link to an OS/2 Warp site.

It offers a tour and explanantion (plus screenshots) of the desktop and features.

http://www.contact.net/os2/TOUR/

It's amazing how much OS/2 looks like Windows and OS/2 was released first.


 
World War Three (none / 0) (#140)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:58:31 AM PST
Nice to know that WW3 is going to be faught by corporations in courtrooms. Makes the threat of shrapnel all the less worrysome. Besides, hopefully we can watch as the major players and offenders (Microsoft, AOL-Time-Warner, etc) slowly murder each other and make lawyers rich.


 
May I suggest relocating to China? (none / 0) (#22)
by CommunistPartyAnimal on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:06:35 AM PST
You won't come across this kind of disloyal whining amongst the working class in my beloved People's Republic of China. I have nothing against the Official Church, however the employees cited in this article have clearly been corrupted by the papacy. I urge AMD to relocate their wafer foundries to a state where labor is less expensive and more aware of employer rights.


Lemmings (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:22:03 PM PST
You, sir, are a lemming.

Off you go! Over the cliff! Just follow that smelly bottom in front of your nose...


 
As said before (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:13:11 AM PST
Amazingly enough, AMD doesn't sell motherboards.

Furthermore, a child in a third world country can't construct a chip with more than 10 million transistors in it. Also, try making circuits on a motherboard with a piece of scrapmetal cut from something. You will utterly fail. This is actually a process of production that requires a laboratory, dust-free environment and so on. This could not be done in the way you describe, no matter the skill of the people trying it. AMD processors are hotter than Intel, true, but with the recommended cooling they hold together just as good. Take an Pentium 3 for example. At 39 degrees C of heat, it hangs. The corresponding AMD model hangs at about 90 degrees C. Also, AMD Thunderbird beats Pentium-4 in almost every benchmark there is. Face it, everything made in America is not the best there is, just because it's made there. Some things made in taiwan, japan, china and so on are often better (and cheaper). I would very much hesitate myself if I was to buy an electrical component with "Made in the USA" on it. And Reginald, that's operatING system you're looking for. Please know what you're talking about before posting.

Btw, you don't glue chips to motherboards. They're soldered on. There's no use for glue in the production process. There are no Pentium PRO's at 1 Ghz. There are none over 200 Mhz. And AMDs chips run at 1,8 Ghz at most. But since they are more efficient, they get more done per clockcycle. AMD chips don't come overclocked. In fact AMD has a protection A previous poster claimed that Linux is illegal. This is incorrect, check for yourselves. Linux comes originally from a system called Minix, which was developed from Unix by Linus Torvalds, and Unix was created by Bell Labs. And we all know where Bell Labs are based, that's right, the US. Unix has been around since the later 60s. Windows didn't become at all popular until the later 80s.

This article is just a huge lie. It's like saying a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747 perfectly. That's how big the chances are that someone could make a chip under the conditions you describe. Any engineer reading this would laugh his ass off.

/anonymous


Legal status of Linux (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Yossarian on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:38:55 AM PST
Just to address one of your points:

Go to the patent archive at www.delphion.com. Do a search for "unix". This will bring up a list of all patents related to the UNIX operating system, many of which Linux illegally infringes upon.

For example this patent is clearly infringed upon by many of the automatic update systems available for Linux. Linux's internet "masquerading" support (which allows hackers to pretend to have a different Internet address, so the FBI can't trace them) is stolen from this patent.
From these examples, it should be clear to all but the most fanatical of Linux zealots that Linux is an illegal operating system that is based on the pirated patents and intellectual property of honest American companies.


Nope (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:23:13 AM PST
Go to the patent archive at www.delphion.com. Do a search for "unix". This will bring up a list of all patents related to the UNIX operating system, many of which Linux illegally infringes upon.

All of Linux is open source and no patents are being infringed upon, end of story. If there had been a patent infringement it would not have been allowed to be spread by companies such as Red Hat, Slackware, SuSE and so on... Unix is not really an operating system, it's more like a whole family of operating systems, sharing some common elements.

For example this patent is clearly infringed upon by many of the automatic update systems available for Linux. Linux's internet "masquerading" support (which allows hackers to pretend to have a different Internet address, so the FBI can't trace them) is stolen from this patent.


What automatic update systems are you referring to? Internet masquerading is more commonly used for building routers, allowing families to share a single internet connection among several computers, than for the reasons you seek to make us believe. Also, it's not called IP Masquerading, it's called "spoofing", which is illegal to do. It's very possible though, because of the nature of implementation with which the TCP and UDP protocols were implemented. There are both windows and linux versions of programs to accomplish this.

From these examples, it should be clear to all but the most fanatical of Linux zealots that Linux is an illegal operating system that is based on the pirated patents and intellectual property of honest American companies.

Nope, sorry, you're gonna have to be a bit clearer on what parts of linux are infringing on what patents and explain why the companies that hold the original patents haven't sued yet. Especially since the patent you mention is from 1997. Besides, you should see the possibilities in ip masquerading and not just the negative parts of it which were already possible long before it was implemented into the linux kernel.

/anonymous


a good source (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:49:48 AM PST
Try this source. Now what?


 
Patents (none / 0) (#33)
by Yossarian on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:21:36 AM PST
What automatic update systems are you referring to?
I believe the Debian Linux distribution contains a tool called "apt-get" which automatically updates software when a security bug is discovered. A clear infringement of this patent.

On the subject of the Internet protocol filter patent, Linux includes a feature which implements the exact same functionality under the name of "IP masquerading". (Probably renamed as a crude attempt at legal obfuscation of their patent theft.)

As to why the companies involved have not sued, I don't know. Perhaps they have been intimidated by threats from hackers. Perhaps the damages they would be able to recover from a bunch of penniless underground hackers would not cover their legal costs.


Nitpick (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:08:47 AM PST
I believe the Debian Linux distribution contains a tool called "apt-get" which automatically updates software when a security bug is discovered. A clear infringement of this patent.

You have mistaken "apt-get" (which is not "automatic") with "Windows Update" (which is). Please direct all further anti-American rhetoric towards Microsoft.


Automatic updates... (none / 0) (#40)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:48:26 AM PST
I once cooked overnight an automatic update system, based on cron and cvs. Does it mean that I infringe on a patent and should pay royalties, even if I never heard about the patent before?


We are not lawyers. (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:32:10 AM PST
I once cooked overnight an automatic update system, based on cron and cvs. Does it mean that I infringe on a patent and should pay royalties, even if I never heard about the patent before?

Well, in the case of this stated patent, no. The given patent claims are for automatic updates which take place only when security vulnerabilities are discovered. So, an auto-update which launches in reaction to the time of day is not claimed of this patent.

In general, though, if you discover you are infringing on a patent, you should contact the patent holder and request a license to use that patent. The patent holder can deny you a license, license it to you for free, license it to you for a fixed fee, license it to you in return for royalties, etc. If you choose not to license the patent you infringe, the patent holder can choose to file a lawsuit against you in a civil court.


 
Stop stealing cable service (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:09:06 AM PST
What automatic update systems are you referring to? Internet masquerading is more commonly used for building routers, allowing families to share a single internet connection among several computers, than for the reasons you seek to make us believe. Also, it's not called IP Masquerading, it's called "spoofing", which is illegal to do. It's very possible though, because of the nature of implementation with which the TCP and UDP protocols were implemented. There are both windows and linux versions of programs to accomplish this.

If you look at your Acceptable Use Policy when you get your cable modem, it will clearly state that only ONE computer may be connected to the cable modem at all times. Now, I know that you Linux hackers like to circumvent such measures so you can hook up 30 or so computers behind your illegal protocol. "IP Masquerading", or "NAT" as Linux hackers call it, is one such way to circumvent this measure. NAT stands for "Network-Aided Terrorism", which only incriminates Linux users further.

Honest cable companies are losing money to hackers like you. You can usually get a second IP address for only $5 more and compensate the cable companies for their hard work in providing you with near-T1 speeds. Or would you like to sink the economy even further like the terrorists tried to?

You make me sick. It's leechers like you that slow down the Internet for the rest of us doing legitimate research and downloading General Conference talks

As for the original article, this is CLEAR PROOF that AMD exploits third-world sweatshops in Malaysia to produce their illegal hacker CPUs.


Oh please. (1.00 / 1) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 11:57:02 AM PST
<b>If you look at your Acceptable Use Policy when you get your cable modem, it will clearly state that only ONE computer may be connected to the cable modem at all times. Now, I know that you Linux hackers like to circumvent such measures so you can hook up 30 or so computers behind your illegal protocol. "IP Masquerading", or "NAT" as Linux hackers call it, is one such way to circumvent this measure. NAT stands for "Network-Aided Terrorism", which only incriminates Linux users further.
<br><br>
Honest cable companies are losing money to hackers like you. You can usually get a second IP address for only $5 more and compensate the cable companies for their hard work in providing you with near-T1 speeds. Or would you like to sink the economy even further like the terrorists tried to?
<br><br>
You make me sick. It's leechers like you that slow down the Internet for the rest of us doing legitimate research and downloading General Conference talks
<br><br>
As for the original article, this is CLEAR PROOF that AMD exploits third-world sweatshops in Malaysia to produce their illegal hacker CPUs.
</b>
<br><br>
More than one computer is never hooked up to the cable modem, therefore were following the policy. We don't get any more traffic or put any more load on the cable companies than we would with one computer. NAT does not stand for Network-Aided Terrorism. I'm not even gonna comment any more on that. Do some research before you make claims like that.
<br><br>
Why is AMD CPUs "illegal hacker CPUs"? Explain yourself and provide sources for these explanations. Articles on Adequacy.org does NOT count. I want a scientific source.<br><br>/anonymous


Honestly (1.00 / 1) (#62)
by Khas on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 01:55:06 PM PST
This article is such bs that I want the 15 seconds back it took to read it.

Do you really think, that if an 8 year old had the parts and the equipment, he could make a Processor?

If you do that's pretty sad.

Perhaps if children were just OPERATING machinery that makes Processors, this story would be believable. And the fact that you post almost every day while being in Malaysia, with no talk about your "special investigative report," is an even bigger pile of bs than the article itself.

Since most of the people here seem to think that they are the lords of creation and anything that spews from the dark pits that they call minds must be right, I must laugh uncontrollably every time I read a post by T Reginald Gibbons, jsm, and several others.

Reginald, you insult parents who don't agree with what you do, calling them "horrible fathers" among other things, when you have never met them before just shows your immaturity. Instead of countering with the reasons you stated in your post of why your children wouldn't be going to college, you shot back with a personal insult.

jsm, you're better but not by much. In your story about the WTC attacks, you say "Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own." While I agree that "scoring points" through partisan bickering is not the answer, the fact that people have other political views than you does not mean that you are right and they are wrong, or that they are right and you are wrong. Its just yours, and their, opinion, not right or wrong in any way unless it leads to the harm of a living, sentient being in the real world.

Honestly, this is comical. Grow up and learn that apples are different from oranges, and that just because someone RESPECTFULLY disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are horrible people. If they start going "You dumb motherf*cker, what an idiotic S.O.B. you are" then they are obviously too immature to convey their thoughts in an intelligent manner, but that doesn't mean you have to say "This obviously proves that you are an idiot and not worthy of my attention."

Hitler said the same thing, but it was more like "We must kill all the Jews and subhumans to purify the Aryan Race!" Hitler's way of "ignoring" non-white non-Christians was tossing them into the Gas Chamber or putting them up against a wall with a firing squad behind.



 
Ummm , (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 09:46:49 AM PST
So you are saying Linux users are tho only ones using types of internet sharing online? So the built in functions of Internet sharing that all Microsoft OS's have had since Win98se, do not exist?


 
ROFL (none / 0) (#142)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:07:33 AM PST
You've got to be kidding!!! NAT stands for "Network Address Translation", and is the WINDOWS term for IP Masquerading. Now, I for example, have no computers dircetly hooked up to my DSL modem. It's a Linksys 4-port DSL router. So there.


ROFL? (none / 0) (#157)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:47:19 AM PST
Can you repost your comment, embedding the punchline within italics? (You can do this using <i> and </i> HTML tags. I hope you read this comment NAWL; screaming at us isnt as convincing as being correct).

Thanks, I realize computer arcana is often as difficult as it is utterly boring.


 
Even if, who cares??? (none / 0) (#38)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:24:22 AM PST
Surely not me. The legal status of my systems is the least of pains I have - if I can pick between reliability and legality, I will go after reliability every day.

Better to have quiet life as a criminal than being hunted down with angry phonecalls.

Plus, after checking - just for fun - if a piece of code I wrote overnight from scratch by chance doen't infringe on a patent I found that it does, and stopped further search when I found it's more than half a dozen ones, I decided to not worry about something so unimportant as patent infringements; when even displaying multiple strings or syntax colorizing are patented, you have either the choice to shut up and do nothing, or to - oh, gods forbid - infringe.

Who the hell cares??? It works and it's what ultimately matters!!!


The Mad Scientist is a known criminal, kids. (none / 0) (#67)
by elenchos on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 03:48:00 PM PST
Please keep that in mind when reading this man's posts. He cares nothing for the law and protected by the KGB from his base inside the former Soviet Union, he thinks he has nothing to fear from it.

But before anyone thinks they should follow the Mad Scientist in his wicked schemes, just wait. The spirit of justice is loose in the world, and will bring evil to justice no matter where it hides. Your reward for your evil hacking is coming soon, you terrorist! Very soon. I can taste it...


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Crime pays! (none / 0) (#71)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 04:56:24 PM PST
He cares nothing for the law and protected by the KGB from his base inside the former Soviet Union, he thinks he has nothing to fear from it.

Not exactly the Soviet Union, but from behind the Iron Curtain anyway.

But before anyone thinks they should follow the Mad Scientist in his wicked schemes, just wait.

Indeed. At least I will have less competition.

Though on a second thought, an apprentice could be handy; I recently have to turn down gigs because of lack of time. Someone who would do the simpler ones could be useful.

The spirit of justice is loose in the world,

So loose it rattles when you shake it.

and will bring evil to justice no matter where it hides.

Boo hoo I am so afraid!

In the worst case, I'll get taxpayer-funded vacation without having to be permanently on the phone. The plan for such event is to do some serious study I don't have time for now; some math, some higher physics. In case of longer vacation, maybe even to get a degree in 'em.

Your reward for your evil hacking is coming soon, you terrorist!

It already comes, as a good paycheck each month. And the various benefits from the moonlight jobs - premium access to insider-only informations, some cash, long-term equipment loans (ie, a 4-channel 'scope), hands-on experience with various cool toys (a demo of bug detection equipment is scheduled to tomorrow and I am invited), guesting in radio talk shows as a hacker and/or a security expert... And lots and lots of experience points!

In my case, crime pays. :)

Very soon. I can taste it...

It's that cheap wine. Glycol leaves an aftertaste.


 
why not (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 07:55:59 PM PST
Why don't you check the logs then elenchos? There you will find his IP address and what browser he is using on what OS. Then trace the IP address using say NeoTrace for Windows. It inlcudes prett maps. That is unless you believe that IP Token bullshit.


Proxies! (none / 0) (#79)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 01:26:43 AM PST
All he'd get is the IP of a proxy and faked user agent.

I wrote a software - GNU/GPL, based on Internet Junkbuster - that is capable of rewriting browser requests, and selectively - up to the level of individual URLs - allow/deny/fake cookies, route through different proxy (perfect for linking with Multiproxy when you seek anonymity), even completely rewrite the request headers, and selectively log complete transactions. As added benefit, it filters out the advertisements. (Hey - make ads that will not blink and "yell" at me from the page, and I will not bother filtering them out. Advertisements are now a sort of visual industrial pollution.) Originally intended as just a lab tool, to test something other, but then it gone wild...

Routing the request away is as easy as writing
^adequacy.org ##GWAY:MPROXY
^adequacy.org ##UAGENT:Generic browser

...which routes the request through Multiproxy (its parameters are defined elsewhere) and rewrites the user-agent to "Generic Browser".

The proxy also can (and does) insert arbitrary files before and after a text/html file it receives; I use it to insert javascripts with added functionality - disabling window.open handle until the page is fully loaded (which kills popups), disabling onunload() handler (which kills another sort of popups), shows a little icon at the rightmost top of the page with advanced functions - returned server headers, cookies (including cookie editor), page menu that links to web-based services like traceroute and whois, converting the whole page to black-on-white (as some "designers" think ie. magenta on green is good idea), and basically any feature I please. I want it, I write it. Open source.

More features in progress, it is still only a beta version.

Resistance is futile.
Capacitance too.


Why are you telling us this ? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by dmg on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:08:18 AM PST
I wrote a software - GNU/GPL, based on Internet Junkbuster - that is capable of rewriting browser requests, and selectively - up to the level of individual URLs - allow/deny/fake cookies, route through different proxy (perfect for linking with Multiproxy when you seek anonymity), even completely rewrite the request headers, and selectively log complete transactions.

Adequacy.org readers are not hackers, skr1p7 k1dd135, terrorists, pornographers or criminals. Why on Earth would they want to 'fake cookies' to use your impenetrable hacker jargon ?

I suggest you take your illegal information somewhere where it will be appreciated.

I hope you never feel the need to insult our readership like this again.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Maybe a soul or two... (none / 0) (#123)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 04:35:07 PM PST
...who could be interested.

Why on Earth would they want to 'fake cookies' to use your impenetrable hacker jargon?

Testing of their own software. Enforcing their anonymity or pseudonymity. Enforcing their privacy. What-if analyses of third-party servers. Generally taking back at least part of the control that the Corporations seized. Hey - I am not a tactician, I am just a gunsmith. I just design toys...

I suggest you take your illegal information somewhere where it will be appreciated.

In progress!

I hope you never feel the need to insult our readership like this again.

You show them a toy and they start to run around, all mad. So kawaii to watch! :)


 
Oooh, wow. (none / 0) (#143)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 01:18:25 AM PST
Yay! A ref to 2600!

Let's here some nasty propaganda about 2600, shall we?? Please?


 
Thanks for the tip. (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:06:53 AM PST
You look like you need a little help. This article should do the trick.


 
gee thanks (2.50 / 2) (#126)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 08:02:35 PM PST
Wow, what an amazing comment! If it wasn't for you, I never would have realised this story wasn't totally factual! All that stuff about making motherboards out of glue and old pepsi cans sure had me fooled! Wow, what a genius you are to work out that it was all lies. Amazing. How did you do it? You must have some pretty in-depth technical knowledge to see through all the cunning and convincing deceptions in this article. I sure wish I was as clever as you..... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....


 
Industrialising societies (none / 0) (#35)
by piloti on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:43:16 AM PST
Are built on the back of sweated labour usually of women and children. It's a stage that all modern societies go through. Us fortunates in the west had our stage of this 100-150 years ago. Remember the 'dark, satanic mills' etc.

You can't stand in the way of progress and you need to break a few eggs to reach ther omlette of utopia that is our western world. I salute AMD by bringing the moden world to fortunate inhabitants of the Philipines.


 
Although it's evil... (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:49:06 AM PST
RonaldG here.. can't log in for some reason...

AMD may indeed be maiming young children, but I cannot argue with there price... An AMD processor and a fresh copy of Lunix and I have all the power I need to DOS those self-proclaimed "american" chip manufacturers with my homemade Flash viruses. In Intel's defense, on my first system the price differential was negligible because I was unexperienced, and Lunix destoyed my hard drive. Now after several years of hacking (since I was a young teenager), however, I learned how to handle such a system. Also, I plan to make the move from AOL to an unrestricted ISP in coming weeks.

But back to the real point... Is it really fair to criticize AMD for making the effort to maximize it's market share by any means neccesary? After all, they're not exploiting American workers. If anything, they are merely increasing out freedoms by providing access to powerful hacking functions (which may not always be used for evil) that American chips spcifically limit. I'm sure some of you must see things my way...

-Ron



 
what a load of crap (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 01:49:57 PM PST
It is a well known fact that intel is actually the company that treats its workers like crap, in fact there is a whole site dedicated to it, and AMD employees actually get well paid and respected. Also, you need stringent, sterile rooms to manufacture chips in, not some 3rd world labour concentration camp. This kinda crap is obviously by somebody who doesnt like AMD or is making a silly joke for whatever reason. Geez...what a load of bullshit


 
what the hell is this site and story? (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 01:55:37 PM PST
honestly, how can anybody with even the slightest amount of intelligence believe this crap....I mean, AMD dont even make SDRAM, they dont make motherboards..what the hell is a pentium pro running at 1ghz?..what about the conditions used to make chips?.....obviously whoever made up the propaganda has about as much intelligence as a plank of wood. What a chopper


 
do some real research will ya. (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 06:04:37 AM PST
this is BS, its pretty clear that the author has no idea of what is involved in mass manufacturing chips


 
i have an amd and i'm proud of it (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 06:53:20 AM PST
this is my first article on adequacy.org, and it will be my last. whether it was sentences that didn't make sense, "when the SDRAM market requires it," to fantastic exposes by Gordon Moore, current Chairman Emeritus of AMD's chief rival, Intel, this is sub-par "reporting." For Intel to say AMD is making a inferior product is ridiculous. Intel, and apparently adequacy.org, are jealous and wary of AMD's rising market share and will resort to slander in a vain attempt to stop it.


 
AMD rocks. (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 07:21:54 AM PST
I own 2 machines with AMD chips. I couldn't be happier with what I just read in this article. Of course we all know that sweatshops produce the best products (Nike, Cathy Lee, Regis...). I say more power to them. AMD has figured out a way to bring us quality products at rock bottom prices, isn't that what the consumer wants?

SUPPORT SWEATSHOPS! BUY AMD!

Buy some Nikes and a Regis monochrome suit while you're at it too.


 
fer crying out loud (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 07:55:01 AM PST
who writes this tripe? I can forgive someone for believing it if they are honestly stupid or have never seen an actual 'fab' --which stands for Fabrication Facility-- (no cluse what the hell this author was talking about).

The author must have left out the third hut that acted like a power plant for these other 'Fab' huts, since enough power is required in a Fab to light a small city. There were probably children running in hamster-style wheels to provide all of this power.

the manufacture of semiconductors is a meticulous, precise process and there is no way that enough chips to supply the world with could be fashioned within a 'hut'. The idea is so perverse it is damnear insulting.


 
Chip engraving awl (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 08:24:08 AM PST
Oh, yeah, I forgot that you can "carve" a 180nm line with an awl. I especially like the part about the guy inheriting the carving tools from his father.

The dust is a good touch too. Do you know how pure silicon needs to be to produce wafers? Any impurities in it will disrupt the microcrystalline structure.

The part about scratching the awl across 20 wafers is good too. The chips won't come back from the consumers because they're tested after the wafer is cut and the dies are packaged.

I think adequacy.org got pimped.



 
idots (none / 0) (#92)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 09:49:57 AM PST
AMD basically make chips which are about four years behind our technology here in the USA, like 200KHZ Pentiums,

umm...200khz? I think the EDSAC 1 had more processign power then that....

but then they 'overclock' them, which is kind of like turning the dial back on a car, and sell them over here as 1GhZ Pentium Pros

Pentium Pros are no longer being made as of about 5 years ago now, they never got any faster then aroun 250mhz either, and i belive amd sells their chips as AMD PROCCESSERS, not pentium pros....

This artical is great to get a laugh in, but anybody with anykind of knowledge of a computer will know the truth. For those who don't, do this. Open up your computer....look at the thing with a big fan on it sort of near the top of the motherboard....that is your proccesser....that 1.5"x1.5" thing.... can you put over 43 MILLION things on their with your hands? Touch it (and you'll get burned) does it look like thats made of glue? wouldn't glue melt at that heat? check your resources before you even belive this shit


Ok, I'm confused... (none / 0) (#155)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:02:37 AM PST
Right.. if AMDs are four-year old technology, then why are the heat tolerances so much higher, why do they perform out-and-out better than Intel chips that run at higher clock frequencies, and why exactly do they tend to run quite a bit cooler?

I mean, if you want REAL OBJECTIVE comparisons, just surf over to <a href="http://www.hardocp.com">[H]ard OCP</a> to see benchmarks on the latest stuff.

Oh, I know what the standard reply to such a link is: "They're hackers and criminals".

Right. Look, show me one event, one tiny smidgen of evidence of anything commonly touted as "illegal" on this site where the "offenders" have actually been prosecuted, or even brought to trial. Hell, even on citing of an "offender" having been reported to some Law Enforcement Agency.

And I don't mean a link to some stupid amazon book site link to purchase a book that doesn't even exist, either. I mean like a news report or something.


Here you go! (none / 0) (#179)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 05:45:52 PM PST
Hacking


 
Better be a criminal than an idiot. (none / 0) (#183)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 06:39:52 PM PST
Right.. if AMDs are four-year old technology, then why are the heat tolerances so much higher, why do they perform out-and-out better than Intel chips that run at higher clock frequencies, and why exactly do they tend to run quite a bit cooler?

Because they combine borrowing ideas from Intel with their own research, thus getting better overall results? Because Intel focuses on reaching higher clock speeds, because users are easy to be brainwashed to thinking that higher clock equals automatically higher speed?

I wouldn't be sure about running cooler - my Thunderbird is a pretty heater - but this could get better in future versions, together with overheat protection.

I mean, if you want REAL OBJECTIVE comparisons, just surf over to [H]ard OCP to see benchmarks on the latest stuff.

Way to go!

Oh, I know what the standard reply to such a link is: "They're hackers and criminals".

Hey - better a hacker and a criminal than a "normal" (read: stupid) person!

Right. Look, show me one event, one tiny smidgen of evidence of anything commonly touted as "illegal" on this site where the "offenders" have actually been prosecuted, or even brought to trial. Hell, even on citing of an "offender" having been reported to some Law Enforcement Agency.

Filthy Bunch of Ignorants couldn't find their own posteriors in the noon with Maglites anyway. The crooks are still running free.


heh, that's rich (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:35:34 PM PST
because users are easy to be brainwashed

A Lunix user casting the first stone. If only geeks understood irony...


I know richer stories. (none / 0) (#191)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:15:50 PM PST
My mom (a sorta guru of the facility, despite of not being a full-blown hacker - a beautiful example that it's enough to just *think* to rise high above the ordinary lusers) recently managed, for fun (both hers and the instructor's), to convince the whole class of the course her company sent her to that computer viruses can spread from an infected floppy to an uninfected floppy just by keeping them in the same box.

I reiterate. Users are gullible.


you're thick as a plank, you know that? (none / 0) (#193)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:14:50 PM PST
I reiterate. Users are gullible.

Do you read comments posted to adequacy by Lunatix such as yourself?


Still far below average. (none / 0) (#196)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 11:24:57 PM PST
Do you read comments posted to adequacy by Lunatix such as yourself?

Yes.

I also read, hear, and often witness stories that foster my cynicism about rank-and-file users; using CDROM as a cupholder, attempting to convince the vendor that the monitor is faulty (when it only isn't connected), asking what key is the "any" key - and then believing it is "reset". Or believing that viruses spread by physical contact of the floppies. Or believing they need new computer, while the old one only wants to clean the disk and reinstall Windows. Or thinking they will get full Ethernet speed over a 33k6 modem and then bitching it's slow. Or swapping two PCs that served as printservers - of course with different printers, and leaving the printers on their places, so connecting them to machines with wrong drivers, and then wondering why printing doesn't work...


you're not getting it, genius (none / 0) (#197)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 11:54:37 PM PST
*snip some boring, irrelevant treatise on computer arcana that will be obsolete yesterday*

Fuck are you daft. Think about what gullible means, what adequacy does, and how you respond.

(Btw, users arent gullible, they simply dont know or care to learn computer technology. You, otoh, have no excuse; you're simply dense.)


 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 09:58:13 AM PST
Conchita showed us her hands; every finger had at least one red, angry blister, several of which were burst and weeping. I was amazed at her toughness; despite the obvious physical pain, she maintained the aztlan.net workers' rights website from a scavenged Microsoft ergonomic keyboard and a computer cobbled together from cast-off parts in the back room of a shack which served as the community centre. Her jaw was firm and her gaze unwavering as she told us about the way in which the female workers in the motherboard hall were treated.

umm...right...sorry....no.
you can't build a computer off of cast off parts that don't work. If you did get a machine to run in the sand it wouldn't work for very long. You sort of need an INTERNET CONNECTION to get ONTO the net and RUN A SERVER which also needs quite a bit of computer knowledge like how to set up /homm /root /user directories with the right permisions. oh and lets see about this website....

Registrant:
DataRealm Internet Services, LLC (SERVE3-DOM)
Suite 707
117 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US

Domain Name: SERVE.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
hostmaster (HOS409-ORG) hostmaster@SERVE.COM
Datarealm Internet Services, LLC
Suite 707 117 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
215-636-0620
Fax- 215-636-0737
Billing Contact:
Billing Department (BIL100-ORG) billing@SERVE.COM
Datarealm Internet Services, LLC
Suite 707 117 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
215-636-0620
Fax- 215-636-0737

Record last updated on 03-Jul-2001.
Record expires on 29-Jul-2003.
Record created on 28-Jul-1995.
Database last updated on 7-Feb-2002 21:20:00 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

SERVE.COM 207.8.152.2
DNS.SERVE.COM 207.8.152.3


Oh, go ahead and check the website out....why would a person living in the slum of east asia be so conserned over mexico? check out your websites before you try to use them as a source.


Hacker trickery (none / 0) (#209)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 12:44:31 AM PST
Note the use of hacking "exploits" to divine information about the most controversial site on the internet.

No doubt, this illicit information was obtained using the criminal's system of choice, the sub-par "Lunix", designed by leftists guerilla Linux Torvaldes.

Bill Gates and the hard-working Americans who staff Microsoft Inc. have the regard for our privacy to prevent such hacter tactics being used from their own, superior Windows operating system.


nope (none / 0) (#214)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 10:43:55 AM PST
It was done by simply going to one of the many registrant websites. Microsoft for example registers their domain name with Network Solutions. You can go the and click on "whois". Then just type the domain name of the site and check the registration.


 
nope (none / 0) (#226)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 07:18:21 AM PST
This was done with a website called network solutions...its the site that you need to use to register a domain name. I don't run linux, have no need.


 
Always a source of amusement... (1.00 / 1) (#95)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:10:47 AM PST
Thank you, writers at Adequacy.org, for providing me another amusing article to read over. I've come to the conclusion that these articles can't possibly be serious, that this has to be a site devoted to parodies of political activist sites.

As a matter of curiosity, I ran this article and the previous one where the initial allegations against AMD (and Linux, and computer games, and the Internet, and books...) were made past a few friends. One is a journalism major, another a history major, and then I also submitted this to a few of my other tech friends. On all points they laughed.

The journalism student pointed out how no respectable newspaper or magazine would publish this stuff, and not for its controversial content, but for the complete and utter disregard for objectivity and research.

The history student attacked it for its lack of references... there's nothing in this article to back up any of the claims made, the "research" done was simply non-existant. There's nothing in the article to provide validity to the statements being made.

We techies had the most fun with this though. As users of AMD (and Intel) processors, Linux (and Windows), and all the other "evil" things (and the associated "good" counterparts) discusses in these articles, as well as students interested in the history and foundation of the technologies we use, these two articles just don't make sense.

1)AMD ONLY makes processors (and a few networking products), they do not make motherboards, SDRAM or anything else.

2)The construction process described in this specific article is laughable to say the least. You can't make any high-end computer equipment via the methods described... I doubt there exists a chisel that can carve lines nanometers wide... nor do I think you can use aluminum cans to provide the metal contacts and circuitry on a board. Oh, and no glue...

3) Oh, I love the quote you guys have from AMD CEO Gordon Moore.... Few things that are amusing about that quote and preceding paragraph... First off Advanced Micro Devices is AMD... the company you hate... not a congressional lobbying group. Second off, Gordon Moore is the former CEO of INTEL, now Chairman Emeritus. Oh... and 200kHz? Don't you mean 200MHz? (megahertz as opposed to kilohertz) And AMDs don't sell as Pentium Pros over here... they sell as AMDs, they would definitely get nailed legally if they did that. And they're 4-years behind US technology? How is it then that the AMD XP 2000+ chip (1.67 GHz) can out-perform the Intel Northwood 2.2GHz chip? (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/index.html)

If you guys ever want to actually be taken seriously, I strongly suggest you put some research into your work, provide resources and such to back up your statements. Oh, and please find your nearest college or University and take their introduction to computer hardware course.

-Mike


Oh for crying out loud (5.00 / 2) (#110)
by seventypercent on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:08:32 PM PST
How is it then that the AMD XP 2000+ chip (1.67 GHz) can out-perform the Intel Northwood 2.2GHz chip?

It doesn't, that's how. We at Adequacy.org might not be "geeks" (in fact, "geeks" are not allowed on the editorial staff) but it only takes a kindergarten-level math education to see that there's no way that a 1.67 GHz chip can out-perform a 2.2 GHz chip. You see, there is a mathematical relationship called "greater-than", and it applies to this situation as follows: 2.2 is greater than 1.67. Hence, the AMD chip is slower.

I hope this clears a few things up.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

MHz Myth (none / 0) (#116)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 01:40:26 PM PST
You see, there is a mathematical relationship called "greater-than", and it applies to this situation as follows: 2.2 is greater than 1.67. Hence, the AMD chip is slower.

Yet you are basing speed on frequency. That's what Mhz is. It's a measurement of frequecy. AMDs are known for better application speed.

Think of it this way. Let's say I race someone my own age. Think of frequency as the number of strides. He may move his legs faster but I would still keep up or beat him. Why? Because my legs are longer (think of this as things like application speed). I am also in better physical shape (think of this as superior chipsets which work well with specific memory). AMD porcessors are designed to take full advantage of memory while the Intel Pentium4 for example isn't known for that.

We at Adequacy.org might not be "geeks" (in fact, "geeks" are not allowed on the editorial staff) but it only takes a kindergarten-level math education to see that there's no way that a 1.67 GHz chip can out-perform a 2.2 GHz chip.

dmg, claims to be a certified MCSE, working as an NT admin

Maybe you wanna claim that MS software professional are not geeks. Maybe open source = geek?

elby, registrant of the adequacy.org domain name, superuser (root) of this site which runs Apache on FreeBSD

What about the wannabe?

elenchos, his bio reads that he is a computer scientist but has never written an article that wasn't so full of holes and wasn't picked apart for factual errors and stupidity

iat, claims he is a software developer

bc, says he knows nothing about computers one minute than turns around and claims he does

Should I continue?

Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

So the Navy are not red blood patriots? How about the rest of the military which runs Linux and other various unices? Maybe you mean the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)? Oh wait they do too. Maybe you mean big corporations like IBM, Sun Microsystems, Dell, Compaq, and Hewlett-Packard. Oh wait, they fledged full support for Linux.


 
It really must hurt... (none / 0) (#238)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 12:25:33 AM PST
....to be that goddamned dense. Megahertz does not equal performance! Otherwise, how could a 1300 T-Bird outperform a 1300 Duron?

The 1.67 GHz Athlon XP soundly outperforms the P4 1700, 1800 and 1900 in any fair benchmark you care to dig up.

At first I thought you people were joking around here... now I realize you're very serious. Misled and catastrophically ignorant with a tendency to speak before you think, but definitely serious. I fear for you, and for those who listen to you.


 
chip (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:44:13 AM PST
you mean to tell me that you're trying to say that people living in the third world CARVE chips with their fathers tools? i cant believe people actually believe this crap..


 
blah (1.00 / 1) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:08:52 AM PST
My only concern is that someone reading this will actually believe it's true, when, like all the others below me have so concisely pointed out, there is absolutely no way this article could be in any way true at all.

Calling a 'fab' another word for 'slum'? ROFL. That set me skeptical for the rest of the article. Apparently in their 'meticulous investigations', nobody at adequacy.org bothered to check into standard manufacturing practices, as 'fab' is an extremely commonly used term and has absolutely nothing to do with slums -- it stands for 'fabrication', as in the fabrication of devices, motherboards, or anything else. Hell, I worked for a silicon fab as a software engineer for a year and it certainly wasn't a slum. :P

And, like everybody else said, there's absolutely no way that any small child could make a motherboard with their bare hands (not to mention AMD doesn't even sell motherboards.)

So, if you're reading this:

THIS ARTICLE IS FICTION!

kthxbye


Get your etymology right. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by em on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:51:06 AM PST
Calling a 'fab' another word for 'slum'? ROFL. That set me skeptical for the rest of the article. Apparently in their 'meticulous investigations', nobody at adequacy.org bothered to check into standard manufacturing practices, as 'fab' is an extremely commonly used term and has absolutely nothing to do with slums -- it stands for 'fabrication', as in the fabrication of devices, motherboards, or anything else.

The Philippines is an ex-spanish colony; as a matter of fact, most filipinos have hispanic names. Favela is a Spanish word for "slum" or "shack". Fab is the abbreviation of favela.

The article said all this. I can only conclude you are spreading deliberate lies to damage our reputation. Expect some documents from our lawyers.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Spanish word (none / 0) (#205)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 06:25:25 PM PST
That's funny. I have never heard of this favela. I am originally for Argentina. Apparently it's NOT a spanish word. I wonder why the link to that word points to portugal.org. Either that or it is a slang word. That would mean it's not Spanish. ĦBavoso!


 
What a crap (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:37:17 AM PST
This is so bad, it's not even funny! Whoever wrote this piece of crap lacks even the most basic knowledge of ANY kind of manufacturing process. Either he/she is ignorant, or dumb or both! What I don't know is that why even wasting my time commenting on this?


 
HAHAH (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:00:36 PM PST
This is one the funniest things I've read in a while. I commend your effort to earn money by placing as many amazon links as you possibly can (which coincidentally you make a commission off of every sale, how ironic), but I'm amazed at how ridiculously stupid people are. The fact that anyone believed this is an example of why the rest of the world thinks Americans are morons. Basically, because they are. Sheetmetal and glue! Laugh out loud! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I'm sure those ELECTRICAL circuits work much better when they're glued onto sheetmetal than when they're soldered into PCB!


 
Mainstream News (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:04:28 PM PST
Thank you Adequacy, for providing us with such groundbreaking journalism. I have forwarded this article to the Drudge Report (drudge@drudgereport.com.) Hopefully the mainstream media will pick this up, and the true scoundrels will be exposed for what they are.


 
i appear to be fine... (none / 0) (#112)
by BCFH on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:26:20 PM PST
i work for AMD, and the working conditions appear to be fine to me...
All arms, limbs etc. intact, all body systems functioning as normal, pay is good, i am living well.

ESAD, jsm


 
Adequecy.org: News For Gullible Idiots? (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:59:06 PM PST
(Before I tear into this, you should note that I only came across this site via a link to this story, so my critcisms of adequecy.org are based only a half-hour of perusing the site).

My only question is 'how does this website expect to get taken seriously?' This is just another alternative-perspective site that asks to me, a small-c conservative-sceptic, to 'think outside the box' by stuffing me into their 'box;' i.e., by offerring me obviously biased, left-wing polemics against "BIG EVIL," be it government, business, or whatever.

The person below posted:

"that I expect from Adequacy.org. Hard-hitting, uncompromising, and with no "spin" whatsoever."

You call that unconfirmed, unsourced libel-safari into Asia "hard-hitting journalism?" Do you really think that *linking every fourth word or phrase* to a novel on amazon.com is called research, or confirming your sources? Superficially, the links make it look like they done they're homework, but to me it's
mere polish.

"It would be interesting to get some reactions from people who own AMD-based machines..."

I didn't react as an AMD-owner, but as rational, intelligent person, who just wants to speak out on drivel, to prevent it from further dumbing down on-going debate in society.

"are they proud of the slavery and environmental rape that they are directly funding?"

Before you accuse me and thousands of other people of being accessories-after-the-fact to international crimes, why don't we ask someone else *other than* adequecy.org?

"However, since these machines have a maximum uptime of 20 minutes or so before they overheat and must be shut down, I doubt that we will hear much."

Pardon? You must be confused. I understand that pentium4s internally under-cloak themselves by 50% if they exceed temperature tolerances. Is that what you are talking about?

"Thanks for an interesting read. I've never been prouder to be an Intel owner."

I'm not touching that.

Sites like adequecy.org practice sensationalism because they can't particpate in serious debates about social-political issues, and they can't participate because their ideas are convincing only to themselves. Dissing AMD with a contrived, 'from-the-font-lines' expose probably achieved nothing but further alienating people like me. That article was biased to the point of being crass. It's libelous bunk trying to pass itself off as journalism-verite.





 
What a load of shit!!! (1.00 / 1) (#117)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 01:47:23 PM PST
Anybody with even just half a brain would know this "article" is complete shit.

Why don't you change your site to "www.inadequacy.org" to more accurately reflect the intelligence and character of the people who work there?

Other urls that would work:
www.idiots.org
www.morons.org
www.buffoons.org
www.jackoffs.org

Take your pick.



Please respect the gag order (none / 0) (#120)
by zikzak on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:13:34 PM PST
Our ongoing legal battles with InAdequacy.org are not to be discussed on this web site. Our readers are just as bound by the judge's gag order as the staff is. Please do not hinder our chances of winning this crucial domain name dispute by dragging this ugly feud back into the public arena. This is not the time or place.

Thank you.


what a load of crap (none / 0) (#130)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:41:16 PM PST
Anyone with half a brain can check any registrant and see that his is not a website which belongs to an organisation but simply a personal website. Therefore slanderous websites are welcome and there isn't a damned thing you or anyone can do about it.

Any real lawyer or even first year law student with a D 1.0 grade average could tell you that. So shut the fuck up and stop pretending to be something that you are not.


ahem (none / 0) (#138)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:45:23 AM PST
"So shut the fuck up and stop pretending to be something that you are not."

What's your excuse for pretending to be a first year law student with a D 1.0 average, then?


 
AMD+ products (none / 0) (#118)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:04:00 PM PST
So why can't i buy one with a child attached. Wouldn't it make sense for AMD to package at least one child with it, preferably the one who actually produced the product, if still alive.

I am sure this wouldn't put costs up, just ship the chips in a large airtight shipping crate. It's been proven you can fit almost 100 orientals into one, for free, and the AMD stuff won;t take up that much more room.


 
Forget the technical problems... (none / 0) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:04:52 PM PST
Didn't anyone notice that these workers all had Mexican names, and "Conchita" was supposedly the webmistress of aztlan.org (since when is Aztlan in the Phillipines)? If they don't have toilets, where is she getting her internet connection? Funny stuff. :P


Internet connection (none / 0) (#124)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 04:52:21 PM PST
For future reference, nobody connects to the internet via the sewers. The fact that your post has made it to adequacy via your toilet has me quite taken aback!


Toilets and internet connections (none / 0) (#146)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:48:43 AM PST
Well, you know how there's a lot of crap on the internet? Guess how it gets there. :)


 
Horse shit (none / 0) (#128)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 09:01:16 PM PST
That article is complete horseshit. I can't believe you people believe everything you read.


 
oh my god (1.00 / 1) (#131)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 11:20:10 PM PST
i cant believe that you people dont believe this hirrible stuff

really this is thr truth. i am not buying anymore amd stuff because i know that amd has always done this. they have had stuff not work iwth certain games in the past and there is a good rason for it too.

so stop dissing adequacy.org and yget your tech facts straight, idiots.


us idiots... (none / 0) (#221)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:59:55 AM PST
no sorry but your the fools about this...do you actually have any hard evidence that AMD one of the world largest processor making companies in the world runs its staff in third world countries. If you believe this than more stupid than I thought. Oh and by the way the us president is really an alien from the planet vogon 5 who intends to colonoise earth for his own people.


 
hold on... (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:04:09 AM PST
Wait, just one second.... People stay on topic here????

Wow.. Ok, you want to know what I really think of the commons here? I see people intentionally misspell things just to get a rise out of others, go so low as to correct spelling mistakes when they want to argue, but really can't think of anything but to disagree, and get pissed off at what is basically a complete joke of an article on a completely inconsequential site.

So, you ask, why am I here?

Same reason I read online comics and watch comedy central. I've got to get my giggles in somehow.


 
This is ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. (none / 0) (#134)
by WhiteWolf on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 12:08:11 AM PST
This is the second outrageous and completely bizarre claim I've found. I'm sure that after reading for a few more minuets, I would find more of the like. There must be some law against printing this type of false information.

I, if you have read my previous post in "is your child a hacker" am a well-respected network and PC engineer for a large corporation. These claims are totally, completely, and utterly false. This person obviously has no computer expertise as per the many references to "gluing chips on" and bent sheets of metal to make motherboards. Also the fumes produced by printing PCB's (printed circuit boards, e.g. motherboards) are VERYT toxic. Any exposure for more than a few minuets would be fatal.

The environment and technical expertise to manufacture microprocessors are EXTREAMILY strict. Processor manufacturing requires a clean room environment. This means no dirt or dust, even the smallest piece of dust or dirt, even oil from a finger can destroy a processor. Employees in the printing chamber must be in "bunny" or clean suits. Chips are produced with highly sophisticated and precise machines, not by hand. Typically, micro-thin sheets of silicon are "printed" and layered on each other. Just look up chip manufacturing in a book at you local library. There is no substitute for the specifications in those books. If I did my math right to build an equivalent to an AMD Athalon 1.0 Ghz, using individual surface mount transistors, it would take up about 1000 or so football fields.

As for the motherboards and other PCB's, they must be made with similar machinery. The trace, (the light green or gold lines on the board), is so close together, they could not be made by hand without about a 99.9% failure rate.

I can't claim to know the pay or living standards for foreign countries, but I can tell you that the working conditions mentioned above are bogus. There is no way AMD could produce any chip, let alone the high-quality standard chips they are know for. Ever notice, that there are no pictures or video of these accounts. Even then I would be highly skeptical of them.


Just wondering... (none / 0) (#204)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 05:04:44 PM PST
>Any exposure for more than a few minuets would be fatal.

How about a couple of gavottes, would that be safe?


 
One Word to Scare Them All. (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:59:43 AM PST
I can scare all of you rather easily.

Lindows.


 
Really? ;-) (none / 0) (#151)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:25:03 AM PST
Rather funny.

I'd have said outrageous. But not really much more so than the trendy "terrorist!" accusations getting thrown all over the place, these days. Another witch-hunt? Sure, why not? I'm sure we'll eventually get them all in another hundred years.

P.S. The USSR must have been quite secure. And no real sweatshops, either... Not unless you count the whole country, anyway...


oh really? (none / 0) (#158)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:51:02 AM PST
But not really much more so than the trendy "terrorist!" accusations getting thrown all over the place, these days.

How many more Americans must be butchered in their place of honest employment before you elevate terrorism from a "trendy" fashion statement to a crime against humanity.

You puerile crackers disgust me.


 
I'm starting a boycott movement (none / 0) (#164)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:53:57 AM PST
I was so shocked by this hard-hitting investigative story, that I've decided to start a movement to boycott AMD chips. Who wants to join me? I plan to make contact with local and national news organisations to bring this whole affair to a wider audience. Congratulations once again adequacy.org on one of the greatest pieces of journalism since watergate!


I'll join you! (none / 0) (#173)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:14:15 PM PST
Seriously, I will. It's always fun to make myself look like an idiot! Hell, I'm on adequacy.org, what else is there for me to do??


 
Geebuz (none / 0) (#172)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:11:56 PM PST
Can I tell you people something without you getting angry?

Ok, the complete inaccuracy of this article aside (as mentioned before, the conditions stated are actually impossible), do you REALIZE what you pay for when you but Top-of-the-line chips? R&D. Period. You're paying for the money spent on research and development.

For example, did you know that they sell highly miniaturized 80386 chips as microcontrollers? You can get them with their logic chips and memory all on the same chip for about $50 a pop, direct from Intel. Why so cheap? Because the materials and manufacturing of silicon chips is almost inconsequential compared to the cost of the research that goes into designing the latest chip.

AMD doesn't pay quite so much, as their chips are usually reverse-engineered from Intel's chip documentation. It's been a thorn in Intel's side for quite a while, but it is, indeed, legal. Intel's only other course of action would be simply not to publish their documentation, but then software manufacturers wouldn't be able to take advantage of the nifty features in their new chip, making it completely useless.

Most of AMD's R&D money goes into stacking more action into a single clock pulse, which is why AMD chips end up being faster than Intel, even at slightly lower clock frequencies.

The rest of it goes into building sturdier chips, making them more heat-tolerant.

Here's a tip: If Intel comes out with a chip, wait about a month for AMD to release it's clone. It will be more stable, faster, and is usually able to be overclocked past the "Magic Number (130% original speed). Period.


Hahaha, that was funny :-) (none / 0) (#203)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 11:29:31 AM PST
You have no idea what you are talking about, have you?


 
A reaction from an actual Filipino Resident (none / 0) (#210)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 02:07:58 AM PST
Now this has got to be the most hilarious articles I've seen. Being someone who actually LIVES in the Philippines, I can debunk quite a lot of stuff in there.

First there's the name of the airport - Manila International Airport. It's been renamed Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA for short, as everone here knows it as) over 15 years ago (in honor of the late Senator Ninoy Aquino, the latest genereration of heroes fighting for the country's freedom, who was assasinated in 1983). So in a matter of speaking, Manila International Airport no longer exists.

Also, no specific places were mentioned by name. Of course since I live here I know my way around. No mention of Airport Road (the name of the street that the airport's address is on), Paranaque (the nearest major municipality to the airport), Pasay City (the neighboring city), or Villamore Airbase (the nearby headquarters of the Philippine Air Force, sharing the same runway as the airport). And what the heck is that "Chip Hell"? No one here's even heard of that kind of stuff. We have names like "Industrial Valley" though, which is a well developed area full of factories.

Next, given the atmospheric conditions here, it's totally impossible to set up a fabrication plant here. Intel, Texas Instruments, and a few other chipmaking companies have ASSEMBLY PLANTS here (they export the sealed fabricated wafers here from the US or other fab capable countries, and here they are enclosed inside their black plastic cases in the clean-room facilities before testing), and I've personally visited both the abovementioned assembly plants. AMD doesn't even have an office here!

While there are a number of beggar children on the streets, very scarce have those "missing fingers, thumbs or occasionally whole limbs" and "disfigured by burn scars, or blinded and carrying the marks of corrosive chemical spills". Hey Smokey Mountain has already been cleaned out of the map about 3 years ago if you're referring to such a place.

I think at least this website has done just a bit better than the locally famous www.pldt.com for entertainment.

Phalanx99



 
RIght on! (none / 0) (#213)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 07:52:58 AM PST
You are so absolutely right!

EVERYONE:

Please check out this other insightful article on AMD versis INTEL:

http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk/amdvintell.htm

You wil be SHOCKED!

;-)


hehe (none / 0) (#219)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:40:04 PM PST
funny shit


 
oh my goodness! (none / 0) (#218)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:28:23 AM PST
My goodness! thank you for enligtening me on this pressing matter. I had no idea of this horrid fact! I just discovered that i had an AMD chip residing in my other computer! i promptly took that 1.4 ghz athalon outside along with its motherboard and crushed it into powder with a hammer! I will never again buy AMD chips


 
You what.... (none / 0) (#220)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:56:13 AM PST
When I first came to this site I actaully thought it was a serious site, but after reading some of the shite that has been posted up by other users. It makes me think how much of a joke this place is. I mean the story about is your son a computer hacker was 100% genuine rubbish. There was no truth to that story. And this one about AMD I mean who actaully writes this rubbish. Please I thought people would of actually had more intelligence than to just write rubbish libellious (sp) stories like this.


 
yay (none / 0) (#222)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 09:12:50 AM PST
Thank you friends at this oh so interesting website. Its some great entertainment.

Just one ?:
HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT ANYONE WITH 3 BRAIN CELLS TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!?!


 
bull shit (none / 0) (#227)
by MarilynManson on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 02:30:55 PM PST
WTF is this? Who ever made this article deserves to be hit over the head with a bat! Everything there is false! AMD Makes low quality cpus my ass. I upgraded from Intel to AMD and let me tell you something, It seemed like my system was able to haul alot more Ass then the old scrappy Intel chips could even do. I own 4 Computers all AMD, They all run great and not a single burn out, Rock stable, screaming fast, run hella smooth, and very compatible. Sure they may run alittle hotter but if you apply the proper cooling there we be no problems at all, this site and Intel are just jellous about AMD success and trying to put them down. You just watch, once hammer comes out (Intel's worest nightmare) AMD is going to blow Intel away and in several years from now you will see AMD with the hammer or maybe something newer by then as the new God of Processors.


 
Go Adequacy Go! (none / 0) (#229)
by Nyx on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 07:25:04 AM PST
Man....you guys are -damn- funny. Hilarious. I look forward to reading more of this good stuff on your site :)


 
Your not very bright, r u? (none / 0) (#230)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:22:10 PM PST
funny - my amd athlon xp 1600+ says "made in malasyia"


 
HAHAHA (none / 0) (#234)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 29th, 2002 at 04:39:22 PM PST
I must say, this is one hilarious story. I have not been so incredibly entertained in an incredible amount of time. Besides the fact that none of the information in this column is true, most of it is impossible, such as making chips without complex machinery performing the entire process. As i finish writing this hopefully unnecessary (to all other competent readers) article, i have only one question...
...How much did you get from Intel for writing this article???

Signed with love,
A Reader With A Brain



 
how can NE of u peoplez believe this BS (none / 0) (#235)
by KryNx on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 05:23:43 AM PST
to adeqaucy i wanna thank you for giving me some excellent laughs but u really shood note that its not true so all these idiots dont go believing it

good job


 
too bad you got everything wrong (none / 0) (#236)
by KFC on Sat Apr 27th, 2002 at 11:01:06 PM PST
firstly, AMD does not make motherboards. They make flash chips, chipsets, and processors. This one thing alone already convinces me that this article is a big LIE.

secondly, AMD does not have a fab at the Phillipines. They have high-tech and clean fabs in Austin, Texas, and Dresden, Germany.
QUOTE:
" "fab" (short for "favela", from the Spanish for "slum")."

"Fab" actually stands for fabrication facility.

thirdly, there is no such thing as a 200KHz Pentium. The first processor in the world was a 1MHz (1000Khz) unit.

Fourthly, AMD does not sell their processors under the name Pentium Pro, they sell their processors under the name "Athlon".

HAHA, I laugh at the bit where they say that thet make their glue out of animal bits.

Whjether this is a joke or not, this article is still an INSULT to the people of the Phillipines and to AMD.

Poor craftsmen does not have the expertise to make (in this case 'carve'!) such complex things as computer chips containing millions of transistors. Computers are so complex that they have to be made in an atomic scale. It requires engineers guaduating from university and special equipment in order to do that.

Finally, AMD processors are high performance processors. They outperform Intel processors even though they have a lower clock speed and they are also much cheaper. However, the price of AMD chips are cheap to gain market share and AMD is already experiencing a loss since they are selling their chips for so cheap. It is not because of slave labour. Intel have reduced prices on their Pentium 4 products to COMPETE WITH AMD. It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to overclock a 200Khz processor to a 1Ghz processor. (Thats like increasing the speed of the processor by 5000 times!!!!) There is a limit in overclocking and if you push the chip too hard it will overheat and die.


 
NO mamen (none / 0) (#239)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 01:25:27 AM PST
No mamen pinches ignorantes.


 
AMD rules (none / 0) (#240)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 02:57:17 PM PST
sorry, but as long as AMD is so FFFFFF much better there's no alternative... and anyway if this would be true people would go to newspapers etc and not to this BS site to comment such activities... losers =)

you're just weirdos without life all of ya, the only reason any normal person goes to this site is to get a good laugh...

you should all be locked up in small cellars forever and ever and ever ever...


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.