A few years back, it used to be better. Intelligent debates were actually
more frequent. I'm not saying that there wasn't spam or wintrolls, quite
the contrary, we had them.
What's different, and I had to side with Flatfish on this one, is a "gang"
mentality where ad-hominem attacks are the more acceptable responses. COLA
used to be better. Even the most evilly crafted troll was an opportunity
for debate and counterpoint, and Linux, being better, always won.
Now, dare say anything negative about Linux or an open source project, and
you are labled a wintroll. Such has happened to me, and as anyone who has
been on COLA for any length of time will tell you, I am not a wintroll.
Before the 2.4 kernel, Windows NT was better at servicing multiple hardware
devices under load. This is because the design of the kernel. Linux did not
have the same capability as WinNT's DPC system (ripped off from VMS).
Early versions of EXT2 filesystem code could not handle files greater than
2G on 32 bit hardware.
Linux did not always have XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc.
When we lack intellectual integrity in our arguments, we lack any real
authority to advocate.
if we are wrong, we need to admit it. When Linux is lacking, we need to
admit it. When Windows or Mac does something better than Linux, we need to
admit it. Just because Windows or Mac may do this or that better than
Linux, does not mean that Linux doesn't do more far better than both.
Linux will win in any honest debate based on technical merit. They key is
not to fall in to the habit of using lies and half truths that the
Wintrolls rely on to forward their position.
|
|
