Today I heard the wisdom of JerryLeeCooper.  JerryLeeCooper happens to be a rather uninformed Microsoft fan who enjoys ranting about how he dislikes Linux.  He manages to mask a complete lack of technical knowledge with 'excessive verbosity'.

I found a collection of his writings here and enjoyed reading them for their comedic value.  I thought of having a contest for who could spot the most technical inaccuracies in one of his posts, but I'm worried the list would get rather long.  Here is one of my favourite posts of his:

The linux cannot reliably be employed on modern hardware

Yes, well, I did receive quite a few pointed 'pointers' about linux not requiring windows, but I am yet to be convinced on that score.

I did witness first hand just the other day, a demonstration of a machine loading up the linux, and several points piqued my interest for sure.

Firstly, the machine loaded into the Microsoft boot sequence prior to loading the linux. This is the segment of the operating system which counts down the memory, and configures the A:, C: and D: drives prior to loading the Microsoft windows. Although the machine did not display the familiar windows animation, it was obvious that the linux was freeloading off the back of this prior installation/boot sequence. The aforementioned demonstrator, upon further questioning, even admitted that 'Oh, That part is not the linux', and then went on to confuse the issue with technical jargon. However, one cannot mask a simple act of piracy with excessive verbosity. A fool and his lamb are worth 2 in the bush.

Now - I will admit after some further research, that the linux is not in fact a complete copy of Microsoft Windows. My research indicates that it is in fact a copy of Unix. I bet you didnt know that young man ? Yes, its a straight copy of Unix, even down to copying verbatim codefiles straight from the source of Unix. I believe there is a court case in progress regarding this latest discovery. The magnitude of the theft is now becoming apparent.

However, this remarkable fact may well uncover the answer to Ed Bott's mystery linux installation failure. You see, the Unix was designed to run within the VHF to UHF spectra (much like a radio), which is all well and good until you consider that modern computers run in the microwave range, at which regular radio reception starts to have serious issues. If one were to use a UHF receiver to tune in to a quad-phased broadcast in the Microwave spectra, one would fail miserably.

I would wager a bet that Ed Bott's computing apparatus was a more contemporary design utilizing a 3GHz central processor unit (or CPU). Under such frequencies, the linux would literally tear itself apart, its code lacking the internal cohesion to sustain this extreme environment. The Microsoft by comparison, is streamlined and engineered to withstand this Microwave environment, thanks no doubt to the forethought of its designers.

And of this there is ample evidence, which one can easily do an msn-search for and witness first hand. All of this evidence is on the public record, and cannot be denied.