Re: Flame Bait! Windows vs: The Unices

From: Programmer Dude (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 01/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:12:28 -0600

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>> But if [Unix replaced Windows] would it meet needs I experience
>> daily?
>
> Yes, eventually...

In other words, no. (-:

> ... - because if you needed that need needily enough, you'd
> write code to meet the need. That's the Joy of Programming, right?

Do you have any idea how many person-hours went into the apps we're
discussing here? My lifetime--even were I younger--ain't enough.

>> To the extent that's true, it seems (to me) to prohibit Linux
>> from the Corporate World,...
>
> <shrug> I've worked for several companies that use Linux, and for
> hard-nosed practical reasons at that. Maybe they didn't know it
> was prohibited.

On desktops? How many corporations put unice on the desktop?
How many put Windows on the desktop? Do you believe the difference
is strictly ignorance? Or is it, perhaps the case, that Windows
just meets business users' needs much better?

>> ...the simple fact that nothing else comes as close to meeting
>> the need as MS.
>
> Well, of course not. If your benchmark is "how close to Windows
> can you get?" (as yours seems to be),...

I don't agree at all. The problem I've described is a simple
business need. What may make it *appear* Windows-centric is that
MS has explicitly gone after business needs. The Linux development
model seems (to me) to lend itself to myriad programmers working
in an, at best, loosely co-ordinated fashion on the apps they
*want* to work on.

That's resulted in something truly great, but not something I
think meets business (desktop) needs (possibly since many of
those apps would likely be boring to develop).

>> ...but if better doesn't meet the need, is it REALLY better?
>
> Define "better".

Meets the need with least effort, least cost, least resource (all
those are really the same thing).

> For me, and for many others, Linux meets our needs perfectly well.

No doubt. Would you consider yourself an *average* user?

> If it doesn't meet your needs, well, don't use it.[1]

It doesn't. I don't. (-:

> [1] Or grab the source, fix it and /then/ use it. You choose.
> BTW does Windows come complete with full source code? :-)

God no! I have better things to do with my time than work on a
huge operating system!

> [Microsoft] seem to change their "model" every twenty minutes.

Maybe that's why Windows is "better" than the unices. They change
until they get it right. The unices tend to be stuck in the text
world.

Okay, that was flame bait.

More seriously (and less contentiously), I think we agree Windows
has gotten better each version (agreed: mod XP). It continues to
evolve to (at least attempt to) meet *today's* computing needs.
I'm really not sure that's true of Linux--there seems (and this
is just a gut impression) a clinging to "older, better" times.

I mean, when the "Friends of Linux" are trying to sell me on pipe
to connect my textfile database to a script..... I'm sorry, that
doesn't at all reflect modern computing (to me, anyway).

>> I'm probably not much different *at* *home*, but this isn't about
>> pet projects, it's about business.
>
> Ah, I apologise. I thought it was about programming.

Programming for Business. I thought that was pretty clear from the
original description of the problem.

>> You could rephrase my challenge: your business client wants <what
> I've described elsethread> and runs a unice. What Will You Do?
>
> Get him to sign a contract prior to starting the work.

A contract stating what?

>>> It seems to *me* that [Linux] is more mature than Windows, because
>>> it does things the way /I/ want them, rather than the way Microsoft
>>> wants them.
>>
>> Well, that's ONE definition of "mature".
>
> Sure. I hope I managed to convey that I consider an OS that "bullies"
> its users into doing things its way to be less mature than an OS
> that does not.

I ... suppose. I guess I can't say I've felt bullied by *any* OS.
They ALL have limitations and requirements.

> Linux is of course solidly based on Unix, which has been in use for
> rather longer than Windows. As for versions, what do you mean?

Just a terse way of saying: been out in the real world for lots of
people to beat on it in lots of ways and--presumably--find most,
if not all, the bugs.

> If you are simply counting them, that's a pretty meaningless metric

So, assume I meant something meaningful and work from there.

>> Available software is an issue,
>
> WHAT???????????

I SAID, "AVAILABLE SOFTWARE IS AN ISSUE!!"

> Have you any idea just how much software comes on a Linux distro
> nowadays?

Yes. How many *average* users care about the plethora of compilers,
SIX different browsers, plenty of email software, a heap of editors
a spare OS or many of the others you listed?

Walk into any store that sells consumer software. Count the titles
for Linux. Now count the titles for Windows. See a difference?
There is the fact that stores tend to sell what people demand, not
what can fit on a disk.

>> (per this thread) inter-relationship of applications is something
>> that matters to businesses.
>
> Linux happens to use text to tie applications together.

But it *doesn't* "tie them together". Not in the context we're
talking about. Piping data from one app to another is one thing.
Apps that can, OUT OF THE BOX, *talk* to each other, quite another.

>> The ability for Mary Manager or Sam Secretary to create
>> presentable documents is important in business.
>
> That's why Linux distros provide Ghostview - so that you can
> preview your PostScript documents before printing them.

Ghostview. Now there's an app that had a chance with ME and muffed
it. Never again.

> I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

Maybe because you're trying hard not to?

Consider that, for example, in Word, I can drop into Preview mode
and see all my text "as printed". I can click a button, change a
setting, and see it again with different margins. Or change the
paper size. Often I can tweak margins by dragging them to where
I want them.

Consider, for that matter, that Word allows me to see my text "as
printed" in one of its working views. That is, WYSIWYG. The idea
of needing to send output to an EPS file for viewing is horrible
to me given what Windows does naturally. 

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|
Quantcast