Re: Flame Bait! Windows vs: The Unices

From: Richard Heathfield (invalid_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 01/20/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:20:04 +0000

Programmer Dude wrote:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>>> But if [Unix replaced Windows] would it meet needs I experience
>>> daily?
>>
>> Yes, eventually...
>
> In other words, no. (-:

Chicken! Chicken! :-)

>> ... - 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.

If (as you posit) Unix replaced Windows, then what would happen? Either this
functionality that you seek is so desperately vital that the community (or,
perhaps, a company) would soon provide it, or it's not so desperately vital
after all.

>>> 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?

Sure.

> How many corporations put unice on the desktop?
> How many put Windows on the desktop?

Clearly, in desktop terms, Windows wins hands-down.

> Do you believe the difference
> is strictly ignorance? Or is it, perhaps the case, that Windows
> just meets business users' needs much better?

You don't think it could be anything to do with a combination of OEM
licensing arrangements and corporate apathy? PCs come with Windows
pre-installed, after all. It's not *impossible* to get a PC without
Windows, but it's quite difficult.

>>> ...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.

Well, we must agree to differ on that. Incidentally, I've worked on quite a
few Windows sites, and I think I can safely say I can count the number of
times I've even /seen/ anyone take advantage of OLE on the fingers of one
hand (although I admit I'd have to use binary notation!).

> 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.

It certainly does. It also lends itself to a dozen or so programmers working
in a tightly co-ordinated fashion on an app they are paid to work on.
Having worked in such environments, I can testify that it works well.

> 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).

You might be confusing the community with the OS. When people are writing in
their own time, ***of course*** they write stuff they want to write. That
doesn't mean they can't write the boring stuff on company time, though.

>
>>> ...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).

Then it all comes down to what "the need" is, and your needs clearly vary
from mine.

>
>> For me, and for many others, Linux meets our needs perfectly well.
>
> No doubt. Would you consider yourself an *average* user?

Yes - just an average Linux user. :-) Well, all right, perhaps not - but
let's not forget that Windows seems "easier" than Linux only because most
people learn it /first/. If you give a complete newbie a Linux system and
get him to use it for five years (without ever seeing a Windows system),
and then show him Windows, the chances are high that he'll struggle with
it.

>> If it doesn't meet your needs, well, don't use it.[1]
>
> It doesn't. I don't. (-:

Fine. End of problem?

>
>> [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!

If you really want to, you can fit Linux on a floppy disk.

>> [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.

Perhaps that's because *nix got it right, at the very beginning, and see no
need to fix something that ain't broken.

> Okay, that was flame bait.

Then let's try to turn heat into light.

> More seriously (and less contentiously), I think we agree Windows
> has gotten better each version (agreed: mod XP).

Yes, although it still does very strange things (e.g. in my vanilla install
of Win2K, if I try to get to the Settings tab of the screen's Properties
dialog, the machine crashes).

> It continues to
> evolve to (at least attempt to) meet *today's* computing needs.

Or rather, what Microsoft perceives to be today's computing needs.
Personally, I think they should stop adding features and start fixing bugs.
When they've fixed all the bugs, /then/ they can start adding features
again.

> 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.

For me, "older" times means Windows, so they were worse times - for me. Your
mileage obviously varies.

> 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).

That's because you associate "modern computing" with Windows, whereas I
associate "modern computing" with software that *works*.

>>> 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.

And that's another possible reason that people didn't rise to your
challenge.

>>> 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?

The fee.

>>>> 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.

Yes, but I have found that Linux has fewer limitations and fewer
requirements. For example, it doesn't need state-of-the-art hardware just
to run at an acceptable speed.

>> 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.

Fair enough. Do you have any idea of the known-and-unresolved bug count in
Windows? That's a serious question, not flame bait. Last I heard, it was in
the thousands, but that was for Windows 98. Do you have any idea of the
current figure? (Or does anyone here?)

>>> 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?

Do you mean that Linux has too much software available for it?

> Walk into any store that sells consumer software. Count the titles
> for Linux. Now count the titles for Windows. See a difference?

Yes. The Linux apps aren't there, because they're free, and it's tricky for
the shop to turn a profit on software that people can legally download off
the Net for free. Amazingly, it isn't impossible - but it's still tricky.

> There is the fact that stores tend to sell what people demand, not
> what can fit on a disk.

See above.

>>> (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.

You're beginning to shout. I hope you're not losing your temper. I thought
we were doing quite well at being reasonable up until now. Perhaps I can
find a better way to explain what I mean. Linux uses text as a lowest
common denominator, a "common data currency" if you like; the sheer
simplicity of the text file makes it very easy for completely unrelated
applications to be used together.

>
>>> 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.

<shrug> You see? We're singing the same song in different keys.

>
>> I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
>
> Maybe because you're trying hard not to?

Well, the best I can come up with is that you think it's important for
business people to be able to create presentable documents. Well, in Linux,
they can. They can in Windows, too. Er, so what?

> Consider that, for example, in Word, I can drop into Preview mode
> and see all my text "as printed".

Heh - lucky you. If I try that, Word crashes. 

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] Developing a Real Time Data System
    ... The KBasic License is valid for both operating systems: Windows and Linux. ... Modern BASIC language ... chapters learning about the programming language. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Why do so many people love Teas Instruments?
    ... programming is a lot more to a little more readable depending if HP ... Proper algebra requires operands to be ... You can do it without any help on Windows in 99% of cases using simple GUI ... Just look on any Linux discussion group. ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Segmentation in real mode
    ... Except that Windows does have its "prohibition" on "direct hardware ... what you're saying about 32-bit programming is still ... Linux is often ignored in this context but it's actually arguably the best ... a "portable assembler", so, you know, it's not really got anything ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Why do so many people love Teas Instruments?
    ... That is why casual user drives what is mass market ... in the initial Linux package and she wanted to do it herself. ... You can do it without any help on Windows in 99% of cases using simple GUI ... when some more features such as programming are needed. ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Mac eye for the Linux guy?
    ... > I'm a Unix sysadmin (Linux, Solaris, *BSD) who has been running Linux ... Windows is not an option -- the Windows trolls need not ... GIU apps. ... > Are there any decent programs supporting multiple virtual desktops ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)