Re: Flame Bait! Windows vs: The Unices

From: Programmer Dude (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 01/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:35:50 -0600

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>> 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...
>>
>> You might be surprised how much OLE goes on in the background. VB
>> uses it to talk to all Controls, for example.
>
> I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. I am talking about people
> deliberately, consciously using Object Linking or Object Embedding to
> create a compound document. I'm not talking about programmers doing
> COM, or users using programs that use OLE under the hood.

Okay. Even so, it happens around here quite a bit. People are
constantly copy/pasting charts and tables into PowerPoint or Word.
They may not realize they are using OLE, but they are (and they
ARE consciously and deliberately trying to embed something in
something else--they just don't know (nor need to) the terminology).

>> Windows is pretty easy to use
>
> If you're good at it, yes. And clearly, you're good at it.

My point was "pretty easy to use" for the average person. That my
manager and the office secretary get useful work done in it is
proof of that (believe me!).

> Unix was, in fact, designed to be easy to use, and certainly met
> its design objectives if you compare it to other operating systems
> in use at about the time it was written.

Can't agree comparing to other OSes of 1969 means much. Here, now,
in 2004, the competition is Windows and the Mac and such.

I do think we agree there's good basis for my favorite Unix quote
about Unix being user-friendly.

> I stand by my statement that someone who has learned Unix is likely
> to struggle to learn Windows in about the same degree that a Windows
> user would struggle to learn Unix.

The more I think about it, the more I disagree. I'll cite the two
folks I just mentioned as proof. I shudder at the thought of trying
to teach them Unix. Without a good X Windows, I wouldn't even try.

>>> That's because you associate "modern computing" with Windows,
>>
>> If you make that a small "w" and throw in app connectivity and a
>> few other "obvious" things, I'd agree.
>
> Unix has X, so there's your windows. Unix has a bundle of ways to
> connect apps, so there's your connectivity. Ironically, I'm not
> sure which "obvious things" you are talking about.

Oh, cut'n'paste, consistancy of UIs, USB, easy hardware drivers.

By the way, I think we've covered that Unix does NOT have the
connectivity I mean when I say connectivity withOUT serious
programming.

>>> ...whereas I associate "modern computing" with software that
>>> *works*.
>>
>> So a COBOL program that works perfectly but was written in 1965
>> and only runs on ancient iron is modern computing? (-:
>
> If it works perfectly, it works.

True. But is it, as you said, "modern computing"?

> If it only runs on ancient iron, then I wouldn't call that "working"
> if there were any danger of the ancient iron finally rusting shut.
> IIRC, however, COBOL programs are pretty portable.

True. But is it, as you said, "modern computing"?

>>>> 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.
>>
>> ???
>
> Why would anyone want to write a business solution for the sake of
> a Usenet challenge?

People have risen to all sorts of challenges here. And it's not
like I'm asking for an implemented solution, just a good description
of a system that meets the need is fine.

And I would have thought that the Windows-hating/Unix-loving folks
would have *jumped* at the chance to prove me wrong.

Problem is, they can't. Not quite. (-: Nah, nah, nah, NAH, nah! :-)

> Usenet's meant to be relaxing.

Is it? Your on-going nilgian war is relaxing?

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Why so much wiggling over a simple question?
>
> Huh? I'm not wiggling; I just didn't think I'd have to spell it
> out to a man of your calibre.

(.45)

> I've made it more explicit in the four-line paragraph above,
> starting "Why would anyone..." and ending "...your chequebook".

So, you want money to simply *describe* what you'd do for a client
who came to you with this need? Yet you dispense loads of free
advice and code elsewhere? Excuse me, but I think you're wiggling.

>> (...but oddly we seem to disagree on what "mature" means?)
>
> Something to do with cheese, I think. :-)

Or wine! (-:

>> Well, this we can't do, but count the apps in normal use by normal
>> users. Any sense of what the outcome would likely be?
>
> I think the question is ill-formed, but I'll take a guess at what
> you meant: The number of applications available for a particular
> operating system that are used regularly by large numbers of users.

I'm not sure adding unnecessary words makes it well-formed, nor do
I think it was ill-formed to begin with. In fact, I think it was
quite well-formed and precise. What do *most* computer users use
*most* of the time (sad testiment to our time: AOL software is
probably on that list!).

But, in any event, we've gone off-track here. I had to go back
quite a few message to figure out what point we're debating here,
and I finally found:

RH> I just wish more people realised that they /have/ a choice, and
RH> that they would make that choice positively and intelligently.

CS> I suspect that, for *most* home users and for *most* businesses,
CS> that Windows meets their needs better on several levels. You've
CS> touched on the driver issue. Available software is an issue, and
CS> (per this thread) inter-relationship of applications is something
CS> that matters to businesses.

What it boils down to is that all that free software (in both worlds)
is probably not something average computer users glom onto. And
businesses--for good reason, IMO--often shy away from freeware and
shareware (for obvious and perceived support and quality issues).

When it comes to high-quality, reputable business software, there
are (AFAIK) many more choices in the Windows world. When it comes
to high-quality, modern games,... well, ditto. And those are two
very huge markets. 

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
    ... about my experience with Solaris and Cygwin. ... installing packages. ... needing eg tftp you only need to activate on a Unix system. ... probably need installing first on the equivalent Windows system. ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
  • Re: Five Architectural Flaws in Windows Solved In Mac OS X
    ... But it is still an improvement over Unix, wherein *any executable* can be highly privileged and interact with the user. ... The usual security precautions prevent unauthorized people from doing this, but that's true on Windows also. ... I just got thru upgrading the wifes Mac to Tiger and hpfs is the default. ... This is a more advanced design that Unixes have been trying to duplicate by adding thread support. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Linux no threat to Microsoft
    ... originally developed for Unix. ... Windows has't come on any of the machines I've ever purchased. ... Yet over those years Linux Market Share on the desktop has actually ... philosophy of Apple - later adopted by Microsoft. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: OS X "Security" myths
    ... >> lot of UNIX systems down to their knees. ... >>> their code, so they concentrate on developing exploits for Windows, ... > It does tell me that there is not much "boast factor" for malware ... Just like the Hackers convention in Las Vegas known as ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Wozu Linux privat einsetzen?
    ... > Open Source bzw. GNU sind nicht an eine bestimmte Plattform gebunden. ... Windows ist nun mal nicht OpenSource. ... > Unix ist genauso gewachsen wie DOS, OS/2, Windows. ...
    (de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc)