From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2002-06-21T12:31:30+09:00 Subject: Re: Why is I/O slow? On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:16:24 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote: > On Thursday 20 June 2002 10:10 pm, Mike Campbell wrote: >>> With respect, this doesn't sound like a smart idea. The glibc >>> folk have spent vast effort making it fly, and you want to >>> bypass it? >> There are other systems out there that don't have the luxury of >> glibc... > Isn't it sad that when good stuff is invented on Linux that we > rush to make it available on windows so that windows users never > have any motivation to leave that crap behind? No. 1. The very first thing that I learned when doing computing for a living is "use the best tool for the job." Despite the vitriol from some folks, there are times when Windows is not only the best tool for the job, but it's the ONLY tool for the job. 2. Windows stability has been increasing at least as fast as Linux usability over the last several years, if not faster. Linux (and most other unices) still suffers from the problem that there is no single unifying UI guideline set, so that while Windows programs look and feel -- and perform -- pretty much the same all over, every Linux GUI program is different. The learning curve for Windows programs is shallower because of the consistency. 3. Windows isn't the only platform out there which doesn't use glibc by default. IMO, Matz is absolutely correct to emphasize portability over 'The Linux Way'. 4. I use both Linux and Windows boxen (and far prefer the Windows because there are problems with the Linux install that I have neither the inclination, the time or the expertise to solve), but for very different purposes. The fact that I can develop and test on Windows (my primary terminal/front-end OS) and then test and deploy on Linux with Perl, Python, or Ruby is of great benefit. Again, the right tool for the job -- not Linux Everywhere. -austin -- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.20 at 23.22.38