Linux v. Windows (dangerous topic) (was "Re: Why is I/O slow?")

* Austin Ziegler ([e-mail]) [020620 22:34]:
> 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.

Agreed, at least on the ONLY part.  Having been Windows free since ~97,
and almost Linux free for ~ a year (go FreeBSD(!)) I've noticed that,
while I do occasionally recommend a Windows installation for a customer,
the only factors motivating in that direction these days are:  

    1 - momentum: "you have so many Windows machines already that
        there's no point muddying the water; you might want to undertake
        a /serious/ TCO study in the future, however"

    2 - specific application(s): customer's business depends for the
        time-being on a number of Windows only applications specific to
        their industry.  Fortunately this is actually rare and the list
        grows smaller daily (and no, office software doesn't count,
        gimme a break).

> 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.

Consistent BAD interface is not a plus.  The interfaces on all
mainstream operating systems are bad these days, free *nixen even more
so, but improving (and experimenting -- it was amusing to see the
"innovative" XP taking tips from GNOME).  Basic functionality for non-
point-and-drool-spinning-banana-watching types on Windows is still
abysmally low.

> 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'.

Yes.  Yes!  A thousand times yes!  Portability is the take home lesson
and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

> 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.

For a few years (among other things) I developed for deployments on NT
systems without ever touching an NT system.  Perl on Linux, Perl on
Solaris, Perl on AIX.  Had our guy 1500 miles away drop the applications
onto the server at the customer's place and it Just Worked.  I dearly 
want Ruby to stay the same way.


I personally quit using Linux (though there are still some boxes here
and elsewhere quietly humming away in closets doing dirty work) due to
administration headaches.  I've used, maintained, and developed on Linux
from Slackware floppy distros (nearly a decade ago) to Debian to RH and
Mandrake.  I was searching for the perfect combination of hardware
support, software support, ease of use, and maintainability.  Eventually
I just threw up my hands and gave up on Linux because I wanted to Get
Something Done.  

Having used Windows and Macintosh systems for years I knew there was no
way for me to accomplish 1% of what I need to do there (though I admit
that OS/X was tempting) [0].  Having used a barn full of proprietary
*nixen including SunOS/Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, NeXTStep (still running on
the box behind me), SysV, SCO, and even A/UX as well as the
non-proprietary {Free,Net,Open}BSD; I ended up back at FreeBSD after a
5-year hiatus.


Now I Get Things Done.


[0] I have yet to see that version of Windows that can run 70+ virtual
    desktops (with instantaneous navigation) over multiple heads, while
    simultaneously running 30-40 terminals, 5 different GUI browsers, a
    heavy compilation session, 5 mutts, a web server, a database, a
    jukebox, and multiple securely logged in remote users doing their
    things on a PII-400 w/256MB RAM.  Much less while heavily using NFS.
    Much less without breaking stride.  Much less without costing $1.
    Much less with the source for every program on the disk /on the
    disk/ (another complaint about Linux -- sure it's open source but
    how many people actually have the source to say, 'ps' sitting on
    their drive?).  I can't imagine going back to paying for software
    without source that doesn't do virtual desktops and doesn't have ssh
    support ready on install.  Yuck.

Rick
-- 
 http://www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN: 859    (83F/88F)
                       |  a victim. They are
   random email haiku  |  all JUST friends. I have given
                       |  up my playful ways.