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

On Fri 21 Jun 2002 at 13:15:08 +0900, Rick Bradley wrote:

> 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

I disagree. Who's to say what the ideal is?

'Intuitive' is a very relative concept. UNIX and the X Window System
offer me a choice of Window managers, one or two of which are smartly
enough designed and customisable enough that they can be finely tuned
to my needs, thus enabling a high degree of productivity.

At a lower level, command line interfaces enable me to be vastly more
productive than point-and-click file managers ever could, yet the CLI
is thought by the masses to be outmoded and inefficient.

A well configured command-line shell with clever aliases, functions,
programmable completion and smart key bindings knocks spots off an
interface that is operated by sliding a chunk of plastic over a pad
and clicking buttons. At least, that's what suits me.

Interfaces are a very personal thing. One style of interface may suit
more people than another, but for the minority who work better with
the other type, that is absolutely the best choice for them.

> 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.

Together with the other sysadmins where I work, we administer 20,000
Linux boxes in production and I really couldn't imagine running
anything else on them :-)

It just goes to show how subjective this whole topic really is.

> 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.

I think the trick is to take the bits of those systems that you like
and then tweak things until they're just as you want them. I don't
know what your needs are, but it seems hard for me to imagine that
there wasn't a way for you to get what you needed from such a vast
range of distributions.

> 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.

The key point here is that you ended up with a system for which the
source is supplied. That's the most important factor in this
discussion. The rest is just details.

Personally, I feel much the same way about purely BSD derived systems
as you do about Linux: they're nice to toy with, but I feel hampered
in my work.

>     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?).

The fact that people generally don't put it on their systems is hardly
an argument against Linux, though, is it? The source is widely
available, as source RPMs, tar files, whatever, and it's trivial to
install.

I'll avoid listing my qualms with FreeBSD and similar systems, since I
think it would detract from the main point that I wish to convey here,
which is that interfaces are a matter of taste and personal
experience.

>     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.

Nor can I, especially in my work. Source level changes are a frequent
necessity, both at the kernel and user-space level. Being tied into
someone else's idea of how the software should behave is just not an
option.

Ian
-- 
Ian Macdonald               | Motto of the Electrical Engineer:  Working 
[e-mail]             | computer hardware is a lot like an erect
                            | penis:  it stays up as long as you don't
                            | fuck with it. 
                            |