From: Ian Macdonald <ian@...>
Date: 2002-06-21T14:49:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Why is I/O slow?

On Fri 21 Jun 2002 at 12:31:30 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

> 1. The very first thing that I learned when doing computing for a
>    living is "use the best tool for the job."

I couldn't agree more.

>    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.

True, but those cases are relatively rare these days, especially if
you're talking about server deployment.

> 2. Windows stability has been increasing at least as fast as Linux
>    usability over the last several years, if not faster.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by stability, but I would have
to disagree strongly.

Security is a large part of stability, and Windows is unparalleled in
its absysmal record in this regard. Just look at the track record of
IIS on the server side or the virus propagation mechanisms known as
Outlook and Office on the application side.

Stability =~ uptime, but admins and users alike suffer untold
unproductive hours because of the poor design and quality of Windows
tools.

As for the issue of Linux usability, this can mean many things. To me,
it means a powerful shell such as bash or zsh, a powerful, tunable
kernel capable of handling a heavily loaded system, a powerful
programming environment, the ability to get at the very heart of the
system, and not requiring a reboot every time I change an IP address,
install a driver, or sneeze loudly.

To my mind, thus, Linux is an order of magnitude more usable than
Windows, which to me is just a fun gaming platform and an easy tool
for beginners to get to grips with, in much the same way that Logo
used to be a good introduction to programming languages for children.

>    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.

So you get flexibility and choice at the expense of consistency. Some
would argue this is a preferable state of affairs. How could having
the imposition of a single UI ever be construed as an advantage,
unless you needed the absolute certainty of always finding the same
configuration wherever you happened to go?

>    The learning curve for Windows programs is shallower because of
>    the consistency.

But once the learning curve levels off, so does the productivity
curve.

A new computer user will be productive on Windows more quickly than
one on Linux, but after a relatively short period of time, the Linux
user will catch up and overtake the Windows user.

Windows is beginner-friendly, whereas more powerful systems are
user-friendly. Since people are experienced users for longer than they
are beginning users, it's hard to recommend Windows in most
circumstances.

> 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'.

Agreed.

> 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.

Yes, being able to write once and deploy everywhere is great. If only
more things in computerland were as cross-platform and ubiquitous as
good scripting languages.

Ian
-- 
Ian Macdonald               | Money is better than poverty, if only for
ian@caliban.org             | financial reasons. 
                            | 
                            |