From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2002-06-21T23:15:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Why is I/O slow?

On Thursday 20 June 2002 10:31 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:16:24 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:
<sniip>
> > 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."

The only argument that you offer below for windows as "the best tool"  is a 
"shallow" learning curve and a simple installation.

 > Despite the vitriol  from some folks, 

The vitriol is aimed as MS as a predatory corporation that has wreaked havoc 
on competitors with monopolistic business practices.

>   there are times when Windows is not only the
>    best tool for the job, but it's the ONLY tool for the job.

It is the only tool for the job when the decisions as to what to purchase are 
made by technically illiterate suits.

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

Comparing stability of one with usability of another is comparing apples and 
oranges.  Besides, I see no increase in windows stability, simply change for 
the sake of selling the same functionality over and over again.

>    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. 

No options vs. several options is hardly an advantage, except to the very 
lazy.

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

Pick a single linux GUI and you also have consistency.  Again, lack of options 
is hardly an advantage.

>
> 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'.

And IMO, this is wrong.  

>
> 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),

Yes.  If you are used to windows installations, the great range of options 
available in any flavor of *nix is a daunting task.

>    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.

But without the technical expertise to even install a *nix system, how can 
your "portable" application really be optimal for a target *nix system.  And 
you are obviously not talking about GUI applications, but text only.

>    Again, the right tool for the job -- not Linux Everywhere.

Bah!  
>
> -austin
> -- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.20 at 23.22.38