From: Albert Wagner Date: 2002-06-22T01:36:12+09:00 Subject: Re: (ot) linux zealotry annoys me On Friday 21 June 2002 10:57 am, Austin Ziegler wrote: > As I've said before, I eat regex for breakfast -- > I'm not a "technically illiterate suit". > > The security on both is about the same, > because I have taken the time to make sure that I use tools which > reduce my exposure to Windows security holes, and I have neither the > time nor the expertise to lock up my Linux box yet make it usable in > the way that I need it usable. Obviously, "regex for breakfast" isn't the Breakfast of Champions. > > >> 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. > > This is a foolish statement, as it isn't "no options," Not foolish. Only one option for a GUI on windows is "no options." > which you could find out if you did a minimum of research instead of relying > upon what appears to be foolish zealotry. Ad hominem attacks are not productive: Where would I find this "minimum" of research material that explains how to have another GUI on windows? > I've addressed this point No, you haven't > > >> 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. > > Again, this is a false statement. No, you just ignored it. > I can have a plain X-Windows > program running and a KDE program running, and the likelihood that > they share even the same keystrokes for copy/paste (simple stuff!) > is almost nil. It MIGHT be the same for GNOME and KDE apps, but > there are still differences. As I said, you just ignored it. I said a "single" GUI, not two. > > >> 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. > > And IMO, you're a fool for this attitude. Another ad hominem attack. > Linux isn't even a > particularly good example of a powerful operating system -- it's > just common in the same way that Windows is common. (I'd say that > Windows::MacOS and Linux::*BSD are about the same..., and I'm not > just referring to Darwin.) How would you know "a powerful operating system?" You already admitted that you lacked the expertise to properly install and configure Linux. > > >> 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. > > Poor, foolish zealot. This name calling is really juvenile. > I've been dealing with real unix for a LONG > time. But the reality is that I have a job to get done, and Linux > box administration is NOT part of that job. It is, every time I have > to deal with it, a great annoyance. (For example, all of a sudden > last week, my ftp server decided to stop accepting connections. I > made no configuration changes to anything -- I played with the > various settings in xinetd, etc. all to no benefit. Fortunately, I > still have Samba running -- even though I have to manually start it > every time, despite my configuration files telling Samba to start it > every time I reboot.) Don't get me wrong: I get annoyed when I have > to do anything to stabilise or configure Windows, too. Those aren't > my job -- I'm a software designer and developer. I don't have *time* > or *desire* to be a systems administrator. It gets in the way of > doing my real job. > > Is that too hard for you to understand? I have been a software designer and developer for over 30 years. I will admit that under certain circumstances one can develop software that requires no knowledge of the OS, but IMO the really interesting stuff involves an intimate knowledge of the OS. > > >> 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. > > Actually, no, I'm not. I'm talking primarily about web-based > applications. Similarly, though, I can write a Ruby/tk program and > it will work Everywhere. It won't necessarily be pretty, and a lot > of the usability problems I have with Unix-based graphics toolkits > all around will still be there, but I can easily do cross-platform > anything. > > >> Again, the right tool for the job -- not Linux Everywhere. > > > > Bah! > > Bah, indeed. Zealots annoy me. If so, then how do you live with yourself? > > -austin > -- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.21 at 11.39.50