Re: (ot) linux zealotry annoys me

On Friday 21 June 2002 10:57 am, Austin Ziegler wrote:
<snip>
> As I've said before, I eat regex for breakfast --
> I'm not a "technically illiterate suit".
>
<snip>
> 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, [e-mail] on 2002.06.21 at 11.39.50