From: Sean Middleditch Date: 2002-06-22T02:11:15+09:00 Subject: Re: (ot) linux zealotry annoys me On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 12:36, Albert Wagner wrote: > On Friday 21 June 2002 10:57 am, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > 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. /me gets a stomach ache just thinking about it. ~,^ > > This is a foolish statement, as it isn't "no options," > > Not foolish. Only one option for a GUI on windows is "no options." You are limiting your entire approach to what Windows can do based on the GUI? *that* is foolish. ~,^ > > > 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? You are not limited to a single GUI, to be precise. Just like a desktop on Linux, the components of the Windows GUI are processes. In addition, a GUI also entails the widget set - GTK+ and Qt both work perfectly fine on Windows; Qt can have either a "native" (Microsoft-ish) look or use one of the looks you are accustomed to on UNIX. The Windows widget set is just a set of DLL's, just like it's a set of shared libraries on UNIX. Borland has it's one widget set as well - you can tell which compiler was used in many cases by the small differences in certain components. Windows actually wins in this regard in that all widget suppliers (MS, Borland, Qt, etc.) use a standard keybinding and generic look and feel, at least making the widgets in applications look and behave consistantly. I wish my Linux desktops could say the same. At least if I stick with all GNOME programs, and then only if they all bother to follow the standards, I can get that level of consistancy. ~,^ > > > 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. You do not get consistancy. I have nothing but GTK+ and GNOME apps on here (I do not have Qt installed, nor any Motif clones, and I don't run X-lib apps) yet there are lots of problems. GTK+ don't get GNOME's improvements/changes, lots of apps decide to code custom widgets because the authors just didn't like the look of the stock ones, some apps provide key-bindings while others don't, and so on. Linux is a usability night-mare. KDE is better in some cases because much of this is handled by Qt, so Qt and KDE apps behave together. GNOME2 is also an improvement. But, it won't likely be till KDE 4/5 or GNOME 3/4 that we see the level of consistancy among apps on the same toolkit that we see on Windows *now* (much less where it will be in several years). Then start throwing in things like all the apps that code their own GUI's, or use Tk or some other toolket, or FOX, or whatever, and then realize a lot of applications either run in only Qt, only GTK, or only something else, and in order to get all the apps the average user needs, you are running 3 or 4 different toolkits, with different looks and feel, different (or lacking) key-binding, different MIME settings, and so on. > > > 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. It is very very hard to get by with just one toolkit running (the desktop, or GUI as you seem to refer to it, will always be the same based on your environment choice). I run nothing but GTK+/GNOME apps, but then I have GTK+1 only apps, GNOME1 only apps, GTK+2 only apps, GNOME2 only apps, and so on. Each look and act differently. > > > > > >> 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. I don't touch Windows. Like my stability and apps and ease of maintainance and configurability way too much. But I'd still agree it's rather foolish to do nothing but say "Windows sucks, Linux rulez" with no clue about what the advantages or disadvantages of either are - Linux may be best for *you*, just as Linux is best for *me*, but for most people, unfortunately, this isn't the case. Trust me, I deploy Linux workstations and laptops here at work, and I know what problems even intelligent Windows users run into. > > > 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. He also stated he's used UNIX extensively. Linux != all UNICes. As someone uses used Solaris, AIX, FreeBSd, Linux, and Windows, the installation, administration, and so on of each is drastically different. I don't know about Linux not being powerful (it has its downpoints, but also its high-points - I'd say all UNICes are about the same in the end, unless you are running on specialized hardware). > > > 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. Agreed there. ^,^ Everyone needs to calm down on the whole issue, and at least discuss civilly, if not just dropping the subject. > > > 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. Depends what you are developing. When I make an e-mail client, I don't give a damn about the OS. When I write a mail daemon, however, it can be useful to understand the OS for optimization, security, and so on. > > >> 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? LOL. Dude, he's advocating the best tool for the job - not Windows Rulez At Everything Yo. You both need to quit with the name calling. ~,^ I'd honestly like to replace some of the Linux machines here at work with Windows - I mean, trying to maintain some of those things is a pain, some important apps (like a decent PDF editor) don't exist on Linux, multimedia on Linux is horrible, running Linux on laptops is a pita, etc. On the other hands, other uses could benefit from Linux - could get rid of the proprietary mail system we have, less support calls for crashed desktops, more security, more tailored/efficient desktop, etc. Best tool for the job. Maybe, in time, Linux will become the best tool for some things that Windows currently is. Not yet, tho. Sorry. ^,^ In any event, making Ruby Linux only would be horrible. I'd stop using it right then - I'm in the middle of writing software w/ Ruby to run on Windows, and am quite glad I have the ability - otherwise, I just wouldn't be using Ruby. We can't switch some 100 desktops to Linux just for a single application, especially when I can use another language to get the job done. Ruby is the best tool for the job in this case, and one of the prime reaons is that I can write it once, and it will work on both the Linux workstation, the Linux laptops, and the Windows desktops, without modification (yet - may change if I have to save settings...) > > > > > -austin > > -- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.21 at 11.39.50 >