Re: (ot) linux zealotry annoys me

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:36:12 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:
> 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".

>> 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.

No, it's simply not what my expertise is, and I don't have a need or
desire to become an expert in the arcane but otherwise useless art
of Proper Linux Configuration. I have tasks to complete that don't
involve the configuration of operating systems. That what I hire
system administrators for, if it's important enough. Unfortunately,
Linux is very cranky and requires a lot more administration than it
should -- even for simple tasks. You're obviously judging this
through a very narryminded perspective.

>>>> 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."

It is foolish, because it demonstrates you haven't done a modicum of
research. Frankly, the difference between GNOME and KDE is -- for
the end user -- nil. The differences can be obtained -- both
visually and functionally -- with software like Stardock's suite of
software (DestopX, Window Blinds, ObjectBar, etc.). This is the
biggest of many options out there for customisation.

>>>> 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.

Ah, no. I didn't ignore it. You made an ignorant statement. Picking
a 'single Linux GUI' does not mean the same that you think it means.
If, by picking a single Linux GUI, you mean that if I choose to run
KDE I run nothing but KDE programs, then you have pretty much forced
me to choose from a paltry selection -- it's even smaller if you
force me to choose GNOME programs. Selecting a Linux GUI means
that's the desktop you choose as your basis.

>> 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.

Doesn't matter -- the single GUI is the wm and/or the desktop, not
the programming API.

>>>> 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.

It might be an attack, but it's not meant to appeal to 'emotion
rather than reason.' Anyone who claims that there is One Right Way
in something which is not wholly dependent upon physics is a fool,
whether that One Right Way is Linux, Windows, Java, Ruby, or Python
-- and the argument can be extended to many other things in life.

>> 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.

I lack the expertise to tune it, but mostly it's the lack of desire.
I don't care to be a mere bit-twiddler as you seem to prefer. I have
real tasks to accomplish, thanks.

>> [...] 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.
> 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.

That's JYO. The really interesting stuff is stuff that solves real
problems and doesn't devolve into brainless advocacy. A good example
of this is Ruby, IMO. If you really have been doing what you do for
thirty years, then you should know just how stupid single-OS
advocacy is.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, [e-mail] on 2002.06.21 at 14.34.42