Clan x86
Technical (Development, Security, etc.) => Unix / Linux Discussion => Topic started by: sushi on August 12, 2006, 10:25:00 pm
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
:blink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
that is all that you have seen of linux :P. The only time you have seen linux run is on my cs:s server which runs in "command prompt", but there are desktop environments.
-
LIES LIES LIES
Linux is just a kernel.
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
LOL
And *now* you know why the world uses Windows. :P
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
LOL
And *now* you know why the world uses Windows. :P
ROFL!!!!
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
LOL
And *now* you know why the world uses Windows. :P
QFT.
-
Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?
LOL
And *now* you know why the world uses Windows. :P
Myndfyre makes a good point. No matter how much X does for us is respect to graphical environments, it is still separated from system over a matter of "policy vs mechanism." That is to say, X does not provide any means to do simple tasks such as shutting down the system or configuring a network interface. Unix users insist on pure mechanism forgetting that extremism on either side of the issue is bad.
Here is an example where pure mechanism fails:
Say you're a color blind user. X, for all practical purposes, does not implement a standard toolkit (ok it does, but it sucks major assage, try xcalc out for size). Hence, we have GTK, Qt, Wings and Motif. Okay...and how does X let you control the color scheme used by GTK Firefox, as opposed to Motif Opera? Simple...it doesn't.
But, the authors of X and the toolkits don't want to impose "policy"..."policy" is a bad word in Unix world.
The above is just an example of the lameness of the Unix world. That's why you have to open a term to do system specific tasks. I don't care what window manager or DE you use, you still have to open terms to do things ... we're in a modern age, people expect to press buttons and get results, terminals have long died and gone. That's why people use Windows and OS X. I don't care who you are, if you don't see that people want to press buttons, you're a complete moron.
That said, Apple is an inspiration demonstrating how one can integrate a fully functional graphical environment into Unix ... not a partial one like X.
Although, these are sour points of Unix. Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.
-
Although, these are sour points of Unix. Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.
That disclaimer seems to be going with several of your posts these days :P.
-
Although, these are sour points of Unix. Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.
That disclaimer seems to be going with several of your posts these days :P.
Haha...well yes, trying to show that Unix isn't the be-all-do-all that its made out to be. Most of the mystical nature about Unix is hype.
-
This is why the corporate world uses Windows. They have no time to dick around and use Google to find out the answer to their problems. They have no time to recompile their kernel to add in support for a new NIC. They have no time to configure apache via command line. They have no time to learn the command line; they'd just rather click a button and be done with it. They don't want to install a completely foreign operating system and edit a file to set up a software firewall. Why not just go out and buy a hardware one that comes with good quality tech support? emacs? Hah. Notepad. It's simple, effective, and in a corporate environment, it wins.
They don't want to hire someone to maintain a Linux system when they can just purchase Windows and get tech support (which comes with the price tag) and pay someone to follow instructions over the phone. It's a lot cheaper than hiring someone experienced in Linux who would charge a lot more, since his job could be a bitch.
Linux and Unix may be cheaper to install, but in the long run Windows wins in both maintenance, tech support, and cost of upkeep.
Note: I do love Unix and Linux. I find both to be extremely powerful, moreso over Windows if you know what you are doing. I just came to terms with these and really can't argue it. Maintaining a Windows system any moron can do, and in the corporate world any moron has a much smaller paycheck than someone who has a degree and specializes in system maintenance. Why hire someone that smart if the job is extremely simple?
Windows also has the Windows API, which is so extensive and amazing that programs work across the Windows platforms with ease, and any binary you produce will probably work without the need for "updated" libraries. Windows is also compatible with 95% of the hardware out there, which makes it a winner too.
nslay is right. Unix isn't as great as everyone makes it out to be. Especially for the average person.
-
This is why the corporate world uses Windows. They have no time to dick around and use Google to find out the answer to their problems. They have no time to recompile their kernel to add in support for a new NIC. They have no time to configure apache via command line. They have no time to learn the command line; they'd just rather click a button and be done with it. They don't want to install a completely foreign operating system and edit a file to set up a software firewall. Why not just go out and buy a hardware one that comes with good quality tech support? emacs? Hah. Notepad. It's simple, effective, and in a corporate environment, it wins.
They don't want to hire someone to maintain a Linux system when they can just purchase Windows and get tech support (which comes with the price tag) and pay someone to follow instructions over the phone. It's a lot cheaper than hiring someone experienced in Linux who would charge a lot more, since his job could be a bitch.
Linux and Unix may be cheaper to install, but in the long run Windows wins in both maintenance, tech support, and cost of upkeep.
Note: I do love Unix and Linux. I find both to be extremely powerful, moreso over Windows if you know what you are doing. I just came to terms with these and really can't argue it. Maintaining a Windows system any moron can do, and in the corporate world any moron has a much smaller paycheck than someone who has a degree and specializes in system maintenance. Why hire someone that smart if the job is extremely simple?
Windows also has the Windows API, which is so extensive and amazing that programs work across the Windows platforms with ease, and any binary you produce will probably work without the need for "updated" libraries. Windows is also compatible with 95% of the hardware out there, which makes it a winner too.
nslay is right. Unix isn't as great as everyone makes it out to be. Especially for the average person.
Yeah. You have to want to use Unix. Windows is more transparent to the user. Most people want to press buttons and get results without an ounce of effort. But then again, nobody reads the instructions for anything anymore. Although, Unix is far more powerful and interesting than Windows.
I think it would be interesting for a game company to write an OS that motivates people to maintain it and keep it secure, after all...why should there be a difference between a game and a tool? :)
-
The software development corporation I'm interning at right now uses linux for their servers and Windows for most of the computers on the network. One of the reasons they run Windows is because most of their target customers run Windows and they want to develop applications for Windows users on Windows.
Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company). In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment. Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.
With the growing popularity of open-source, interpreted technologies (perl, python, ruby, java) and linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers, it only makes sense that linux is going to keep on growing in the software development world.
-
Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company).
It's taking the corporate software development world by storm? Hahahaha. The only market it is taking is the market from Unix and possibly Solaris. Windows it has yet to steal any marketshare from.
In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment.
You actually think that they're going to pay someone in a corporation to hack together a source for them?
I don't. Know why? They're going to have to pay that person for support for that product.
They'd rather purchase a product to their specifications, and get the tech support that comes with purchasing the product.
What is the difference, you ask? The difference being that the person who wrote the software from the ground up knows how it works, knows what does what, and can fix 95% of the problems instantly. The person hacking the source has little to no clue of the structure of the program and can't fix it as quickly.
Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Open source software is written as a hobby, whereas products written for money are driven to be written by the sound of the dollar. One of the two will last as long as they need it. It isn't the open source software.
linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers
Really? If it's so much more powerful, why isn't it taking marketshare from Windows?
As far as I know, it's not.
You may want to read this:
Stick to facts. If someone says something wrong about Linux, reply with the correct facts. Make sure they're facts, though, not just something you heard about. Don't spread lies or rumors. Check your facts. If you don't know how to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion, except perhaps by making questions. Even better, give references so that other people can also check the facts.
Also, if Linux were taking the corporate world by storm, SuSE and Red Hat would be doing fantastically. They aren't.
-
Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company).
It's taking the corporate software development world by storm? Hahahaha. The only market it is taking is the market from Unix and possibly Solaris. Windows it has yet to steal any marketshare from.
By storm I don't mean it's dominating. I mean that it's breaking through as a reasonable alternative and the executive guys at software companies are realizing the benefits to running linux. It's also growing ~_~.
In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment.
You actually think that they're going to pay someone in a corporation to hack together a source for them?
I don't. Know why? They're going to have to pay that person for support for that product.
They'd rather purchase a product to their specifications, and get the tech support that comes with purchasing the product.
What is the difference, you ask? The difference being that the person who wrote the software from the ground up knows how it works, knows what does what, and can fix 95% of the problems instantly. The person hacking the source has little to no clue of the structure of the program and can't fix it as quickly.
How much more does paying a sysadmin or two cost over buying a license for a whole corporate-network-full of Windows? Corporations and countries have already made the move (e.g., Thailand).
Also, if you're going to run Windows you probably do want to hire a security expert, because Windows security by default S.U.C.K.S (e.g., LM hashes). So I don't know if Windows is really that much cheaper than Linux, even in the very long run.
Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Open source software is written as a hobby, whereas products written for money are driven to be written by the sound of the dollar. One of the two will last as long as they need it. It isn't the open source software.
No, you're dead wrong. Look at the rate of linux distros and upgrades vs. that of Windows. Look at all the GNU software. Look at all the great open-source software and technologies that are predominant in the software development world. Apache webserver. Putty. Perl, python, and ruby. Do I need to continue? One of the founding philosophies of OSI is that software can evolve faster when it's open source.
Taken from OSI's site:
"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing."
Proprietary software may be driven by money, but open-source software is driven by the whole world.
linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers
Really? If it's so much more powerful, why isn't it taking marketshare from Windows?
As far as I know, it's not.
You may want to read this:
Stick to facts. If someone says something wrong about Linux, reply with the correct facts. Make sure they're facts, though, not just something you heard about. Don't spread lies or rumors. Check your facts. If you don't know how to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion, except perhaps by making questions. Even better, give references so that other people can also check the facts.
Also, if Linux were taking the corporate world by storm, SuSE and Red Hat would be doing fantastically. They aren't.
I didn't think I needed to provide facts for this statement. Linux allows you to go GUI-less with servers. Windows doesn't. Kapeesh. (Vista is excluded from this statement.)
-
Ender, you're forgetting that there are open-source programs that still make assloads of money. Apache is among them. Apache, PHP, MySQL, GNU, and most of the big-name open source softwares are all open source and recieve thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of dollars in donations from corporations. Open source generally DOES NOT WORK in a corporate setting. Why? Think of it this way:
A program is released open source into the software world, and is picked up by a few people. Someone decides they want to change something, so they do, and then they redistribute it. Other people pick up on it, and change it more. Some of the original people don't like the changes, and don't implement their own. Instead, they change something else, and in turn release that. Over the years the original program evolves to the point where there are thousands of distinct and different versions, some more obscure than others. A certified expert in one is not necessarily a certified expert in another. Corporations hiring experts have to make sure they hire the expert with the right certification, which is hard, because every version of the program is still called the same thing. Fracturing and even more updating occurs.
This program is called Linux. There are THOUSANDS of distributions of Linux, and guess what they are all called? LINUX. Companies don't want to say "Should we use Slackware or Red Hat or Black Hat or SELinux or Fedora or Ubuntu or Knoppix ...". They want to say "Let's use windows". There's not really any trouble with selecting Windows. If you're aiming for an environment for your employees you go with XP or Vista. If you want a server, you go with Windows Server. A certified expert in Windows is essentially a certified expert in ALL VERSIONS of Windows. Also notice that most Windows servers run IIS and ASP, not Apache and PHP.
-
By storm I don't mean it's dominating. I mean that it's breaking through as a reasonable alternative and the executive guys at software companies are realizing the benefits to running linux. It's also growing ~_~.
Learn to word your statements. And it's not breaking through. It's only at 24%, whereas Windows is at 55.1% (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/40481/40481.html?Ad=1). Did I mention that by 2002, there were only a few server products, the most potent being Win2K? Microsoft has revamped a lot in their products, and Win 2K3 is way more secure than Win2K nowadays.
I like this quote:
"Microsoft generates about the same amount of OS revenue in 3 days as the entire Linux industry generates in 1 year," IDC notes.
In three days, Microsoft generates the same amount of OS revenue as Red Hat, SuSE, etc. do in one year combined. If they're taking market, it isn't noticeable to Microsoft.
I'd personally like to see some statistics for real time. Or at least 2006. Look some up for me to validate your claims that it's breaking through. :)
How much more does paying a sysadmin or two cost over buying a license for a whole corporate-network-full of Windows? Corporations and countries have already made the move (e.g., Thailand).
Also, if you're going to run Windows you probably do want to hire a security expert, because Windows security by default S.U.C.K.S (e.g., LM hashes). So I don't know if Windows is really that much cheaper than Linux, even in the very long run.
Let's say you purchase a license for $500. Tech support comes with the price tag, so calling them to get something fixed is a sinch. Let's say they don't hire anybody to do maintenance, because it is so simple in Windows that hiring someone is insane.
Let's say you hire someone to install SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server) for $30/hr. In a matter of 20 hours, you've paid more for maintenance on your Linux system than you have for that license.
Guess what? That's only 20 hours of maintenance. You've got to maintain that system as long as you're in business. So you're constantly dumping money into a guy that's underpaid, overworked, and the problems often come back.
And the third party countries have made the move because they can't afford it. The instant they can afford it (i.e. starting off corporations often use Linux because they can't afford it) they would switch.
Windows behind a good firewall and running good anti-virus and anti-malware is as secure as any Linux or Unix OS. It's all about how you configure your system. You should realize that corporations aren't going to use a default installation of Windows...... the fact that you didn't kinda saddens me and wonders if you're just blindly arguing or you actually believe that. :|
Something that opened my eyes a bit ago in terms of security: take a look at that page. (http://www.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities) Look at all the Linux Kernel vulnerabilities. Now count the ones for Microsoft on that page. Total. Now subtract those that are third party programs that run on Windows.... yeah, I think Linux loses in security on that page. Sure, they aren't all extremely terrifying vulnerabilities, but truth be told most on Windows aren't either. The fact is that those are security vulnerabilities, and corporations don't want any. Microsoft may patch some under the table, but for the most part it is good about announcing what vulnerabilities their security patches fix. And with their new model towards security (with Vista mainly) it can only get better.
Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Open source software is written as a hobby, whereas products written for money are driven to be written by the sound of the dollar. One of the two will last as long as they need it. It isn't the open source software.
No, you're dead wrong. Look at the rate of linux distros and upgrades vs. that of Windows. Look at all the GNU software. Look at all the great open-source software and technologies that are predominant in the software development world. Apache webserver. Putty. Perl, python, and ruby. Do I need to continue? One of the founding philosophies of OSI is that software can evolve faster when it's open source.
The rate of Linux distros? What?
Predominant? Hahahahaha. That's a gusty word to use. Apache? You can run that in Windows. PuTTY? That's based on OpenSSH, which also can run in Windows. Perl? Python? Ruby? One word: .NET. It blows those languages out of the water. You can still use them in Windows if you wish...
Software may be able to evolve faster when in open source, but it won't live in the long run. How many open source projects have I seen dead when attempting to find solutions to my problems? At least one each time I use Google for a solution. It's sad that they die.
Eventually you have to come to terms with the fact that open source software may be driven by the world, but eventually the corporations paying for a product are going to keep a product going (you realize the open source programmers have to have jobs to pay for taxes, etc. They need money.) well past any open source project.
I didn't think I needed to provide facts for this statement. Linux allows you to go GUI-less with servers. Windows doesn't. Kapeesh. (Vista is excluded from this statement.)
...
The GUI adds up to how much lag and overhead in a modern system? Close to 1% maybe.
And services run in the background, so even if your GUI is sitting there a portion of your system is dedicated to running background processes (something you can finetune in Windows somewhere iirc, between performance and background processes) so it really won't matter.
You can also boot Windows without a GUI. You realize that, right? :)
Take your ignorant "Kapeesh" and research something before you say it so arrogantly. I don't mind arguing so long as you don't say shit like it's the be-all end-all truth.
-
Do you realize that you are also being condescending? Do you realize that you were the one who started this attitude which has persisted in both of our posts?
I did research. I never said that the open-source software that I mentioned didn't run on Windows. It is, however, a part of the open-source development world. I was arguing more about how the world is becoming more and more open-source and how Microsoft will have a hard time with that.
And you can't argue with that. Two other dominant open-source applications I didn't mention are firefox and eclipse. 26% of the people who visit w3schools use Firefox and less than 60% use IE. That's a tremendous accomplishment, even though it's only on the w3schools site. The reason I mention w3schools' statistics is because it probably is a good representation of the web programming branch of the software development world.
Yeah, so you may be saying, so what all this software runs on Windows. Well my point is that the world is becoming more and more open-source and Microsoft is going to become more and more uncomfortable with that.
And by the way, Windows security will suck if you don't hire a security expert. It takes literally 1 minute to crack an LM hash. The security holes in IE and the viruses for Windows are extraodinarily common and persistent.
Did you read my comment about how Thailand moved towards Linux? Even though (IIRC) they didn't end up using Linux, they OWNED Microsoft! http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html. More countries will start doing this.
Unfortunately, I think Vista will change things. My whole argument excludes Vista =P.
-
I did research. I never said that the open-source software that I mentioned didn't run on Windows. It is, however, a part of the open-source development world. I was arguing more about how the world is becoming more and more open-source and how Microsoft will have a hard time with that.
Microsoft is currently busy laughing in the face of open-source.
And you can't argue with that. Two other dominant open-source applications I didn't mention are firefox and eclipse. 26% of the people who visit w3schools use Firefox and less than 60% use IE. That's a tremendous accomplishment, even though it's only on the w3schools site. The reason I mention w3schools' statistics is because it probably is a good representation of the web programming branch of the software development world.
Exactly. Developers. 90% of the internet user-base is NOT developer. IE still dominates 70-odd percent of the marketshare.
Yeah, so you may be saying, so what all this software runs on Windows. Well my point is that the world is becoming more and more open-source and Microsoft is going to become more and more uncomfortable with that.
It's not really becoming more open-source, it's just that there is some successful open source which is drawing more and more attention to the arena.
And by the way, Windows security will suck if you don't hire a security expert. It takes literally 1 minute to crack an LM hash. The security holes in IE and the viruses for Windows are extraodinarily common and persistent.
Why would a server be browsing the internet with IE? Securing Windows isn't all that hard.
Did you read my comment about how Thailand moved towards Linux? Even though (IIRC) they didn't end up using Linux, they OWNED Microsoft! http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html. More countries will start doing this.
Wow. One third-world country almost went Linux.
Unfortunately, I think Vista will change things. My whole argument excludes Vista =P.
...
-
I did research. I never said that the open-source software that I mentioned didn't run on Windows. It is, however, a part of the open-source development world. I was arguing more about how the world is becoming more and more open-source and how Microsoft will have a hard time with that.
Uhm, ok? No arguments there. Microsoft OS products (what we were arguing about...) are still top of the line. I doubt any open source operating system will usurp them any time. The programs you run on them are really the choice of the company. Odds are they'll just use what comes with the OS (IIS vs Apache, .NET vs other web languages, etc.) so in reality while that is an evil tactic, it'll win.
And you can't argue with that. Two other dominant open-source applications I didn't mention are firefox and eclipse. 26% of the people who visit w3schools use Firefox and less than 60% use IE. That's a tremendous accomplishment, even though it's only on the w3schools site. The reason I mention w3schools' statistics is because it probably is a good representation of the web programming branch of the software development world.
Eclipse is an IDE for Java....... omgz, an open source IDE for a crappy language!
Firefox is just an example of how open source can win. Firefox, while being more secure than IE, still has security holes in it (http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=0&l=30&c=12&op=display_list&vendor=Mozilla&version=&title=Firefox&CVE=). The problem with security holes in Firefox is that you have to update it by downloading an installer. Only recently have they integrated patching from inside the program. Patching IE7 (which is nice, by the way; I'm using it right now) is simply the task of running Windows Update. You're not only patching IE7 but you're also patching your entire system. Two birds with one stone. When you have thousands of computers to keep up to date, I can safely say doing 2 updates per computer will be a bitch. Automatic patching makes keeping IE7 up to date even easier. Firefox should be worried. Sure, IE7 does not support CSS as well as Firefox, but in the end, 60% of the web still uses IE and the web developers will have to support the lowest common demoninator in order to run a successful webpage. So until Firefox manages to take 50% (I doubt this will ever happen) of the market, IE7 will still reign dominant and webpages will be coded for it.
Yeah, so you may be saying, so what all this software runs on Windows. Well my point is that the world is becoming more and more open-source and Microsoft is going to become more and more uncomfortable with that.
No they are not. Why would they be scared? They basically run the desktop and server markets. Office suite? Office 2003. Operating system. Windows. Embedded systems? Windows Embedded. The only markets Linux has a niche in is supercomputing, and Microsoft has an answer for that (http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/08/02/217366/Microsoft+launches+Windows+supercomputer+platform.htm).
No matter how much market open source takes from Microsoft, it won't be enough to scare Microsoft. The only marketshare that has really done damage to them is Firefox taking from IE, but seeing as how Firefox got advertised in newspapers and such, it's no surprise. If you saw an advertisement in a newspaper for some web browser, wouldn't you want to try it?
Microsoft doesn't need to advertise and they have 60% of the marketshare. :)
Did you read my comment about how Thailand moved towards Linux? Even though (IIRC) they didn't end up using Linux, they OWNED Microsoft! http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html. More countries will start doing this.
I am unmoved. Heh. You'd get a better reaction out of me for what Europe did to Microsoft. Thailand is tiny, poor and doesn't matter in the long run.
No, more countries will not start doing this. You shouldn't make accusations like that. They're beginning to bug me that you think Linux is the Microsoft killer. The only worry Microsoft has is that it will have no competition, making it a monopoly.
I'm surprised you have so much faith in Linux beating Windows. Even Red Hat says Linux can't beat Windows. (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-828802.html) Their goal, as I said earlier, was to take market from Unix and specialize in embedded processes. Unix is dying and Microsoft is taking marketshare as well (it's not the only one interested in Unix server marketshare), and Microsoft Embedded (http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/) is the answer to the latter half of their goals.
Vista won't change things. They're rushing it. I don't have much faith in Vista changing anything except maybe desktop market. We'll have to see how the server product based on Longhorn goes...
And by the way, Windows security will suck if you don't hire a security expert. It takes literally 1 minute to crack an LM hash. The security holes in IE and the viruses for Windows are extraodinarily common and persistent.
Security holes in IE on a server.. hmm... I don't think that'll be an issue. Even so, ever wonder why IE has so many holes? It's 70% of the market. Why would people write exploits for Firefox, Opera, or even Links/Lynx? Because they are roughly ~30% of the market. They'd rather prod at holes in IE since there's more of a chance to cause havoc.
Viruses on a server in IE.. hmm... I think you'd be more worried about remote exploits versus viruses. I doubt anybody will be double clicking "BRITNEY_SPEARDS_NUDE.JPG.MPG.EXE" anytime soon on a server. And behind a good firewall, no worries about exploits on much of anything you don't want exposed to the world. So basically they'll have to exploit IIS or even worse, Apache.
One word: Exchange (http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/default.mspx). Without an alternative to Microsoft Exchange, Linux will NEVER take from Microsoft in large doses. The corporations love Microsoft Exchange.
-
Do you realize that you are also being condescending? Do you realize that you were the one who started this attitude which has persisted in both of our posts?
Q_Q
I did research. I never said that the open-source software that I mentioned didn't run on Windows. It is, however, a part of the open-source development world. I was arguing more about how the world is becoming more and more open-source and how Microsoft will have a hard time with that.
And you can't argue with that.
Why can't you argue with that? I don't think Microsoft is having a hard time with OSS. A lot of stuff MS is doing these days involves sharing source code with their big partners, and they've opened their source code to some toolkits (for instance, the Shared Source CLI which works on Red Hat and OS X without adaptation, and of course Windows).
You need to learn how to word your arguments. You're making an argument of opinion. It's not logical and it doesn't help debate when you say "you can't argue with that." I can say, "Windows is the best there is because so many desktop users use it, and you can't argue with that." That qualifier doesn't make me right.
Two other dominant open-source applications I didn't mention are firefox and eclipse. 26% of the people who visit w3schools use Firefox and less than 60% use IE. That's a tremendous accomplishment, even though it's only on the w3schools site. The reason I mention w3schools' statistics is because it probably is a good representation of the web programming branch of the software development world.
Sure, it's a tremendous accomplishment, and I suspect it's in large part due to tabbed browsing. I personally don't really care for tabbed browsing that much (I'm used to alt-tabbing around everywhere, although I suspect Vista will annoy me enough to use it), and that tabbed browsing support is going to be hit with IE 7. Before you talk about security vulnerabilities "laden" in IE, let me tell you this much: I've been running my computer on the DMZ for my router (all incoming traffic gets routed to my machine), running XP, and using IE, and in the past two years I've gotten no virii. No adware. I'm not running any anti-virus software, the Windows software firewall is disabled, and I don't have any other firewall (they annoy me), and I don't use adware scanners. It's not really that amazing.
Yeah, so you may be saying, so what all this software runs on Windows. Well my point is that the world is becoming more and more open-source and Microsoft is going to become more and more uncomfortable with that.
I think Newby's point that Microsoft doesn't really feel any revenue loss is well-said, and I haven't seen you provide shred of evidence #1 that MS is "uncomfortable" with an open-source-using world.
And by the way, Windows security will suck if you don't hire a security expert. It takes literally 1 minute to crack an LM hash. The security holes in IE and the viruses for Windows are extraodinarily common and persistent.
Who uses LAN Manager these days? Everything on a Windows network since XP and 2000 is done via Kerberos unless you're using REALLY old stuff. See above for my review of Windows and IE "vulnerabilities."
Did you read my comment about how Thailand moved towards Linux? Even though (IIRC) they didn't end up using Linux, they OWNED Microsoft! http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html. More countries will start doing this.
Let's talk about the Thailand market. Now, I don't want to downplay the importance of being a global competitor everywhere.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Thailand's annual GDP (in parity) is $560.7 billion US. The United States' is $12.36 trillion. That makes Thailand's roughly 4.5% of the US market - what Microsoft makes in a year in Thailand, they can make in the US in 16 days.
Yeah - they really "owned" Microsoft. ::)
Unfortunately, I think Vista will change things. My whole argument excludes Vista =P.
I don't know why everyone seems to think Vista will be so revolutionary. I think its security "feature" is annoying as hell.
-
Eclipse is an IDE for Java....... omgz, an open source IDE for a crappy language!
LOL
-
I'm too lazy to make mad quotes, because I have three people to answer to and a lot of answers apply to all three ~_~.
@everyone:
"To prevent Linux from running away with Thailand's subsidized "people's PC project," Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) TechNet Security Center: Tools & Guidance to Defend Your Network Latest News about Microsoft has dropped the price of its Windows and Office packages from nearly US$600 to $37" (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html).
$600 -> $37
Thailand bought the Windows and Office packages for around the price of a hardcover Harry Potter book. They lowered it to 6% of the original price. That's ggnore.
@everyone:
I don't think Linux will beat Windows. I think that it will earn a lasting place in the corporate software development community for development and server purposes.
@everyone:
Microsoft hasn't come out with a new OS in what, 5 years? After 5 years a lot of shit piles up on an OS (I mean security holes). Microsoft has a chance to fix a lot of this with Vista. That's why I think it will change things.
@Myndfyre:
Evidence for Microsoft being uncomfortable with open-source? Going to the extremes of dropping lowing their prices by 93% to prevent a country from moving towards Linux. Having no open-source software of their own. Sure, they share a lot of their development process in IE with the community, and that's good. I admit that I can't say that Microsoft won't embrace open-source in the future. It may be a very smart marketing move.
@everyone:
.NET should be shot, hit with a golf club, blowtorched, and then buried in Thailand.
@everyone:
If Java is such a sucky language then why is it commonplace in software development? Evidence: look at all the Java work Apache has done. A heavy-hitting software foundation chooses to make a lot of java products...
-
@everyone:
"To prevent Linux from running away with Thailand's subsidized "people's PC project," Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) TechNet Security Center: Tools & Guidance to Defend Your Network Latest News about Microsoft has dropped the price of its Windows and Office packages from nearly US$600 to $37" (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html).
$600 -> $37
Thailand bought the Windows and Office packages for around the price of a hardcover Harry Potter book. They lowered it to 6% of the original price. That's ggnore.
They can afford to do that, since any profit at this point is profit altogether. That's not a "ggnore", that's marketing. If they know they're not going to sell, why bother keeping it at a ridiculous price? Lower it and give people incentive to pay for it. They're a poor country.
I don't think Linux will beat Windows. I think that it will earn a lasting place in the corporate software development community for development and server purposes.
It will take from the Unix and Solaris marketshare on servers. That's about it.
You should remove "corporate" from the software development community. Corporations don't develop software for Linux, lmao! Corporations are out to make money. Why develop for a product that has less than 3% of the desktop marketshare and 25% of the server marketshare, when you can develop software for 97% of the desktop and 50% of the servers and charge for it accordingly? You really can't charge for Linux software... it's ridiculous. You'd have to offer tech support, and Linux distros vary so much that it would be an absolute bitch to offer support altogether.
@everyone:
Microsoft hasn't come out with a new OS in what, 5 years? After 5 years a lot of shit piles up on an OS (I mean security holes). Microsoft has a chance to fix a lot of this with Vista. That's why I think it will change things.
Wrong. Read:
By that measure, Microsoft has improved Windows by a far greater degree. In the same time frame, it has shipped Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (and 2005 UR2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2, absolutely a big Windows upgrade), Windows XP Embedded, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Windows XP Starter Edition in various languages. Heck, I might be missing some versions. No, they're not all major releases (The N Editions? Eh.) But XP x64, like Tiger on Intel, was a major engineering effort. And Apple has nothing--absolutely nothing--like the Media Center and Tablet PC functionality that Microsoft has been refining now for several years. So let's put the silliness about Microsoft doing nothing for five years to rest, shall we?
@Myndfyre:
Evidence for Microsoft being uncomfortable with open-source? Going to the extremes of dropping lowing their prices by 93% to prevent a country from moving towards Linux. Having no open-source software of their own. Sure, they share a lot of their development process in IE with the community, and that's good. I admit that I can't say that Microsoft won't embrace open-source in the future. It may be a very smart marketing move.
The fuck does that have to do with anything related to Microsoft being uncomfortable with open source? If anything, it shows they aren't giving in to "peer pressure" (if you will) and open sourcing software of their own....
As for lowering the price of the product in Thailand, read what I said above.
And no, moving towards open source would not be a good marketing move. You can't make money on open source products like you can a closed source product.
@everyone:
.NET should be shot, hit with a golf club, blowtorched, and then buried in Thailand.
Care to explain the reasoning behind this? I don't think you have any facts behind this, I just think you have a grudge against .NET or something Why? .NET is amazing.
@everyone:
If Java is such a sucky language then why is it commonplace in software development? Evidence: look at all the Java work Apache has done. A heavy-hitting software foundation chooses to make a lot of java products...
It's common place? I was unaware of that... as far as I know, everything I use it not written in Java. I can safely say that for the rest of my family and anybody's computer I've fixed.
Care to state your source on that Java is "commonplace" in software development? As far as I know, .NET is what's in right now.
-
@everyone:
"To prevent Linux from running away with Thailand's subsidized "people's PC project," Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) TechNet Security Center: Tools & Guidance to Defend Your Network Latest News about Microsoft has dropped the price of its Windows and Office packages from nearly US$600 to $37" (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32110.html).
$600 -> $37
Thailand bought the Windows and Office packages for around the price of a hardcover Harry Potter book. They lowered it to 6% of the original price. That's ggnore.
Yes, we've all read that, and we all posted thoughtful replies. You have not read our replies and replied thoughtfully.
@everyone:
I don't think Linux will beat Windows. I think that it will earn a lasting place in the corporate software development community for development and server purposes.
That's not what you've been saying.
@everyone:
Microsoft hasn't come out with a new OS in what, 5 years? After 5 years a lot of shit piles up on an OS (I mean security holes). Microsoft has a chance to fix a lot of this with Vista. That's why I think it will change things.
Right, so new and untested software *doesn't* have security holes and bugs? Oh, you mean to say when billions of people aren't pounding on it to try and make it break, you don't *know* about the security holes. Gotcha.
@Myndfyre:
Evidence for Microsoft being uncomfortable with open-source? Going to the extremes of dropping lowing their prices by 93% to prevent a country from moving towards Linux. Having no open-source software of their own. Sure, they share a lot of their development process in IE with the community, and that's good. I admit that I can't say that Microsoft won't embrace open-source in the future. It may be a very smart marketing move.
I don't think they need to move to open source. And even then I don't think the OSS community would be impressed. Microsoft is the demon - have you seen the Bill Gates Borg picture on /.? End of story.
@everyone:
.NET should be shot, hit with a golf club, blowtorched, and then buried in Thailand.
Whatever man.
@everyone:
If Java is such a sucky language then why is it commonplace in software development? Evidence: look at all the Java work Apache has done. A heavy-hitting software foundation chooses to make a lot of java products...
Oh look, Apache also supports PHP, Perl, and *gasp* ASP.NET! I have news for you: Apache is not the end-all of what makes good software.
I'm fairly certain you've never used either .NET or Java, otherwise you would understand the obvious deficiencies in Java and benefits of .NET over Java.
I'm too lazy to make mad quotes, because I have three people to answer to and a lot of answers apply to all three ~_~.
It's pretty apparent to me that you didn't actually read our replies, and that you're just spouting off the 12-year-old bullshit that every forum kiddie likes to say to look "l33t becoz I r teh linux expret". If you can come back with some actual facts, statistics, and maybe thoughtful replies to what we've said, then I'll continue this discussion. Otherwise I'm done.
-
Eclipse is an IDE for Java....... omgz, an open source IDE for a crappy language!
LOL
Eclipse was written in Java, but it's not an IDE limited to only Java. When asked why Java is not commonly used for writing large software applications, Java advocates often cling to Eclipse as their big example (they can't really point to much else, as it's one of the only major Java projects). However, it happens to be an extremely slow running and bloated IDE, which I think is certainly the fault of the language it was written in. On the other hand, MF, your favourite language (I think), C#, is more similar to Java than to any other language. :P
-
That's sad that it is written in Java, though I don't think they'd rewrite the whole thing at this point. Just stick with what you have.
And I did not know it could do other languages. Downloading the JDK normally comes with an offer to download Eclipse, so the thought of "Eclipse is for programming in Java" stuck to my head. Ignorance I suppose on my behalf.
-
That's sad that it is written in Java, though I don't think they'd rewrite the whole thing at this point. Just stick with what you have.
Well, I think it was written in Java as a promotional gimmick ("see what Java can do?!?!"). Sure, it might have impressed a few clueless comp sci undergrads, but I think that choice has backfired on them in the professional development market. The effect has been more like "see what an inefficient and bloated language this is?"
-
Eclipse is an IDE for Java....... omgz, an open source IDE for a crappy language!
LOL
Eclipse was written in Java, but it's not an IDE limited to only Java. When asked why Java is not commonly used for writing large software applications, Java advocates often point to Eclipse (one of the only major Java projects). However, it happens to be an extremely slow running and bloated IDE, which I think is certainly the fault of the language it was written in. On the other hand, MF, your favourite language (I think), C#, is more similar to Java than to any other language. :P
I don't disagree, but have you ever used #Develop? It's an open-source IDE written in C#, and it's not *nearly* as slow and clunky as Eclipse. Hell, Visual Studio isn't either. No project I've ever written in C# has ever been exceptionally slow, except in case of programmer fault (an old bot of mine was horrid - I've since learned how to keep less than all of my data in memory when not in use).
But here are a series of things that Java does not support that C# is particularly good at:
* Type-safe delegates. Delegates are objects that behave like function pointers of C and C++, except that they are type-safe and runtime-checked. To have a callback in Java, you need to create a new object and implement an interface.
* Value typing. Developers can create UDTs that behave like primitives - that is, they are passed by-value via the stack rather than by-reference via the heap.
* Non-wrapped value-type objects. The runtime does not nead to create wrapper object instances (such as java.lang.Integer for int) in order to call methods on them. An int primitive can have the System.Int32 methods called on it directly.
* Pointers. For tasks that need to be particularly fast and bypass indexing checks, for instance, C# developers can use pointers to, for instance, traverse an array. I replaced extremely long code in the BLP2 to PNG Java converter into a simple loop to do the same work in creating a bitmap in C# for my WoW bot.
*Type-safe enumerations. This has been addressed in Java 1.5, but it's still worthwhile to point out since C# had it from day 1. Previously in Java, to create "enum-like" things, you had to declare a class with several public const variables, which were not type-safe. In C#, if you ask for an enumeration instance as a parameter, you're guaranteed to get a primitive passed as an enumeration field.
* Declarative programming. To my knowledge, Java does not allow the creation of custom metadata for your reference. In C#, it's very straightforward. for instance, this is an excerpt from my WoW project:
public enum WoWEventType
{
[Use(typeof(MessageChatEventHandler))]
MessageChat,
}
I wrote a generic class that takes a type parameter for plugins when performing event notification registration. The class automatically detects the metadata provided by the type parameter, and ensures that the right type of delegate is being used for the specified event. It makes contractual programming easier and clearer.
* XML code documentation. Javadoc is nice, but C# (and now VB.NET) produce XML. I doubt anybody is questioning the utility of XML these days.
There are several other nice things, but I don't really feel the need to go on. :)
-
I know C# gives the programmer a little more discretion than Java, and also provides a few extra features. But they still are remarkably similar languages :P. Out of curiosity, do you know of any advantages to using Java over C#?
I haven't tried #Develop, but I'll take a look at it now. In terms of features and layout, Eclipse is a pretty good IDE; so it may be quite helpful for those who don't mind being extremely wasteful with diskspace, RAM, and processing time. On the other hand, it can't really augur well for Java when a glorified text editor consumes ~2GB and further causes my 2.7 GHz P4 Laptop (with 512MB RAM) to linger in suspense on every letter I type.
-
And I did not know it could do other languages. Downloading the JDK normally comes with an offer to download Eclipse, so the thought of "Eclipse is for programming in Java" stuck to my head. Ignorance I suppose on my behalf.
Actually Sun doesn't affiliate with Eclipse because they're open-source. They advertise NetBeans and some other crappy IDEs but not Eclipse. And I have to say, Eclipse is definitely awesome but it's not necessarily the best Java IDE. IntelliJ IDEA is pretty sweet but you have to pay for it... I'm basing my opinion off of the free trial. All heavy-hitting IDEs are bulky, so I stick with Vim, Emacs, or Notepad++ when my projects aren't huge.
Hmm... I just exhausted my quote-quota. Back to @'s.
@newby:
Well, of course you don't have Java stuff on your computer. Microsoft doesn't package it with Windows because Sun's a competitor, many linux distros don't automatically package it because it's not open-source, and you don't download any Java apps because you're morally opposed to Java.
@myndfyre, newby
Newby said Java was a crappy language. I said .NET should be shot. All in good gesture.
@java haters
http://www.sun.com/java/everywhere/
-
Actually Sun doesn't affiliate with Eclipse because they're open-source. They advertise NetBeans and some other crappy IDEs but not Eclipse.
Ah, that was the craphole IDE they package it with. My mistake! :-X
@newby:
Well, of course you don't have Java stuff on your computer. Microsoft doesn't package it with Windows because Sun's a competitor, many linux distros don't automatically package it because it's not open-source, and you don't download any Java apps because you're morally opposed to Java.
I always thought the Microsoft Java Virtual Machine (http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/java/) came with my computer, since it's always upgraded in Windows Update, but I don't know how that compares to the real JVM.
Java came with Slackware, so I use it when I need to use Java programs.
I am not morally opposed to Java. Java runs fine in Linux. It just runs like shit in Windows. And I run JavaOp daily (well, used to) so eh?
No comment at the Sun site. Sun is a dying company (cutting 4-5K jobs to "continue profitability", that's a damn good company! (http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Sun_Microsystems_to_Cut_Up_to_5,000_Jobs)) so their only flagship at this point is Java. I would be proud of it too, personally.
-
The reason Java is praised as such a great language is that once compiled, you can run it on any system with the JVM. Programs don't have to be recompiled for each arch or distro: they just work. The tradeoff: a slow, bulky language, with too much emphasis on objects. I actually looked forward to Java for a while, but after taking a class to learn it and using it hands-on for a year, I realised it sucks. The end.
-
The reason Java is praised as such a great language is that once compiled, you can run it on any system with the JVM. Programs don't have to be recompiled for each arch or distro: they just work. The tradeoff: a slow, bulky language, with too much emphasis on objects. I actually looked forward to Java for a while, but after taking a class to learn it and using it hands-on for a year, I realised it sucks. The end.
Note that this is true about .NET too. :P
-
Really? O. Whatever. Java still bugs me -.-
-
Platform independence is way too over-rated. Most code in C, C++, (or any decent language) will compile without any problems on 99% of the platforms people use. In arguments, frothing Java supporters often say "platform independence" as though that phrase is supposed to bring about pause and mould one's expression into an image of mystical awe and appreciation, when it's really more like a 20 cent discount coupon that may or may not come with the pizza you order.
-
Platform independence is way too over-rated. Most code in C, C++, (or any decent language) will compile without any problems on 99% of the platforms people use. In arguments, frothing Java supporters often say "platform independence" as though that phrase is supposed to bring about pause and mould one's expression into an image of mystical awe and appreciation, when it's really more like a 20 cent discount coupon that may or may not come with the pizza you order.
Well, Java (and .NET) are theoretically binary platform-independent with the given runtime, whereas C and C++ are not.
In theory.
-
Platform independence is way too over-rated. Most code in C, C++, (or any decent language) will compile without any problems on 99% of the platforms people use. In arguments, frothing Java supporters often say "platform independence" as though that phrase is supposed to bring about pause and mould one's expression into an image of mystical awe and appreciation, when it's really more like a 20 cent discount coupon that may or may not come with the pizza you order.
It's because it doesn't have to be recompiled on each system, like C/++ do.
-
if you know what you are doing
Nailed 'er on the head.
-
if you know what you are doing
Nailed 'er on the head.
Well, the same could be said about Windows, so really I didn't nail anything on the head. That's common sense.
That's like saying "nailed it on the head" because I said "if you work hard you will do a better job than if you do not try" :/.
-
It's because it doesn't have to be recompiled on each system, like C/++ do.
My point was that the amount of re-compiling that happens is minimal, and not really an issue anyways when it has to be done.
-
It's because it doesn't have to be recompiled on each system, like C/++ do.
My point was that the amount of re-compiling that happens is minimal, and not really an issue anyways when it has to be done.
It really depends. A large project can take hours to compile.
-
It's because it doesn't have to be recompiled on each system, like C/++ do.
My point was that the amount of re-compiling that happens is minimal, and not really an issue anyways when it has to be done.
It really depends. A large project can take hours to compile.
Or, in the case of KDE, a millenium or so.
-
if you know what you are doing
Nailed 'er on the head.
Well, the same could be said about Windows, so really I didn't nail anything on the head. That's common sense.
That's like saying "nailed it on the head" because I said "if you work hard you will do a better job than if you do not try" :/.
Not always true. IE, someone's parent just died, and you try to comfort them but you end up getting bitchslapped because something came out wrong. :)
-
I was reading some material for work and stumbled upon this which turned out to be a semi-decent read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0374292795/ref=sib_dp_top_toc/104-0504079-8892722?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link
Chapter 2, "Flattener #4" is really all that's pertaining to this discussion, though the book was good in general.
The principal logical fallacy that I notice in these discussions (open source vs closed source, windows vs linux, etc, whatever you want to call it) is one that seems to work both ways. For some reason, the Windows supporters seem to think that Linux users should want more market share. And for some reason, most Linux users think we should too, and so argue that we will somehow obtain that market share. I sincerely doubt a non-profit organization is going to dominate any market, especially since market domination (nor profit) is the objective of the organization. I also don't know why anyone cares if Linux gets the market share or not.
Personally, I've preferred Linux for years now. I couldn't care less what the rest of you are running, or how much you're paying for it. The way you guys push the market share thing it seems like I should go buy a Chevy Cavalier, because the majority of people use them, therefore they must be the best. That is a stupid premise for purchasing cars, and even so, cars are much less ambiguous in terms of personal use and application. A one OS/software foundation fits all idea is just a little bit far-fetched. You guys are indirectly implying that Windows must be better because the majority of people use it. We believe you that the majority of people do, stop trying to argue that. However, I definitely do not use my PC to the same ends as Ma and Pa 150 million AOL users, so it would be surprising to me if I used the same OS/software. I'm also not the least bit surprised that Windows is, in fact, "better" for Ma and Pa 150 million. It's not better for me though. Quite frankly, I think it sucks. Sort of like Chevy Cavaliers. Anyways...
Basically, if you touch on the policy vs mechanism aspect, Windows is always going to have problems as long as it tries to combine all of that functionality into one OS, then instill enough policy to keep Ma and Pa happy. I think either you're a family car, or you're a race car. Not a mini-van with 400hp. Note that many Linux distributors are worse than Windows for this.
-
While I don't disagree with your ma-and-pa 150 million argument, to say that Windows is inadequate for the power user (like myself) is patently absurd, and like it or not, that's what you're doing (you're implying that Windows is sufficient for the average user, but for people in the "elite", which includes yourself, it's not good enough).
I also disagree with your statement that marketshare isn't a good yardstick. That'd be like saying, "What's the best textbook on human anatomy? Let's pick the one that has the least market penetration." "Who's the best scholar in the international affairs field? Let's pick the person who only has a few articles published and who has seen no criticism from others."
I'm not indirectly implying that Windows is better *because* it has marketshare. I'm saying, flat-out, that Windows has marketshare *because* it's better. You're reversing my cause and effect statements.
I'm also not the least bit surprised that Windows is, in fact, "better" for Ma and Pa 150 million. It's not better for me though. Quite frankly, I think it sucks.
I want to know, in your words, what it is that you do with your computer that justifies your use of Linux? I can see using Linux as a hobby OS, something fun to tinker with, to really get to know how the low-level nitty gritty stuff works on your computer. But quite frankly, I don't see much that you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows, short of some network administration tools, and even that has the caveat that most network administration tools in use these days (like - what's that neat port scanner/vulnerability detector program called? I don't remember) are available for use in Windows too.
In software development, we're always looking for the best "toolkit" - if we can avoid repeating work, then it's awesome (this is the idea behind object-oriented programming). We don't want to have to reinvent the wheel of, say, configuration files, every time we start a new project. To me, the hassle of getting Linux to work in any fashion like Windows (by which I mean to say, hardware compatibility) is just not worth it. I can, what, program in Java? Woot. ::) Look, I can't play games. I can't listen to music (despite what Alsa's docs say, I can never get my Creative Labs sound cards to work in Linux, and Creative is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, sound card manufacturers available). 3D doesn't work, even with NVidia drivers compiled into the kernel. If I'm lucky I *did* manage to get NDISWrapper up and running and I have wifi. Oh, and the desktop shell doesn't understand that I need to run .exes in WINE. Let me start the terminal...
What's most disheartening about Linux is that everyone who uses it raves about it. I'm an exceptionally competent power user, but it typically takes me roughly four tries to even get a distro installed and booting. Then I spend hours on end trying to find support for getting the basic things working, googling with about 13 windows open on a separate computer. Try as I might, I can't convince myself to keep Linux installed just so I can play KMahjongg and KSnake. KAsteroids, maybe. And the reason I first wanted to try Linux was because I was so impressed with KDE at school.
People criticize Microsoft because the old guard at MS has the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" mentality. Well, the Linux advocates of the world have the "we must keep our software pure" mentality. Examples of this include X (which is great in theory, but in practice has seen great pitfalls), the entirety of GNU (you can never use this "free" software unless you're going to do "free" stuff too, otherwise fuck off), and every programmer who is convinced that he can do full project refactoring faster in vim than in a competent IDE. Oh, and let's not forget to mention that Linux has thousands of distributions which may or may not provide binary compatibility for their software.
This is commonly responded-to by Linux enthusiasts: "I can compile my software. make is super-easy to use!"
Great, but why should *anyone* have to download software *just* to compile it? 85% of the world (or more) doesn't even know what compiling means. It sounds very intimidating. And - I hate to tell you - it's just as easy to stick a virus in source code as it is to stick it in a binary. Take a look at this (http://www.ioccc.org/2004/anonymous.c). The provided code creates an image with Tolkien's Elvish lettering in a PGM file based on the command-line argument provided. Honestly, you think you could find malicious code in that file? What about in a program that is several hundred source files long?
I've ranted for too long, probably because it's late and I'm tired as hell. But out of all this, I just have the one question I'd like answered, and I'll repeat it here:
I'm also not the least bit surprised that Windows is, in fact, "better" for Ma and Pa 150 million. It's not better for me though. Quite frankly, I think it sucks.
I want to know, in your words, what it is that you do with your computer that justifies your use of Linux?
-
While I don't disagree with your ma-and-pa 150 million argument, to say that Windows is inadequate for the power user (like myself) is patently absurd, and like it or not, that's what you're doing (you're implying that Windows is sufficient for the average user, but for people in the "elite", which includes yourself, it's not good enough).
Well, considering I've been using Microsoft products since MS-DOS and Win 3.1, including all major betas and just about every Microsoft software under the sun since then (My father has a MSDN subscription), I must say that moving to BSD two years ago, I've bloomed from a Windows power user into an actual programmer of sorts. I've written everything from bots, to device drivers all the way to VLANs ... I've even ported several Linux and one OpenBSD Window Maker dockapps to FreeBSD. There is much more possibility on a Unix system, much more I can learn from, much more I can explore than I could on Windows. I never saw these possibilities in Windows. And I must say, in my opinion and experience, documentation in Windows is of less quality...I've often felt this way about the MSDN library. Although, not to mention, but I've found Linux documentation equally awful ... especially the ALSA documentation (I wrote a MIDI Engine device driver for Linux), thats beside the point.
Windows lacks these:
a) Openness
b) Customizability (yes, I have bad feelings about too much mechanism but it has advantages)
c) Verbosity and diagnostics
d) Flexibility
Allow me to explain:
a) Openness
I cannot stress this enough, but it is an extremely valuable to have the source for an OS and its userland. When porting wmwlmon (http://www.nazgul.ch/dev_wmwlmon.html) I had to examine ifconfig's inner workings to find an undocumented ioctl. When writing a device driver for Linux, I would have to examine code in the kernel many times since the documentation lacked. Mark Russinovich didn't earn the title of "Technical Fellow" for nothing ... he is an expert on Windows internals, even those undocumented features ...certainly not a feat the average or competent user could accomplish.
http://ddj.com/dept/cpp/190500794?cid=RSSfeed_DDJ_Cpp
b) Customizability
I shouldn't have to explain this, but you can use Unix for anything under the sun. It could be a desktop, a server, an OS for an embedded device, its highly portable and has a diversity of applications for all types of things. You don't have to have a GUI, you could use csh instead of bash, aterm instead of xterm, KDE instead of Window Maker, pf instead of ipf, it can run on your D-Link or Linksys router...or your calculator, telephone or PDA. It can be your tivo. You can even make your very own kernels suited to your system.
c) Verbosity and diagnostics
The entire boot process is a diagnostic! You have a variety of system logs sitting in /var/log, one for general messages, one for security, one for firewall, one for X, one for mail, one for printing and etc... The Event logger in Windows is dirty joke if I ever heard one. It's usually easy to know whats wrong when something goes wrong.
d) Flexibility
I cannot stress this enough, but there is so much power at your disposal in Unix. You can do everything from mounting files as though they were disks or CDs/DVDs to having your computer run at slower or faster speeds (MHz). You have a lot of command over hardware, a lot more than you do in Windows, and quite a bit of power over the OS.
So, I would agree that Windows is inadequate for power users ... you have no room to expand, less possibility, less power, less functionality. Use a Unix system for a few months (no dual booting Windows) and I am almost positive it will open up your mind.
-
Allow me to explain:
a) Openness
I cannot stress this enough, but it is an extremely valuable to have the source for an OS and its userland. When porting wmwlmon (http://www.nazgul.ch/dev_wmwlmon.html) I had to examine ifconfig's inner workings to find an undocumented ioctl. When writing a device driver for Linux, I would have to examine code in the kernel many times since the documentation lacked. Mark Russinovich didn't earn the title of "Technical Fellow" for nothing ... he is an expert on Windows internals, even those undocumented features ...certainly not a feat the average or competent user could accomplish.
http://ddj.com/dept/cpp/190500794?cid=RSSfeed_DDJ_Cpp
I'm familiar with Mark Russinovich - in fact, I was very impressed with his books. That's why it does not surprise me that Sysinternals was absorbed into Microsoft. And I don't disagree that it's handy to have source code occasionally (I've found myself cracking open the .NET decompiler more than once to try to understand the inner workings of the class library). So I don't disagree on this point, although your later point that MSDN and the DDK are inadequate - I would disagree. Very rarely has MSDN been opaque to me, and I've almost always found that it's not MSDN's fault, but because I'm not understanding some kind of concept.
b) Customizability
I shouldn't have to explain this, but you can use Unix for anything under the sun. It could be a desktop, a server, an OS for an embedded device, its highly portable and has a diversity of applications for all types of things. You don't have to have a GUI, you could use csh instead of bash, aterm instead of xterm, KDE instead of Window Maker, pf instead of ipf, it can run on your D-Link or Linksys router...or your calculator, telephone or PDA. It can be your tivo. You can even make your very own kernels suited to your system.
I could say all of these are true for Windows. I've used Windows workstation editions, server editions, I have a PocketPC with Windows Mobile 2003, and I've got a friend who has a Windows SmartPhone. I also use Windows Media Center Edition, since you mentioned Tivo. I can use the Monad shell instead of the command prompt - hell, I can even write my own command interpreter if I wanted to, since the console subsystem is very accessible - or I can use bbLean (http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/) instead of Windows Explorer. I know Microsoft makes routers that run Windows. The only thing I can't do is make my very own kernel - and Microsoft does have programs for partners who need it, although I can't think of a single situation where *I* personally would need it. And even then, people have figured out how to hack the Windows Preinstallation Environment to be able to boot Windows live from a CD (http://ubcd4win.com/).
Then let me ask you about tablet PC functionality. For my next notebook, I'm planning on getting a tablet. Does Linux have a unified API that works across Linux distributions for software input? Is the Linux API for getting drawing notes on a PDA the same as a tablet PC? (I really don't know the answer to these questions; I've never heard of a Linux API for tablets, nor have I ever heard of a PDA running Linux, but it wouldn't surprise me if they existed. The kicker is, I know that the Windows environments work the same, and I've never programmed for, for instance, ink technology).
The drawback to this is - yes, you have to be licensed to do this stuff, whereas Linux is free. That's why education is important. You want to be able to plan ahead for the right software. Of course, most Windows administrators know that if you are going to need Terminal Services, then you don't get Windows Server Web Edition.
c) Verbosity and diagnostics
The entire boot process is a diagnostic! You have a variety of system logs sitting in /var/log, one for general messages, one for security, one for firewall, one for X, one for mail, one for printing and etc... The Event logger in Windows is dirty joke if I ever heard one. It's usually easy to know whats wrong when something goes wrong.
Well, if you're only using the event logger, then I'm going to go ahead and question your claimed knowledge of Windows. Between the event logger, boot logging, and the kernel debugger, I've only ever had one problem figuring out how to repair a Windows machine, and that was when a renegade software application (Dell MediaDirect) overwrote something in his partition table and it was causing Plug-and-Play errors in the HAL.
d) Flexibility
I cannot stress this enough, but there is so much power at your disposal in Unix. You can do everything from mounting files as though they were disks or CDs/DVDs to having your computer run at slower or faster speeds (MHz). You have a lot of command over hardware, a lot more than you do in Windows, and quite a bit of power over the OS.
I've been mounting files as though they were disks for about 10 months now (and don't even get me started on ISOs, which have been going for much longer). Windows Vista is going to give me more granular control over the clock speed of my computer, although I've always been able to set that through my BIOS - and Windows is smart enough to know to throttle my mobile PCs when they're running on batteries.
So, I would agree that Windows is inadequate for power users ... you have no room to expand, less possibility, less power, less functionality. Use a Unix system for a few months (no dual booting Windows) and I am almost positive it will open up your mind.
That would be a great experiment, but what you'd be asking me to do would be to give up doing anything useful, fun, or otherwise interesting to me for several months.
I consider things like writing device drivers, while very educational and a skill I'd like to have, to be at least one level removed from the real reason about why I'm using my computer. If I'm using the computer to write the device driver - because I'm a hardware or software vendor who needs kernel access - then fine. But if I need to write a report, or do my taxes, or hell, even get onto World of Warcraft to go to a guild meeting, I don't want to have to spend the time making OpenOffice, or recompiling that kernel driver that just caused a panic, or hacking through my (or, I should say, someone else's) source code to add the feature that Microsoft Word has had for ten years. All of these things are one level removed - or more - from me doing what I actually *want* to do with my computer.
What is your definition of a "power user," nslay? Is it someone who makes device drivers? Why not just call yourself a device driver engineer? I've got better things to do with my time than try to make my hardware work.
-
I'm not indirectly implying that Windows is better *because* it has marketshare. I'm saying, flat-out, that Windows has marketshare *because* it's better. You're reversing my cause and effect statements.
I'm not reversing your cause and effect, you're confusing correlation and causality.
I'll finish your sentence for you:
I'm not indirectly implying that Windows is better *because* it has marketshare. I'm saying, flat-out, that Windows has marketshare *because* it's better for Ma and Pa, who make up the majority of the market.
Which is true. Not a very interesting point to the non-average user though.
As far as your question goes, I've answered it too many times. Here's the last one I posted on this forum (and the ensuing melee):
http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4467.msg49300.html#msg49300
-
Allow me to explain:
a) Openness
I cannot stress this enough, but it is an extremely valuable to have the source for an OS and its userland. When porting wmwlmon (http://www.nazgul.ch/dev_wmwlmon.html) I had to examine ifconfig's inner workings to find an undocumented ioctl. When writing a device driver for Linux, I would have to examine code in the kernel many times since the documentation lacked. Mark Russinovich didn't earn the title of "Technical Fellow" for nothing ... he is an expert on Windows internals, even those undocumented features ...certainly not a feat the average or competent user could accomplish.
http://ddj.com/dept/cpp/190500794?cid=RSSfeed_DDJ_Cpp
I'm familiar with Mark Russinovich - in fact, I was very impressed with his books. That's why it does not surprise me that Sysinternals was absorbed into Microsoft. And I don't disagree that it's handy to have source code occasionally (I've found myself cracking open the .NET decompiler more than once to try to understand the inner workings of the class library). So I don't disagree on this point, although your later point that MSDN and the DDK are inadequate - I would disagree. Very rarely has MSDN been opaque to me, and I've almost always found that it's not MSDN's fault, but because I'm not understanding some kind of concept.
Here is an example of why MSDN library is inadequate
but because I'm not understanding some kind of concept.
That's no excuse. If you don't know what a socket is in Unix or how they work, you can easily 'man net' or 'man netintro' that explains the network routines. Documentation is meant to be thorogh. If you didn't understand something MSDN was saying and it offered no explanation for a concept, then it wasn't thorogh enough.
Speaking of sockets, but I've heard Yoni comment that MSDN does not explain very well how to do proper socket programming and that Skywing had taught him.
man net (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=net&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html)
b) Customizability
I shouldn't have to explain this, but you can use Unix for anything under the sun. It could be a desktop, a server, an OS for an embedded device, its highly portable and has a diversity of applications for all types of things. You don't have to have a GUI, you could use csh instead of bash, aterm instead of xterm, KDE instead of Window Maker, pf instead of ipf, it can run on your D-Link or Linksys router...or your calculator, telephone or PDA. It can be your tivo. You can even make your very own kernels suited to your system.
I could say all of these are true for Windows. I've used Windows workstation editions, server editions, I have a PocketPC with Windows Mobile 2003, and I've got a friend who has a Windows SmartPhone. I also use Windows Media Center Edition, since you mentioned Tivo. I can use the Monad shell instead of the command prompt - hell, I can even write my own command interpreter if I wanted to, since the console subsystem is very accessible - or I can use bbLean (http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/) instead of Windows Explorer. I know Microsoft makes routers that run Windows. The only thing I can't do is make my very own kernel - and Microsoft does have programs for partners who need it, although I can't think of a single situation where *I* personally would need it. And even then, people have figured out how to hack the Windows Preinstallation Environment to be able to boot Windows live from a CD (http://ubcd4win.com/).
It looks like Microsoft is starting to get it ... however, you're still bound to buying different versions of Windows for diferent functionality. I don't thik Windows is very portable and its obvious that it demands a lot from hardware to run. Unix is very portable, NetBSD alone exists for dozens upon dozens of platforms, and it provides all the functionality that you need Windows * version to do.
A command interpretor is known as a shell. I'm glad they adopted the terminal/shell concept.
You wouldn't need a specific windows kernel because it is a true microkernel. Most Unixes use a monolithic kernel (minus say Mach...thats Microkernel). Although, I believe you gain a subtle performance gain by compiling certain drivers into the kernel. Ability to compile a kernel also gives you control over kernel specific features such as SMP, preemption, IPv6 support and a variety of other features.
Then let me ask you about tablet PC functionality. For my next notebook, I'm planning on getting a tablet. Does Linux have a unified API that works across Linux distributions for software input? Is the Linux API for getting drawing notes on a PDA the same as a tablet PC? (I really don't know the answer to these questions; I've never heard of a Linux API for tablets, nor have I ever heard of a PDA running Linux, but it wouldn't surprise me if they existed. The kicker is, I know that the Windows environments work the same, and I've never programmed for, for instance, ink technology).
Because of the all-mechanism-no-policy nature of Unix, Unix doesn't force the use of a GUI environment nor does it even have a GUI. Your question about tablet machines really depends on what Xorg or XFree86 can do. That said, I would be really surprised if some X API didn't exist for touch screens. Furthermore, I would be surprised if some applications that use this API didn't exist.
What I can tell you for sure is that there is no Window Manager or Desktop Environment that I know of that allows control with a stylus that I know of ... maybe Gnome or KDE.
One solution would be to write a daemon that interfaces with X and acts like, say, moused.
The drawback to this is - yes, you have to be licensed to do this stuff, whereas Linux is free. That's why education is important. You want to be able to plan ahead for the right software. Of course, most Windows administrators know that if you are going to need Terminal Services, then you don't get Windows Server Web Edition.
Even though Linux is free, companies still have to hire admins ... the cost is probably the same.
c) Verbosity and diagnostics
The entire boot process is a diagnostic! You have a variety of system logs sitting in /var/log, one for general messages, one for security, one for firewall, one for X, one for mail, one for printing and etc... The Event logger in Windows is dirty joke if I ever heard one. It's usually easy to know whats wrong when something goes wrong.
Well, if you're only using the event logger, then I'm going to go ahead and question your claimed knowledge of Windows. Between the event logger, boot logging, and the kernel debugger, I've only ever had one problem figuring out how to repair a Windows machine, and that was when a renegade software application (Dell MediaDirect) overwrote something in his partition table and it was causing Plug-and-Play errors in the HAL.
You shouldn't need a kernel debugger to diagnose problems. One thing I wish Windows had was a console where the kernel could print errors ... Windows has no such thing. The event logger is not verbose or detailed enough. The boot log is okay.
d) Flexibility
I cannot stress this enough, but there is so much power at your disposal in Unix. You can do everything from mounting files as though they were disks or CDs/DVDs to having your computer run at slower or faster speeds (MHz). You have a lot of command over hardware, a lot more than you do in Windows, and quite a bit of power over the OS.
I've been mounting files as though they were disks for about 10 months now (and don't even get me started on ISOs, which have been going for much longer). Windows Vista is going to give me more granular control over the clock speed of my computer, although I've always been able to set that through my BIOS - and Windows is smart enough to know to throttle my mobile PCs when they're running on batteries.
Thats only a fraction of what you can do with md (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=md&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html). Regardless, you can't do things like update or view hardware parameters.
To demonstrate just one among things I can do with ACPI:
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%desc: IBM ThinkPad ACPI Extras
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%driver: acpi_ibm
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%location: handle=\_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.EC__.HKEY
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%pnpinfo: _HID=IBM0068 _UID=0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%parent: acpi0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.initialmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.availmask: 16777215
dev.acpi_ibm.0.events: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.eventmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.hotkey: 3487
dev.acpi_ibm.0.lcd_brightness: 7
dev.acpi_ibm.0.volume: 14
dev.acpi_ibm.0.mute: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thinklight: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.bluetooth: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.wlan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan_speed: 4025
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thermal: 46 43 34 48 33 -1 23 -1
Many of these, like 'thinklight', 'volume' and so forth can be modified.
You do not get this kind of flexability in Windows at all. This is a trivial demonstration, you can do other things like define the max UDP packet size, adjust caching, tune file systems and much much much more.
NOTE: The mask mibs are for devd...devd is a daemon that reacts to hardware events ... it is scriptable, very flexible indeed.
So, I would agree that Windows is inadequate for power users ... you have no room to expand, less possibility, less power, less functionality. Use a Unix system for a few months (no dual booting Windows) and I am almost positive it will open up your mind.
That would be a great experiment, but what you'd be asking me to do would be to give up doing anything useful, fun, or otherwise interesting to me for several months.
I consider things like writing device drivers, while very educational and a skill I'd like to have, to be at least one level removed from the real reason about why I'm using my computer. If I'm using the computer to write the device driver - because I'm a hardware or software vendor who needs kernel access - then fine. But if I need to write a report, or do my taxes, or hell, even get onto World of Warcraft to go to a guild meeting, I don't want to have to spend the time making OpenOffice, or recompiling that kernel driver that just caused a panic, or hacking through my (or, I should say, someone else's) source code to add the feature that Microsoft Word has had for ten years. All of these things are one level removed - or more - from me doing what I actually *want* to do with my computer.
What is your definition of a "power user," nslay? Is it someone who makes device drivers? Why not just call yourself a device driver engineer? I've got better things to do with my time than try to make my hardware work.
In the Linux world, most things come precompiled, although, in BSD you do have to often compile your applications. You can do everything on Unix that you can do on Windows minus gaming, that includes taxes, writing reports and so forth. Very rarily do you have to hack the OS source or drivers and friends.
A power user is any user who can use, and usually requires, special and sophisticated features ... usually they are users who are curious about how things work underneath. They are making a transition between using software to writing software.
The device driver I wrote was for a course ... of course I don't normally write drivers, its extremely difficult. But I would like to bring to your attention that for our last project we had to write a device driver for real hardware, many had trouble finding hardware, new and old, for this project because there are already so many device drivers available. As much as I dislike Linux...Linux supports thousands if not hundreds of devices.
See also:
http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/
http://www.freshports.org/
http://www.freshmeat.net/
EDIT: Sorry, its freshmeat.net
-
Just an update: Java will be open-sourced in October (http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/06/08/15/1550251.shtml).
-
Oh god, that makes my day! Java's going to be a real player now. Not that it wasn't already =P
EDIT: Oh and Myndfyre, this is why Java > .NET. Just wanted to grind your gears ;).
-
omgz, open sourcing a crappy language! look out world, here comes java!!!@
-
* forces steaming coffee down Newby's throat, eyes, and ears *
-
On a related note, intel also open-sourced their graphics drivers.
-
On a related note, intel also open-sourced their graphics drivers.
I think someone posted that a few days ago. ATi is too, if I read correctly?
-
Well, technically. AMD swalled ATi, and basically said "you're us now, OPEN SOURCE!"
-
Well, technically. AMD swalled ATi, and basically said "you're us now, OPEN SOURCE!"
Yeah, I know AMD acquired ATi and I was fully aware that this was probably their influence, but that's not very related to the point.
-
Well I'm fairly sure that ATi would not have open sourced their drivers if AMD hadn't eaten them.
-
Well I'm fairly sure that ATi would not have open sourced their drivers if AMD hadn't eaten them.
So am I. ;)
Yeah, I know AMD acquired ATi and I was fully aware that this was probably their influence, but that's not very related to the point.
-
Oh god, that makes my day! Java's going to be a real player now. Not that it wasn't already =P
EDIT: Oh and Myndfyre, this is why Java > .NET. Just wanted to grind your gears ;).
.NET 2.0 (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8C09FD61-3F26-4555-AE17-3121B4F51D4D&displaylang=en) and .NET 1.0 (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=3A1C93FA-7462-47D0-8E56-8DD34C6292F0&displaylang=en) in source forms. Check out the date published for 1.0 -- November 5, 2002. Looks like .NET beat Java to the punch. Oooh. Guess you're not as cool as you thought.
As far as your question goes, I've answered it too many times. Here's the last one I posted on this forum (and the ensuing melee):
http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,4467.msg49300.html#msg49300
Well, like I said, I understand the hobbyist perspective, and now that VC is free, I think your second point is fairly well-negated, particularly considering the awesome debugger that's in VC. And, as to your third point, yes, I do shell out the money for software that I like. When appropriate. I do not support software piracy, and I do like to support the companies whose software I like.
Incidentally, I open-source most of my software because I generally think others can benefit from it, and I'm too self-conscious to think that I could make money from anything I've written.
That's no excuse. If you don't know what a socket is in Unix or how they work, you can easily 'man net' or 'man netintro' that explains the network routines. Documentation is meant to be thorogh. If you didn't understand something MSDN was saying and it offered no explanation for a concept, then it wasn't thorogh enough.
Speaking of sockets, but I've heard Yoni comment that MSDN does not explain very well how to do proper socket programming and that Skywing had taught him.
man net (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=net&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html)
I disagree; I think it *is* a valid excuse. Socket programming in .NET was also something that I struggled with, and in fact I still try to avoid it as much as possible because I sometimes worry that I don't have the error handling correct or something (network I/O, as opposed to file I/O, is a time-specific operation, and sometimes you have to wait and poll for data; it's not that I don't know how to use the API, but I sometimes feel that my handling of these kinds of operational program structures is just off. (Of course, others have felt the same way, which is why polling is now "out" in favor of I/O completion ports).
It looks like Microsoft is starting to get it ... however, you're still bound to buying different versions of Windows for diferent functionality. I don't thik Windows is very portable and its obvious that it demands a lot from hardware to run. Unix is very portable, NetBSD alone exists for dozens upon dozens of platforms, and it provides all the functionality that you need Windows * version to do.
Well, then - I hate to sound repetitive - but, if it provides all of the functionality that Windows provides, and that users need, why isn't NetBSD taking market? Platform independence is over-emphasized, and it sounds special, but NetBSD really isn't platform-independent, and - let's be honest - the only thing that Microsoft would need to do to move platforms is provide a new HAL and maybe tweak the kernel according to the memory management demands of the system.
A command interpretor is known as a shell. I'm glad they adopted the terminal/shell concept.
Microsoft has supported the "shell concept" since MS-DOS. I used the Norton Utilities 6.0 command shell as my environment in MS-DOS 6.0. I never loaded command.com.
You wouldn't need a specific windows kernel because it is a true microkernel. Most Unixes use a monolithic kernel (minus say Mach...thats Microkernel). Although, I believe you gain a subtle performance gain by compiling certain drivers into the kernel. Ability to compile a kernel also gives you control over kernel specific features such as SMP, preemption, IPv6 support and a variety of other features.
Windows isn't really true microkernel - it's a bit of a hybrid in that the HAL provides interfaces that drivers must implement in order to work, and so the HAL defines the types of hardware supported by Windows. Windows can't work with hardware that doesn't have some kind of intrinsic representation in the HAL. Of course, even the most obscure devices can be made to work by, say, writing a miniport of a bus driver and then layering the functionality by calling, say, DeviceIoControl. The Windows API just doesn't provide functionality specific to the device until it's been incorporated into the HAL.
Because of the all-mechanism-no-policy nature of Unix, Unix doesn't force the use of a GUI environment nor does it even have a GUI. Your question about tablet machines really depends on what Xorg or XFree86 can do. That said, I would be really surprised if some X API didn't exist for touch screens. Furthermore, I would be surprised if some applications that use this API didn't exist.
What I can tell you for sure is that there is no Window Manager or Desktop Environment that I know of that allows control with a stylus that I know of ... maybe Gnome or KDE.
One solution would be to write a daemon that interfaces with X and acts like, say, moused.
Like I said, I realize that I'm sure there's something out there that mimics some tablet functionality. But I guess what I'm saying is - okay, tablets are a cool thing. Windows has supported them for 3 years (or more). Since Linux has no "policy," it doesn't define a way for me to expect it to work across distributions, etc. And I know I couldn't expect to write something like that on my own, at least, not nearly as robust as the Windows implementation.
It's a minor point that I'm sure could be argued across platforms, but it was an example on my mind.
You shouldn't need a kernel debugger to diagnose problems. One thing I wish Windows had was a console where the kernel could print errors ... Windows has no such thing. The event logger is not verbose or detailed enough. The boot log is okay.
I'm sorry, I misspoke because the kernel debugger is the same application as, for instance, the crash dump analysis application.
0: kd> !analyze -v
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Bugcheck Analysis *
* *
*******************************************************************************
IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (a)
An attempt was made to access a pageable (or completely invalid) address at an
interrupt request level (IRQL) that is too high. This is usually
caused by drivers using improper addresses.
If a kernel debugger is available get the stack backtrace.
Arguments:
Arg1: 00000066, memory referenced
Arg2: 000000ff, IRQL
Arg3: 00000000, value 0 = read operation, 1 = write operation
Arg4: 804e5deb, address which referenced memory
Debugging Details:
------------------
FAULTING_MODULE: 804d7000 nt
DEBUG_FLR_IMAGE_TIMESTAMP: 433d2dd2
READ_ADDRESS: unable to get nt!MmSpecialPoolStart
unable to get nt!MmSpecialPoolEnd
unable to get nt!MmPoolCodeStart
unable to get nt!MmPoolCodeEnd
00000066
CURRENT_IRQL: ff
FAULTING_IP:
nt!KeReadStateEvent+56
804e5deb 66394616 cmp word ptr [esi+16h],ax
DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: WRONG_SYMBOLS
BUGCHECK_STR: 0xA
LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 804e5deb to 804e0aac
STACK_TEXT:
WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong.
b4cda8c0 804e5deb badb0d00 00000000 b4cda910 nt!Kei386EoiHelper+0x2883
b4cda940 804ecdf2 b4cdac98 00000000 00000000 nt!KeReadStateEvent+0x56
b4cda99c 804ecd6a 88b0c528 b4cda9e8 b4cda9dc nt!IoGetBaseFileSystemDeviceObject+0x779
b4cda9ec 804dc819 00000000 00000000 00000000 nt!IoGetBaseFileSystemDeviceObject+0x6f1
b4cdaa0c 804e84ec 00000103 89a6e008 f76dc64f nt!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x280
b4cdaa18 f76dc64f 89a6e1a8 b4cdaa54 8a302470 nt!KeResetEvent+0x1f
b4cdaa2c bae49985 89a6e1a4 887b4b38 00000082 VMNetSrv+0x564f
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 NDIS!NdisDprFreePacketNonInterlocked+0x1b0
STACK_COMMAND: kb
FOLLOWUP_IP:
VMNetSrv+564f
f76dc64f 015d4c add dword ptr [ebp+4Ch],ebx
SYMBOL_STACK_INDEX: 6
SYMBOL_NAME: VMNetSrv+564f
FOLLOWUP_NAME: MachineOwner
MODULE_NAME: VMNetSrv
IMAGE_NAME: VMNetSrv.sys
BUCKET_ID: WRONG_SYMBOLS
Followup: MachineOwner
---------
The above is the WinDbg analysis of the memory.dmp file I generated by typing "!analyze -v" once the dump file was loaded (I removed the "wrong symbols" notices because I don't have the symbols installed). The bugcheck was initiated when I installed a Linksys Wireless-N network card driver. We can see from the stack trace analysis that the problem initiated in an NDIS call and was apparently faulting in a VMNetSrv.sys. At the very least this tells us that a network device was faulting - they usually don't just break. Of course I knew that I had just installed the faulting device.
Thats only a fraction of what you can do with md (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=md&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html). Regardless, you can't do things like update or view hardware parameters.
To demonstrate just one among things I can do with ACPI:
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%desc: IBM ThinkPad ACPI Extras
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%driver: acpi_ibm
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%location: handle=\_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.EC__.HKEY
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%pnpinfo: _HID=IBM0068 _UID=0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%parent: acpi0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.initialmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.availmask: 16777215
dev.acpi_ibm.0.events: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.eventmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.hotkey: 3487
dev.acpi_ibm.0.lcd_brightness: 7
dev.acpi_ibm.0.volume: 14
dev.acpi_ibm.0.mute: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thinklight: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.bluetooth: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.wlan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan_speed: 4025
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thermal: 46 43 34 48 33 -1 23 -1
Many of these, like 'thinklight', 'volume' and so forth can be modified.
You do not get this kind of flexability in Windows at all. This is a trivial demonstration, you can do other things like define the max UDP packet size, adjust caching, tune file systems and much much much more.
NOTE: The mask mibs are for devd...devd is a daemon that reacts to hardware events ... it is scriptable, very flexible indeed.
(http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/driver-details-1.png)(http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/driver-details-2.png)
That's just an example. Low-level hardware access *is* available in Windows, too. You just need to write a driver.
In the Linux world, most things come precompiled, although, in BSD you do have to often compile your applications. You can do everything on Unix that you can do on Windows minus gaming, that includes taxes, writing reports and so forth. Very rarily do you have to hack the OS source or drivers and friends.
Yeah, I know. I was making a hidden implication that software like OpenOffice just can't compete with Microsoft Office, for instance.
A power user is any user who can use, and usually requires, special and sophisticated features ... usually they are users who are curious about how things work underneath. They are making a transition between using software to writing software.
So, do you consider me a "power user"? I read books like Windows Internals for shits and giggles (it's actually really cool, and I hope projects like ReactOS are using design principles from it), and I write software. Or is it that I'm not a programmer because I only write Windows software?
The device driver I wrote was for a course ... of course I don't normally write drivers, its extremely difficult. But I would like to bring to your attention that for our last project we had to write a device driver for real hardware, many had trouble finding hardware, new and old, for this project because there are already so many device drivers available. As much as I dislike Linux...Linux supports thousands if not hundreds of devices.
In my assembly language course, which I *hated*, we had to interface with the SDK-86, which is basically a rudimentary hardware debugger and numeric keypad for the 8086. They were horrid days! (At least debugging the 80186 let us use a connected terminal running a debugger... ugh).
Incidentally, I probably could have sent you hardware that Linux doesn't play nice with. :P You should have done work on Winmodems or something! Just think of the headaches you would have saved.
-
Oh god, that makes my day! Java's going to be a real player now. Not that it wasn't already =P
EDIT: Oh and Myndfyre, this is why Java > .NET. Just wanted to grind your gears ;).
.NET 2.0 (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8C09FD61-3F26-4555-AE17-3121B4F51D4D&displaylang=en) and .NET 1.0 (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=3A1C93FA-7462-47D0-8E56-8DD34C6292F0&displaylang=en) in source forms. Check out the date published for 1.0 -- November 5, 2002. Looks like .NET beat Java to the punch. Oooh. Guess you're not as cool as you thought.
My bad. But the ego-crunching was unnecessary ;-)
-
That's no excuse. If you don't know what a socket is in Unix or how they work, you can easily 'man net' or 'man netintro' that explains the network routines. Documentation is meant to be thorogh. If you didn't understand something MSDN was saying and it offered no explanation for a concept, then it wasn't thorogh enough.
Speaking of sockets, but I've heard Yoni comment that MSDN does not explain very well how to do proper socket programming and that Skywing had taught him.
man net (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=net&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html)
I disagree; I think it *is* a valid excuse. Socket programming in .NET was also something that I struggled with, and in fact I still try to avoid it as much as possible because I sometimes worry that I don't have the error handling correct or something (network I/O, as opposed to file I/O, is a time-specific operation, and sometimes you have to wait and poll for data; it's not that I don't know how to use the API, but I sometimes feel that my handling of these kinds of operational program structures is just off. (Of course, others have felt the same way, which is why polling is now "out" in favor of I/O completion ports).
I don't know what you're talking about, socket programming is extremely easy, and so is the error handling. The man pages make error handling very clear cut. If MSDN documentation was thorough, then you would not need to worry about handling errors properly.
It looks like Microsoft is starting to get it ... however, you're still bound to buying different versions of Windows for diferent functionality. I don't thik Windows is very portable and its obvious that it demands a lot from hardware to run. Unix is very portable, NetBSD alone exists for dozens upon dozens of platforms, and it provides all the functionality that you need Windows * version to do.
Well, then - I hate to sound repetitive - but, if it provides all of the functionality that Windows provides, and that users need, why isn't NetBSD taking market? Platform independence is over-emphasized, and it sounds special, but NetBSD really isn't platform-independent, and - let's be honest - the only thing that Microsoft would need to do to move platforms is provide a new HAL and maybe tweak the kernel according to the memory management demands of the system.
It may not have market share, but that does not negate its ability as a workstation, server, or embedded OS.
That is a fallacious argument.
EDIT: Unix is historically, and still is, extremely portable. That's why it still exists today.
A command interpretor is known as a shell. I'm glad they adopted the terminal/shell concept.
Microsoft has supported the "shell concept" since MS-DOS. I used the Norton Utilities 6.0 command shell as my environment in MS-DOS 6.0. I never loaded command.com.
MS-DOS is not a shell.
A shell is any independent program that interfaces human input/output to/from the system.
A terminal is a piece of hardware or software in which a shell is invoked. The terminal displays output from the shell and forwards input to the shell.
Is there an MS-DOS shell that Command Prompt invokes separately? As far as I know, Command Prompt is not a terminal or a shell.
Examples of terminal/shell model:
xterm with bash
aterm with csh
eterm with ksh
aterm with bash
xterm with csh
...
Because of the all-mechanism-no-policy nature of Unix, Unix doesn't force the use of a GUI environment nor does it even have a GUI. Your question about tablet machines really depends on what Xorg or XFree86 can do. That said, I would be really surprised if some X API didn't exist for touch screens. Furthermore, I would be surprised if some applications that use this API didn't exist.
What I can tell you for sure is that there is no Window Manager or Desktop Environment that I know of that allows control with a stylus that I know of ... maybe Gnome or KDE.
One solution would be to write a daemon that interfaces with X and acts like, say, moused.
Like I said, I realize that I'm sure there's something out there that mimics some tablet functionality. But I guess what I'm saying is - okay, tablets are a cool thing. Windows has supported them for 3 years (or more). Since Linux has no "policy," it doesn't define a way for me to expect it to work across distributions, etc. And I know I couldn't expect to write something like that on my own, at least, not nearly as robust as the Windows implementation.
Don't think of Unix as solely a set of distributions. That is unique to Linux.
Linux is a kernel by itself. A Linux distribution bundles commonly preferred software by a group, the GNU userland, and the Linux kernel. On the other hand, all other Unixes, AIX, BSD, IRIX and so forth are true operating systems. They include their own kernel and their own tools.
It's a minor point that I'm sure could be argued across platforms, but it was an example on my mind.
You shouldn't need a kernel debugger to diagnose problems. One thing I wish Windows had was a console where the kernel could print errors ... Windows has no such thing. The event logger is not verbose or detailed enough. The boot log is okay.
I'm sorry, I misspoke because the kernel debugger is the same application as, for instance, the crash dump analysis application.
0: kd> !analyze -v
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Bugcheck Analysis *
* *
*******************************************************************************
IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (a)
An attempt was made to access a pageable (or completely invalid) address at an
interrupt request level (IRQL) that is too high. This is usually
caused by drivers using improper addresses.
If a kernel debugger is available get the stack backtrace.
Arguments:
Arg1: 00000066, memory referenced
Arg2: 000000ff, IRQL
Arg3: 00000000, value 0 = read operation, 1 = write operation
Arg4: 804e5deb, address which referenced memory
Debugging Details:
------------------
FAULTING_MODULE: 804d7000 nt
DEBUG_FLR_IMAGE_TIMESTAMP: 433d2dd2
READ_ADDRESS: unable to get nt!MmSpecialPoolStart
unable to get nt!MmSpecialPoolEnd
unable to get nt!MmPoolCodeStart
unable to get nt!MmPoolCodeEnd
00000066
CURRENT_IRQL: ff
FAULTING_IP:
nt!KeReadStateEvent+56
804e5deb 66394616 cmp word ptr [esi+16h],ax
DEFAULT_BUCKET_ID: WRONG_SYMBOLS
BUGCHECK_STR: 0xA
LAST_CONTROL_TRANSFER: from 804e5deb to 804e0aac
STACK_TEXT:
WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong.
b4cda8c0 804e5deb badb0d00 00000000 b4cda910 nt!Kei386EoiHelper+0x2883
b4cda940 804ecdf2 b4cdac98 00000000 00000000 nt!KeReadStateEvent+0x56
b4cda99c 804ecd6a 88b0c528 b4cda9e8 b4cda9dc nt!IoGetBaseFileSystemDeviceObject+0x779
b4cda9ec 804dc819 00000000 00000000 00000000 nt!IoGetBaseFileSystemDeviceObject+0x6f1
b4cdaa0c 804e84ec 00000103 89a6e008 f76dc64f nt!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x280
b4cdaa18 f76dc64f 89a6e1a8 b4cdaa54 8a302470 nt!KeResetEvent+0x1f
b4cdaa2c bae49985 89a6e1a4 887b4b38 00000082 VMNetSrv+0x564f
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 NDIS!NdisDprFreePacketNonInterlocked+0x1b0
STACK_COMMAND: kb
FOLLOWUP_IP:
VMNetSrv+564f
f76dc64f 015d4c add dword ptr [ebp+4Ch],ebx
SYMBOL_STACK_INDEX: 6
SYMBOL_NAME: VMNetSrv+564f
FOLLOWUP_NAME: MachineOwner
MODULE_NAME: VMNetSrv
IMAGE_NAME: VMNetSrv.sys
BUCKET_ID: WRONG_SYMBOLS
Followup: MachineOwner
---------
The above is the WinDbg analysis of the memory.dmp file I generated by typing "!analyze -v" once the dump file was loaded (I removed the "wrong symbols" notices because I don't have the symbols installed). The bugcheck was initiated when I installed a Linksys Wireless-N network card driver. We can see from the stack trace analysis that the problem initiated in an NDIS call and was apparently faulting in a VMNetSrv.sys. At the very least this tells us that a network device was faulting - they usually don't just break. Of course I knew that I had just installed the faulting device.
Ever heard of dumping core? The Unix-Haters handbook loves to poke fun of it. Applications who misbehave dump core and terminated. Then a debugger can be used to study the core file.
Thats only a fraction of what you can do with md (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=md&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html). Regardless, you can't do things like update or view hardware parameters.
To demonstrate just one among things I can do with ACPI:
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%desc: IBM ThinkPad ACPI Extras
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%driver: acpi_ibm
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%location: handle=\_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.EC__.HKEY
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%pnpinfo: _HID=IBM0068 _UID=0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.%parent: acpi0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.initialmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.availmask: 16777215
dev.acpi_ibm.0.events: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.eventmask: 2060
dev.acpi_ibm.0.hotkey: 3487
dev.acpi_ibm.0.lcd_brightness: 7
dev.acpi_ibm.0.volume: 14
dev.acpi_ibm.0.mute: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thinklight: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.bluetooth: 0
dev.acpi_ibm.0.wlan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan_speed: 4025
dev.acpi_ibm.0.fan: 1
dev.acpi_ibm.0.thermal: 46 43 34 48 33 -1 23 -1
Many of these, like 'thinklight', 'volume' and so forth can be modified.
You do not get this kind of flexability in Windows at all. This is a trivial demonstration, you can do other things like define the max UDP packet size, adjust caching, tune file systems and much much much more.
NOTE: The mask mibs are for devd...devd is a daemon that reacts to hardware events ... it is scriptable, very flexible indeed.
(http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/driver-details-1.png)(http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/driver-details-2.png)
That's just an example. Low-level hardware access *is* available in Windows, too. You just need to write a driver.
Yes, but these settings are not always available by the driver. Skywing had to write a driver to throttle his computer's speed because the ACPI driver offered no such functionality. He needed this because his computer would often overheat. On the other hand, these settings in Unix (more specifically BSD and Linux) are universally available.
In the Linux world, most things come precompiled, although, in BSD you do have to often compile your applications. You can do everything on Unix that you can do on Windows minus gaming, that includes taxes, writing reports and so forth. Very rarily do you have to hack the OS source or drivers and friends.
Yeah, I know. I was making a hidden implication that software like OpenOffice just can't compete with Microsoft Office, for instance.
To be frank, OpenOffice sucks but to be fair, Microsoft Office is quite an old project. Microsoft has been developing this office suite for a decade (?). I can remember Office versions that were bloated and slow too. OpenOffice on the other hand is a very young project.
A power user is any user who can use, and usually requires, special and sophisticated features ... usually they are users who are curious about how things work underneath. They are making a transition between using software to writing software.
So, do you consider me a "power user"? I read books like Windows Internals for shits and giggles (it's actually really cool, and I hope projects like ReactOS are using design principles from it), and I write software. Or is it that I'm not a programmer because I only write Windows software?
I sure do, although I think you could learn a great deal more from Unix.
The device driver I wrote was for a course ... of course I don't normally write drivers, its extremely difficult. But I would like to bring to your attention that for our last project we had to write a device driver for real hardware, many had trouble finding hardware, new and old, for this project because there are already so many device drivers available. As much as I dislike Linux...Linux supports thousands if not hundreds of devices.
In my assembly language course, which I *hated*, we had to interface with the SDK-86, which is basically a rudimentary hardware debugger and numeric keypad for the 8086. They were horrid days! (At least debugging the 80186 let us use a connected terminal running a debugger... ugh).
Incidentally, I probably could have sent you hardware that Linux doesn't play nice with. :P You should have done work on Winmodems or something! Just think of the headaches you would have saved.
Haha, I've talked to a grey beard about winmodems. Do you know what a winmodem is? It's essentially a piece of hardware that gives the OS direct access to the phone line. Basically, when you buy a winmodem, you're buying a piece of metal that does absolutely nothing, or a small subset of what a real modem does. Not only that, but winmodem device drivers are modem specific ... it's even so bad as being revision specific sometimes. Very little to no code can be recycled between winmodem drivers. I had contemplated writing a winmodem device driver, but after talking to this guy, now I know why nobody else bothers. There is a Linux effort to support winmodems, but I think its pointless. It's better to buy a real modem, preferrably serial or USB.
-
I don't know what you're talking about, socket programming is extremely easy, and so is the error handling. The man pages make error handling very clear cut. If MSDN documentation was thorough, then you would not need to worry about handling errors properly.
It's definitely easy now that I understand it. But what defines "thorough"? To me, that sounds like an arbitrary measurement for the sake of the argument. What I might consider thorough, someone with absolutely no experience might say "WtfIdungetitwritemecode." Of course, I tend to think now that socket programming is more a self-explanatory thing, and I'm not saying that this is an excuse for non-documentation.
It may not have market share, but that does not negate its ability as a workstation, server, or embedded OS.
That is a fallacious argument.
EDIT: Unix is historically, and still is, extremely portable. That's why it still exists today.
I didn't once disagree that it's extremely portable. My question was - if it's free and provides all the functionality of Windows, which is what you'd stated, why hasn't it taken more desktop market? If it really is as good as you say it is, you'd think that more people would use it.
The thing is, it doesn't provide all the functionality of Windows, because if it did, it wouldn't have such a learning curve.
MS-DOS is not a shell.
A shell is any independent program that interfaces human input/output to/from the system.
A terminal is a piece of hardware or software in which a shell is invoked. The terminal displays output from the shell and forwards input to the shell.
Is there an MS-DOS shell that Command Prompt invokes separately? As far as I know, Command Prompt is not a terminal or a shell.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that. What I said was, Microsoft has supported the shell concept since MS-DOS. In MS-DOS, your shell was the command interpreter - that provided the interactivity between the system and the user. That was command.com by default, but Microsoft let third-party shells exist by providing the SHELL= statement to be in config.sys. As I showed you, Windows also supports third-party shells (I provided the example of bbLean; I've seen other shells as long ago as Windows 95 on my aunt's computer).
When I said "MS-DOS" I meant specifically the operating system MS-DOS, not the command prompt in Windows. In Windows, no, it is not a shell.
Don't think of Unix as solely a set of distributions. That is unique to Linux.
Linux is a kernel by itself. A Linux distribution bundles commonly preferred software by a group, the GNU userland, and the Linux kernel. On the other hand, all other Unixes, AIX, BSD, IRIX and so forth are true operating systems. They include their own kernel and their own tools.
Yeah, if you want to be technical. I'm talking practical.
Ever heard of dumping core? The Unix-Haters handbook loves to poke fun of it. Applications who misbehave dump core and terminated. Then a debugger can be used to study the core file.
I wasn't saying that Unix doesn't have it. I was simply saying that you were wrong - it is NOT a painful process to track down problems in Windows.
Yes, but these settings are not always available by the driver. Skywing had to write a driver to throttle his computer's speed because the ACPI driver offered no such functionality. He needed this because his computer would often overheat. On the other hand, these settings in Unix (more specifically BSD and Linux) are universally available.
As dumb as I think that is (you have problems with the way your computer is built physically if your processor overheats at 100% of rated maximum), it'll be supported in Windows Vista. That's not an excuse in and of itself, but things *are* coming around in that regard.
To be frank, OpenOffice sucks but to be fair, Microsoft Office is quite an old project. Microsoft has been developing this office suite for a decade (?). I can remember Office versions that were bloated and slow too. OpenOffice on the other hand is a very young project.
It's not that young. It's a descendent of StarOffice, which I was using back in Chicago for some time (this is at least 8 years ago).
I sure do, although I think you could learn a great deal more from Unix.
I'm sure. I think it could learn a lot from me too. ;)
Haha, I've talked to a grey beard about winmodems. Do you know what a winmodem is? It's essentially a piece of hardware that gives the OS direct access to the phone line. Basically, when you buy a winmodem, you're buying a piece of metal that does absolutely nothing, or a small subset of what a real modem does. Not only that, but winmodem device drivers are modem specific ... it's even so bad as being revision specific sometimes. Very little to no code can be recycled between winmodem drivers. I had contemplated writing a winmodem device driver, but after talking to this guy, now I know why nobody else bothers. There is a Linux effort to support winmodems, but I think its pointless. It's better to buy a real modem, preferrably serial or USB.
Yeah, I agree. ;-) I've always hated Winmodems. But like I said - if you wanted to find hardware to support.... ;-)
-
I don't know what you're talking about, socket programming is extremely easy, and so is the error handling. The man pages make error handling very clear cut. If MSDN documentation was thorough, then you would not need to worry about handling errors properly.
It's definitely easy now that I understand it. But what defines "thorough"? To me, that sounds like an arbitrary measurement for the sake of the argument. What I might consider thorough, someone with absolutely no experience might say "WtfIdungetitwritemecode." Of course, I tend to think now that socket programming is more a self-explanatory thing, and I'm not saying that this is an excuse for non-documentation.
Okay, I made a comparison between BSD's socket man page (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=socket&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+6.1-RELEASE&format=html) and MSDN's socket page (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winsock/winsock/socket_2.asp) and they both seem to follow the same "thorough" style.
That is:
1) A synopsis
2) A description
3) Return values
4) Error codes
5) External references
Although in my past experience I've had a bad time with MSDN.
EDIT: We could argue BSD's socket man page is more descriptive and informative than MSDN's :)
It may not have market share, but that does not negate its ability as a workstation, server, or embedded OS.
That is a fallacious argument.
EDIT: Unix is historically, and still is, extremely portable. That's why it still exists today.
I didn't once disagree that it's extremely portable. My question was - if it's free and provides all the functionality of Windows, which is what you'd stated, why hasn't it taken more desktop market? If it really is as good as you say it is, you'd think that more people would use it.
The thing is, it doesn't provide all the functionality of Windows, because if it did, it wouldn't have such a learning curve.
Market share and learning curve have nothing to do with its functionality. You seem correlate the two that:
Small Unix market share => Unix isn't very functional
Thats a fallacy!
Can Unix be made into a reliable desktop? YES. Many people use it as a desktop everyday, especially academia.
Can a desktop Unix do taxes, reports and just about anything work related under the sun? YES. FreeBSD is the less popular of popular Unixes and it has 15000 ports available ... I've had very little trouble finding software that does what I need.
Does it play games? NO
Can Unix be made into a reliable server? YES. Thats why Google(Linux), Yahoo(FreeBSD), Qwest(FreeBSD and Linux) and so forth use it. Check netcraft.
Can Unix be used as an embedded OS? YES If you're using a DI-624M, WRT54G, Tivo, etc, then you're using a device that runs Linux.
Does it have a learning curve? YES Does that mean it doesn't have most of the functionality most people want? NO.
Does it have more functionality than a single version of Windows...I'd argue that it does. It can be setup to do anything without licensing or worries of the OS version. There is no Unix Server, Unix Advanced Server, Unix Home Edition, Unix Professional, Unix Web Server etc...
Ever heard of dumping core? The Unix-Haters handbook loves to poke fun of it. Applications who misbehave dump core and terminated. Then a debugger can be used to study the core file.
I wasn't saying that Unix doesn't have it. I was simply saying that you were wrong - it is NOT a painful process to track down problems in Windows.
Maybe for software crashes, but I've had times where problems were extremely hard to diagnose.
For example, back in the Windows 2000 days, before even Code Red, I had this german guy break in (through IIS) to a Windows 2000 Adv Server machine and delete the windows shell registry key. I have no clue how you would diagnose that without special knowledge of the registry or Windows shell. Skywing ended up telling me that was the problem.
If something like that happened in X with a window manager, the X documentation explains how X works, what initialization scripts it invokes and so forth.
Yes, but these settings are not always available by the driver. Skywing had to write a driver to throttle his computer's speed because the ACPI driver offered no such functionality. He needed this because his computer would often overheat. On the other hand, these settings in Unix (more specifically BSD and Linux) are universally available.
As dumb as I think that is (you have problems with the way your computer is built physically if your processor overheats at 100% of rated maximum), it'll be supported in Windows Vista. That's not an excuse in and of itself, but things *are* coming around in that regard.
Right, but for now, sysctl (thats the output I quoted) interface is way more powerful than what Windows drivers offer. It lets you adjust most kernel and hardware features.
I dumped everything in sysctl:
EDIT: sysctl.txt (http://www.itsmagical.com/sysctl.txt)
Pretty extensive huh? Much of it can be modified, the rest is read-only.
I sure do, although I think you could learn a great deal more from Unix.
I'm sure. I think it could learn a lot from me too. ;)
Big talk for someone largely unfamiliar with Unix ;)