Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:52:28 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: <matthew@starbreaker.net> Cc: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <01b501c17891$a5f56b40$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1011128163141.50019G-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20011128174155.A38325@rit.edu> <014f01c17886$a7d59df0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <200111282247.42677@starbreaker.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew writes: > Not to mention arguing from popularity instead > of the technical merits of Windows. Windows would be (barely) preferable on technical merits alone, although that is not the sole reason for its success. Unfortunately, operating systems do not succeed or fail based on technical merits alone; if they did, we'd be running FreeMultics instead of FreeBSD. > Windows may well be the *worst* choice from a > usability standpoint, IMHO. I've explained several times at length why this is not so. > Any script kiddie with a rudimentary knowledge > of VB can write worms and Trojans that can cause > serious damage to a Windows machine should the > user let down her guard for even a moment. Windows is not intended to be a secure system. The security requirements of desktop systems are very modest, since they should normally be behind firewalls. > Windows insists on abstracting everything from > the user, so that the user is mostly insulated > from the consequences of her actions. That's exactly what most Windows users prefer. > If I need to get under the hood for any reason, > even to indulge my curiosity, then I have to > get past all the bondage and discipline built > into Windows. Most users never want to get under the hood. > Windows is sloppily coded ... True of Windows 9x and its blood predecessors. Not true of NT. NT is rather cleanly written, especially in the kernel. Looking at the two sources side-by-side, you can often recognize the Windows 9x stuff at a glance. > ... and wastes the potential of just about > every computer it touches. Most desktop systems are so dramatically overpowered that wasteful coding is the only way to keep them busy. Since their horsepower is wasted if it isn't used, anyway, using it makes no difference. Of course, the situation is different for servers, which is one of many reasons why Windows is not ideal for servers. > Among other things, Windows insists on using > the swapfile as much as possible, instead of > real memory, which needlessly wastes disk space > and causes utterly unnecessary disk I/O should > I actually try to push the computer. How did you determine this? Note that the event-driven architecture of Windows requires a lot of swapping in itself, regardless of memory-management algorithms. For example, significant events must be signalled to _every_ program that owns windows, and that means that every program must be in memory to process the events, which often requires a ton of swapping. I've seen this on many occasions. UNIX does not communicate between processes or between system nearly as much, particularly with respect to asynchronous events. As a result, it does not have to constantly swap processes in just to tell them that a user has, say, moved a mouse. > Installing or removing even the most trivial > applications requires proprietary automated > tools like InstallShield because of the > Registry, a beast nasty enough to make Great > Cthulhu look as cuddly as a kitten in a basket. Yes, but from a user standpoint, it is much more ergonomic than in UNIX. > Quite frankly, dealing with Windows on a home > desktop, or even a work desktop, is more > aggravation than most of us get paid for. You are projecting the attitudes of many IT professionals onto the user community at large. But only a very tiny fraction of Windows users--and desktop users in general--works in IT. Most of the characteristics you see as drawbacks are seen as advantages by the huge majority of non-IT users. > Frankly, it sounds like you're religiously > devoted to Windows on the desktop. Not religiously devoted, just objective enough to recognize that Windows is the best desktop solution at this time. > When I argue that FreeBSD is better for desktop > use than Windows, I argue from roughly five > years of self-taught experience. Why don't you argue that FreeBSD is better for server use? At least then you are not fighting a losing battle. Or must FreeBSD be used for _everything_ in order to satisfy you? > Don't just say that "there are many reasons". > List them, and please explain why you consider > them reasons to use Windows. I list them over, and over, and over, but the faithful never seem to notice. > To begin with, a significant portion of the > 100K apps you mention are games. So? The purpose of a computer is to do what its user wants it to do. Lots of users like to play games. > Many of the others are either shareware or > freeware ... Just like FreeBSD? > ... much of it as bug-ridden as a 30-year old > hooker from Queens. Are you saying that freeware is likely to contain bugs? What does this imply for FreeBSD, then? > I think it'd be fair to say that the average > Windows user might use 100 out of the 100K > Windows apps you mention. And in many cases, not a single one of those 100 applications exists in a UNIX version. > Most of these apps have BSD (or GNU/Linux) > counterparts that are free as in beer if not > free as in speech. "Counterparts" aren't good enough. When you need to exchange Microsoft Word files with someone, you need Microsoft Word, not just any generic word processor. > Quite frankly, there's no reason for formatting > a document using MS' proprietary *.DOC format > when they look just as good in properly formatted > HTML. HTML provides far less control over formatting than MS Word. And MS Word seems hopelessly imprecise to those of us who do our work in Quark XPress. > Of course, I wouldn't take an HTML document from a > Windows user without first using the Demoronizer, > but that's what I get for having friends that use > Windows. I suggest that people send me documents in PDF. > Now, if I went by market figures, I could conclude > that the Backstreet Boys are a better band than > Iron Maiden, and the Britney Spears is a better > singer than Sarah Brightman. I'm not familiar with any of these persons or organizations, so I cannot comment. > Now, why should people put up with the security > holes and the general incompetence surr What? Anyway, most desktop users care nothing about security. > I insist on differing on this point. I think that > the harder a system is to program for, the harder > it is to write quality software. That's not what I said. I said that the more friendly a system is for a user, the more difficult it is to write software for it, and that is true. Writing quality software requires only a competent engineer. Of course, competent engineers are rare. > If it's difficult to write quality software, then > the user has to put up with mediocre software. A poor workman blames his tools. I can write software of top quality on _any_ platform. > ... they do suffer when Windows programmers try to > cut corners when the API becomes too nightmarish > to handle. Or when Windows programmers reach the limits of their competence, which often doesn't take very long. > Personally, I think you fall back on the religion > thing because you cannot convince us as to the > correctness of your position ... Yes. Religion is what prevents people from seeing the objective data. For example, I've explained again and again why Windows is preferable on the destkop, and yet the true believers continue to ask me for explanations--they do not even see them when I provide them. But I do not seek to convince anyone in particular. True believers cannot be convinced; but people without partisan feelings may look at what I say, and be better informed, and make better choices. > ... yet cannot concede that since we are not > "average users" we have no reason to tolerate > an OS geared to "average users". It's not tolerance, it's preference. Average users have no preferences; they use whatever gets the job done. Geeks like us have preferences (usually), as we tend to use computers for their own sake, rather than as tools to get jobs done. I'm a bit different in that I use computers to get work done, not just as playthings. As a result, I've had to face the realities of what is really best for a given purpose, as opposed to what I think might be cool to run. > Yes, any schmuck can write programs for Windows. That's one reason why there are so many Windows applications out there. > However, anybody *willing to make an effort* can > write programs for FBSD. No special effort is required to write programs for FreeBSD. It's at least as easy as Windows, and in fact I consider it at least an order of magnitude easier. However, most people write software for the purpose of earning money, and there is more money in Windows applications, usually, because of the larger user base. Additionally, many of the less competent programmers don't even know what UNIX is. They just write for whatever machine they have in front of them. > With Windows, on the other hand, the dominant > programming tools come from MS: the Visual > Studio tools, and they cost an arm and a leg. For someone writing code for a living, these tools are just a cost of doing business. Only people coding for fun worry about the cost of the tools. > Funny, I thought that Microsoft was a good example > of what happens when marketing considerations are > given priority over writing solid code. Nobody writing for the consumer market writes solid code, as that is not what consumers want. Still, overall, nobody writes more solid code for that market than Microsoft. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01b501c17891$a5f56b40$0a00000a>