Slashdot Mirror
Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural Divide
giampy writes "Joel Spolsky writes a review-like article on the last book of Eric S. Raymond (The Art of Unix Programming). His views on the cultural differences among Windows and Unix programmers are well explained. Overall, an interesting read." Also on the topic of Windows, badriram writes "Microsoft is reorganizing the windows team, it seems the are separating the
OS core development. Seems like things heading in the right direction in creating a more secure OS, and making it more business oriented. Read the
article here."
Windows programming is like playing golf, UNIX programming is like pig wrestling, after years of development on both platforms I feel that UNIX programming gives me the satisfaction of sport achievements, the unforgiveness of UNIX makes very thrilled.
Joel Sposky writes a review-like article on the last book of Eric S. Raymond
I hadn't heard that he died. My condolences to his friends and family. He will be sorely missed.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Does the story of how the divide between windows and Unix came about start with fallen angels?
forget the programmers, until general knowledge of computers improve and stuborn idoits don't need to have things like " why do i need a password to run a program on MY OWN computer" explained the state of computer security will not improve.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Check out Monad, the OO extendable command shell for Longhorn. Quite interesting.
Btw, on 2000 and XP (maybe 9x too), you can assign a shortcut to the command prompt, say Ctrl+Alt+S, so hitting that will get you a command prompt quickly. And enabling autocomplete to and QuickEdit and Insert modes on cmd.exe adds a lot to productivity too.
Go somewhere random
Don't worry, plenty of slow readers have gone on to lead successful lives.
ESR: "Whenever possible, prototype in an interpreted language before coding C."
Hello, Mr Raymond, there are actually quite a number of high-level compiled languages, that will give you most of the convenience of an interpreted language with most of the speed of C. Write your prototype - and then deploy it, because it's already fast and robust enough for everyday use.
who's the troll? 1.yes linux has vunerabilities, but how many have been exploitable to the extend of the windows holes? ahh silence... 2. which windows emulator costs $300??? 3. i plug in my camera's usb... it works perfectly i didn't touch a thing, well except to browse my photos of course. the windows software that came with my camera is utter crap and doesn't work 1/2 as well. 4. there is plently of professional usage of linux outside of servers, your talking to one right now, and when was the last time you tried linux' printing abilities, they are excellent. 5. yes windows is hard to understand becuase it's closed source and poorly documented. 6. used K3b? it's easily as good as any win based cd recorder. 7. lets have a race, you install, configure and setup a mailserver/dns/fileserver/ftp server on win2003 and i'll do it on mandrake 9.2. i'll beat your ass becuase i have done both and mandrake takes 1/2 the time. 8. terminal services? x11 is built on a client server model from the ground up, unlike "terminal services which is tacked on, and thats not even getting into the horrendous cost of ms.... however some of your other points i agree with.. ( i am ignoring the obvious troll comments )video, games and multimedia are not as mature on linux. but this is hardly the fault of linux distro's as these technologies are held back by patents and copyright holders who don't have a clue. microsoft had better be careful or they will shut themselfs out and end up as the sad and lonely one looking in.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The fact that you can't use a *nix machine the way you want isn't a reflection of the Windows/Unix divide - it's a reflection of your personal preferences, experience and background. It's not remotely cultural.
I can't make my Windows machines work in the way I like to (mix of command line and GUI), whereas I can make my iBook and my G4 work wonders because I know OS X / Unix well. That's not cultural either - it's a reflection of the fact that my computing experience has always been some distance from the Windows world.
Just because you don't like something or don't feel comfortable with it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fault with the system as a whole. It can equally easily be a "fault" with your own experience.
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
The very fact that the Unix world is so full of self-righteous cultural superiority, "advocacy," and slashdot-karma-whoring sectarianism while the Windows world is more practical ("yeah, whatever, I just need to make a living here") stems from a culture that feels itself under siege, unable to break out of the server closet and hobbyist market and onto the mainstream desktop.
i think the article shows a bit of a polarised image. okay, i see the point of OS advocates being too tech-oriented, but we also have some efforts that really try to aim at end users, more or less succesfull. allright, it's not as easy as using MacOSX, but it's quite close in many aspects. and quite usable for the novice, especially in the distributions that try to make it simple (xandros, lindows, etc)
linux on the desktop? very possible. a lot more likely than the writer of this article would like us to believe IMHO
Interoperation is something Microsoft fundamentally doesn't get.
Instead of interoperating with published standards, they try to interoperate with Microsoft legacy methodologies (e.g., everything must bee visual basic scriptable.) This is a terrible source of security worm-holes. I wish they would reorganize their visual basic scripting fanatics to Antarctica.
I make it a point to return any base64-encoded text/plain email to the Outlook-using idiot who sent it, explaining that Outlook is obscuring their email text, along with a list of reasons to switch to another email client and instructions for doing so.
some of what i believe is behind this Unix/Windows cultural divide is the elitist attitude. you have to be elite to use unix which just isn't true. as i've seen other people post and i agree with Apple put a pretty picture in front of unix and users aren't complaining why can't other people?
i personnally don't care what OS i'm using. at home i'm using my computer for video games and sound engineering, so i have 1 up2date windows box for games, and a mac for sound engineering. Why'd i get a mac? because while i'm in the middle of recording a band session i can't turn to the band and say "sorry guys computer crashed i lost the last 3 hours of your work" if windows was stable enough i would be using that. At work is another story though. i write stupid docs and java code so they put me in front of a windows machine. i personnally don't care. although i worry less about my mac then my windows machine.
My family recently decided to get DSL first thing i did was lock that computer down. i almost went so far as to remove IE with some ie removal tool (XPlite for example) but then i realize this would cause more calls to me then it would solve.
i also find that people want a brand name. i was asked to "buy" my own machine for work and i went to one of the lesser known computer builders and the price difference was several hundred dollars compared to what they wanted me to buy from Dell. Take a guess what's on my desk.
A lot of windows users don't care. if you gave them a mac as their first computer they wouldn't switch because they wouldn't know. the example i use alot is "how many people continue to buy automatic tranny cars over stick shift?" neither one is better or worse just a different interface but sticks are slowly getting phased out.
a lot of people (myself included) need to stop saying "windows is for morons" or "windows is less secure use unix" and start to change our "marketing focus" to something more like "building a more structured and secure tomorrow" like it or not "Where do you want to go today" sold computers, it sold windows and increased his market share. unix needs a "where do you want to go today" why? because no normal computer gives a crap about where the source came from.
BTW side story i was on a project where the dev team used exclusively solaris boxes. i had to write a code review document. with no MS office on my computer i wrote it in the other thing available StarOffice. i got hounded for several months by a stupid Q&A team because they couldn't find evidence that this "StarOffice Product" even existed. like just goto google and type "Staroffice" in the freaking search box.
Again just to reiterate my point. people don't care about which OS they run. they want their computer to be like their cars. "if i got someplace else and sit in a car i should be able to drive it". We need to change the marketing strategy of UNIX.
mod me whatever you like but some of you will think i'm flaming which i'm not. some of you will agree with me. i've said all i wanted to say. thank you for reading
Although I understand and agree with your basic point, I would ask that you consider the "product" of a computer and how that relates to average "consumers" need for a tool to make their lives easier/more entertained (because that is, after all, the basic reason why average consumers purchase computers).
Consumers want a tool to use, whether it be for games, email, finances, or just internet surfing. Quite frankly they don't want to spend a ton of time learning about how to use it, and many don't care how or why it works just as long as it does work.
The tug-of-war that exists is that computers by their nature are complex and flexible. Consumers by their nature are very insistant on their desires which in include simplicity, flexability, safety, cost, and utility.
Calling them "stubborn idiots" only highlights the divide of understanding between the computer literate that understand and desire ultimate flexibility, and the average consumer that just wants to use their computer, like a toaster or a vcr or a Sony playstation, without a lot of hastle.
Somehow the creators (programmers and hardware vendors) need to accomodate for that, because I assure you that the average consumer won't change.
Although I despise Microsoft's business ethics, I appreciate their dedication to the principle that I mentioned above.
Linux is in a very good position to make headways in this regard as well, but it will take a fundamental understanding by the programmers and harware teams of said principle to make real headways in the desktop market.
Anything less will ultimately limit the adoption of Linux to, for example, server, web, and corporate applications.
"The masses" are what they are, and deriding them for it won't influence them to change, however it will influence them to avoid the product.
Lets find a way to meet them where they are while preserving the fundamentals.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
I am not sure why people bother reading Joel Sporsky's weblog -- half of what he writes is tripe, and half is heavily biased by his ego. Someone else quoted Joel's jab at how "the Unix world is so full of self-righteous cultural superiority;" apparently he does not realize that he is an exemplar of the Windows version of the same.
If I wanted to follow his lead and oversimplify the differences between Windows and Unix programmers, I would say that Unix programmers care about code (period) and Windows programmers care about the quick buck. Mr. Sporsky's crass and half-informed self-promotion is an excellent example. (Ever notice how often he plugs his company and software while griping about software development practices?) I have seen the insides and outsides of commercial applications for both Windows and Unix, and the quality under Unix is generally higher than under Windows.
For anyone who has ever wondered why more people don't use linux, staroffice, etc, I recommend the classic on technology marketing "Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey Moore. It describes the "chasm" which technology companies face in crossing from the early adopter market to the pragmatic, mainstream market.
The consumers on the left side of the chasm - what Moore terms the innovators and early adopters - enjoy using new technology, enjoy putting things together, have the vision to see the potential of new technology, and are willing to put up with inconveniences in the iterim.
The mainstream market is pragmatic. It prefers to bet on clear market leaders (so as to minimise risk and benefit from the supporting ecosystem which inevitably grow around the market leader), is willing to wait and see, and needs complete, fully functional, headache-free solutions for their specific needs. Consumers in the mainstream market rely on references within the mainstream market to drive their buying decisions.
A technology company which wants to transition from the early adopter market to the mainstream market therefore has to bridge this "chasm", and in the process, change the focus of its marketing efforts and adjust its product accordingly. As far as the desktop market is concerned, Unix (with the exception of Mac OS X) is a product which clearly has not bridged the chasm.
MS products and APIs have some of the WORST documentation I have ever seen. They make a point of pointing out the obvious stuff and not even telling you the important stuff. I have been spending time using the MS VSS command lines to write scripts for automation of builds and such. Well the VSS docs are VERY incomplete. They fail to meantion that output may be multi-line for commands that SHOULD come back with a single line. There is also very little information on some of the important behaviours of some of the VSS commands and the errors that come up.
Some of the best docs I have seen are from Open Source projects. Yes sometimes the docs are incomplete, but at least you have the fall back of being able to LOOK AT THE CODE when it's necessary.
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
This story will be duped at some distant point in the future.
The latest Slashdot meme.
I think you missed Sposky's point completely, but...
I believe we need to have "end-user focused" programmers, and I think there are a few sneaking into our world (H Pennington, Miguel de Mono come to mind). They'd be folks who know the "unix way" but focus on the "final" solution: The end app that will be used without piping off to other apps, without having to support connections to 15 other things, whatever. Just what the user needs right then and there.
There's a dearth of those kinds of apps now, but they seem to be arriving more and more.
Good. Great. Bully for you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you truely limit your comments to your wants and needs. The problem is that the standardization naz^Wadvocates (oops, almost invoked Godwin's Law, sorry about that) always extend their needs as trumping everyone else's needs. This is just as much a crime when it comes from those whining that Linux needs a standard GUI (or whatever) because the unstated subtext is always "the one I am using".
My needs are different from yours -- I find that I cannot use a Windows system the way I want to, and am much more at home on a unix system. I find I cannot use a KDE inteface the way I can use a olvwm interface. With a modular system like unix, I can use the interface I want, even as other users on the same system use a completely different one, and all without causing undue problems between them.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
You know, I had a similar thought when reading this review. Mr. Spolski brings up many of the compare-and-contrast points of unix vs windows programming, and while (in my unix-centric view) most unix points stand on their own, the windows points are rather fluffed up with artificial and (in my unix-centric view) rather unconvincing hand waving. Most of his points seem to boil down to
In the end, Mr, Spolski's review falls into the same category that he would like to pigeon-hole Mr. Raymond's book -- an attempt to be balanced and fair defeated by the author's self-inflicted blinders.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
However, there was this one point during this discussing at the dinner before his speech where me and several of the LUG members were talking with him about linux GUI's and the future of the Linux Desktop. Eric Raymond said something about the whole unix system of creating back ends first and then grafting GUI's on to those later.
My response: "But Eric, most usability experts recommend you design the interface first and then write the code".
His response: "then they're wrong."
My response: "But what if there's something that the backend folks didn't think of when they wrote there code that the GUI really needs? Or what if there's something in the back-end that just doesn't work once you add a GUI?"
His response: "then it needs to be fixed."
My response: "But what if so much code has already been written that no programmer wants to go back and make all the changes necessary to make it really work?"
His response: "then we've got a problem."
It was at this moment I realized two things:
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
The cultural values approach produces some interesting insights.
The obvious stuff:
1) Coding for other programmers promotes code reuse. Code reuse promotes productivity.
2) Security is affected by code reuse. It propagates bugs resident in the reused code but avoids bugs that would be introduced should the user have to recode that functionality. The net gain is that, so long as the reused code is in a common library, fixing it once fixes multiple applications. Available source means that more (and fresh) eyes review the common code, improving the possibility of finding the bugs in the first place.
3) Writing for end users, when done well, produces applications with better usability. Naturally it tends to sell better.
4) Writing only for end users tends to produce inflexible applications. The user must use the program exactly as the author intended and no other way, unless the programmer takes the higher road. In the first-to-market commercial business environment, taking the higher road is as hard as pushing a rope.
5) Literate end users is not only a contradiction in terms, it is an unreasonable expectation. Programmers cannot expect end users to learn more than the minimum needed to operate the computer because (1) they see it as a tool to to accomplish their real goal, and (2) The inner workings of the hardware and software do not interest them. Is it reasonable to expect all drivers to understand the inner workings of an automobile, or kitchen users to understand the inner workings of their dishwashers?
6) If Unix is to succeed on the desktop, it must cater to end users.
My conclusions:
1) If we really want Unix to succeed on the desktop, it seems to me like we need cultural fusion. We must pay more attention to end users but without losing the values in the Unix community that produce modular, reusable, secure, reliable code.
2) This fusion alone is necessary but not sufficient, else Apple would have more market share than it does.
3) The cultural fusion discussed so far is in the technical world. But IT vendors' companies rest on three pillars: the technical pillar, the business pillar, and the merchandising/marketing pillar. Every company that hopes to put Unix on the desktop would be well-advised to rethink their business processes, standard contracts, and advertising so as to cater to home end users and to give business end users more visibility and consideration. First on my list of business processes to review would be the help desk metaphor. What a universally negative experience!
What say you, technical literati?
English -- gotta love it! / The engineers refuse to refuse the rocket until the refuse is removed from the launch pad.
Excellent article. Now will someone do the sequel, explaining to both sides the much greater rift between the UNIX culture and the (IBM) mainframe culture?
The world will be a better place when the UNIX partisans understand exactly why the "Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to revinvent it, badly" quote makes IBM mainframe guys go ballistic. Compare mainframe security to UNIX security sometime for just a hint of what I'm going on about.
I just had a Windows programmer/sysadmin type tell me that all he does is play with the program in question until he figures out how it works. He told me that help files are useless. I on the other hand live by the documentation and everything better damn well be documented or I ain't trying it.....not on my production system. I don't mean the easy stuff either. the more touchy something is, the more I want to read befor I attempt it. Man pages can and do suck, but everyone I have come across pointed me in the right direction. Windows likes to hide things even from the programmer. I don't think thats a correct way even if your writing a program focusing on the end user. If something goes wrong, how do you track it down?
The registry would not be as bad as it is if it was better documented. I know I know....if you subscribe to MSDN or some other microsoft money scheme, you can read the documentation. Well, users should have access to that if they so want.
Things like this is why OS/X does well on both fronts. You don't HAVE to look at the commandline ever if your just using it. If you want to write a little script or automate something, the command line is there if you need it. Microsoft on the other hand went so far as to say that Windows ME had no access to the DOS prompt, yet with in a minute of installing it, I had a DOS prompt.
I happen also to disagree with this guy that UNIX programmers typically write a command line program first. Some do, but I have seen others which are useless without a GUI program.
Commandline is valued because you can take different command line programs and pipe it here, append to a file there and have a script or program that does what the original writers of each module never dreamed. There's something to be said for that!
Just one tiny example where the UNIX way ends up being better for users:
The gpsd project is a project that takes the gps data collected by a serial port and makes it availble not just to apps running on the local machine, but also across a network. The advantage is that if you have programs wrote to work with gpsd, you can use MULTIPLE map programs at the same time each showing your current position. You don't have to juggle the serial port between 2-3 programs if you use one map program because of one reason and another map program for another reason. This has not even been dreamt of yet on Windows and the only way to accomplish it on Windows is using 2 GPS's each on their own serial port. To make the data available to any application that want/needs it, you just configure the daemon to look at the serial port your GPS is connected to and then other programs can get the data from the daemon instead of the serial port.
UNIX programmers program to work around limitations in the platform and are able to make the platform do what they want to do. Windows programmers will just say that it's not possible or Microsoft does not support it. UNIX programmers say: Nonsense! You are a programmer right? Then write a program or API that does what you want. Some say that this is a weakness, but I say it's a strength that makes UNIX a tool that actually makes it easy to make it do what you want. Some users don't want or need this kind of power, so they are happy with Windows. The ones that need it turn to Linux or UNIX.
Gorkman
Is this bad enough news? No.
Furthermore, until the same "benevolent dictator" FORCES ALL *nix to employ the use of focus groups, user feedback, and other methods of optimising the UI to suit the needs and wants of the AVERAGE JOE, ALL *nix will continue to suffer a host of maladies from merely looking clunky up to and including full incomprehensibility to the guy we're trying to promote this stuff to.
Apple came a gnat's whisker from pulling this double burden off, but because they run a MORE EXPENSIVE machine that is NOT COMPATABLE with the Great Shoal of Computers, they failed.
Proceed with the downmodding children, I can take the hit.
Is it fascism yet?
that Windows programmers hurt their arms and wrists after clawing their way through one too many pull-down menus while Unix programmers hurt their pinky fingers after a heavy emacs session in the world of Control Meta.
As a result, Windows programmers have spastic arms from all this GUI action, looking like zombies from Night of the Living Dead, while UNIX programmers have hands curled up like Igor from Frankenstein's Lab.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Three years ago I had to do something very simple with Microsoft's Crypto API. It has two layers: high and low. The high level functions did some common tasks, though totally non-customizable. So I had to use the low level ones. The documentation was vague. Only if they have published the high level functions source, me and the company I worked for would have saved a month. Or maybe I'm mentally retarded. So here is another example: IFS kit. It costs $1000, and it comes with 0/zero/none/not a single line of documentation about writing network file system drivers! Don't get me wrong - I don't like reading Microsoft code (the MSDN "examples" are just enough!) but if I had the source code of the relevant parts of the IFS kit, I would have finished that stupid task a month ago. Now, we're waiting for some preliminary documentation which is to come after 2 months. And 6 years after the first version of the kit... So, poorly documented open-source libraries may suck, but poorly-or-not-documented-at-all Microsoft libraries sick a lot more!
I agree.
That is not to say however that my home machine doesn't need security, especially as the world becomes more networked.
Password based security is the most nightmarish of security scenarios: a partial success. Successful enough for people to rely upon, successful enough to impede the adoption of better approaches, but not successful enough to provide the security and convenience people need. Some people do OK with them but they're a tiny minoritt. Upgrading humanity is not an option. Indeed I suspect that the majority of computer "experts" would fail if audited according to strict password management standards.
The problem is that passwords are an ugly hack that were adopted when the problem was less severe and the stakes were lower. They're a huge Achilles' heel.
Personally, I think a key like device like an iButton would be much better. It's intrinsically more cryptographically secure than a memorizable password, as well as practically more convenient to manage in a secure manner. In high security apps the key device could be enhanced with biometrics or even password protection, approaches that are insufficient on their own but could thwart casual, opportunistic reuse and buy time for privilege revokation if the hardware key is stolen. The very fact the hardware key must be physically taken away from its users is a huge advantage. Passwords can be "stolen" without their owners knowing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"They don't like GUIs much, except as lipstick painted cleanly on top of textual programs, and they don't like binary file formats. This is because a textual interface is easier to program against than, say, a GUI interface"
This is so naive as to be laughable. The thing that soooo many windows programmers do not understand is that the "text" based paradigm of the UNIX world is exactly that a paradigm and the metaphysics of that paradigm are so deeply ingrained in the approach to programming that the real benefits are often underestimated. If I write a command line program, I need only understand 4 interfaces stdin, stdout, stderr and argv and only half of them are readable! Within that, we have lines and whitespace as standard concepts, again trivial to grok.
As a programmer it is up to me to present my output in the format understood by the stdin/argv scanner of the program I want to call and the process by which I can discover that format is of varying difficulty based on the complexity and quality of the program I wish to call, but generally pretty simple process nonetheless.
The next generation of interaction between programs (or lets call them objects) requires a huge leap in complexity. It is this next generation paradigm that many windows programmers would claim to use. But for it to work, the self discovery of those input and output formats and some standard nomenclature to allow them to communicate with each other to make the discovery is required. For example, my spreadsheet program may have many different inputs, a clipboard, a file interface, a dynamic data interface etc etc and its outputs might be equally complex, but the critical thing is that it must be able to tell my data capture program that it is a spreadsheet stlye application and that phrase "spreadsheet" style application must make as much sense as a "stdin/stdout" style application makes today. Whilst I agree with this posters point about creating an object, and then using a GUI to call it, the point is somewhat moot since the discovery process means that in the Object focused world there is no capacity for this communication to take place and so the programmer is left with the task of doing all the mapping between objects since a "data capturey" type object doesn't really grok the metaphysics of how to present to a "spreadsheety" type application. Now, don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting that UNIX can do this any better, but the paradigm under which a unix programmer operates understands something about the metaphysics of how applications talk to each other and so the UNIX programmer will think in a reuse/talking to other programs kinda way to a level, even if it is at, overall, a lower level of functional richness, that a windows programmer cannot really hope to emulate.
$0.02
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Read the article (I know, it will be hard to force yourself to do so if you are a slashdot regular
I don't know if Spolsky didn't read this far, or if he's just a weak plagarist, or maybe this is the only part that made a big enough impression on him to merit rephrasing for his own column.
The only difference I see is POV, and substitute "mac" for "windows".
There are two ways to solve this - bring the functionality into the same address space as the GUI (so if it hangs, force quitting won't leave the confused backend around), or use a network-style protocol with a defined ping/pong approach, and when the backend fails to ping, kill it.
But text-based interfaces are always fragile. Just look at any of the millions of cdrecord frontends out there. They never quite work properly, because cdrecord-of-the-week always has some new diagnostic message, or error, and the program gets confused.
However, as the snippet from the original article above shows, I don't think my interpretation is entirely (if at all) incorrect. Mr. Sposky seems to me to be saying that the Unix metaphor is "less usable" to "Aunt Minnie" (pretty insulting, BTW: my Aunt Minnie was programming calcuating machines before Mr. Sposky was born, but that's another topic) due to its inherent nature.
I am observing that the Windows metaphor works great for the first 2-3 years, but then the end user runs into a brick wall where he can't do what he wants, doesn't know why, and has no tools or path at his disposal to move forward. I have seldom seen a person who grew up in the Unix (or VMS, or TOPS-20) metaphor hit that same wall and not be able to figure out a way around it. It was primarly my Unix and VMS background that allowed me to figure out how to make Microsoft LAN Manager 1.1 actually work, for example, when the Microsoft technicians were clueless (another long story).
sPh
Yeah, it's also called Melissa and several other names.
Why automation is considered more important than security is one thing, but why do people feel the need to defend that wierd choice of values? Do people who grow up on this stuff and never learn software tools (unix) methedologies really think WSH is an interesting technology?
I don't believe the grandparent post referred to their computer as being attached to a network. It has become a pernicious assumption that all computers are networked these days. I have a non-networked computer, and although it is behind locked doors, I use a password on it just for peace of mind. However, I find the recently common assumption that all computers are networked to be a real pain. Ever tried working on a program where all the documentation is html links? Not easy when you are on an isolated computer. It has become so bad that software boxes have as the computer requirements something like: Pentium 200 Mhz or better, 128MB RAM, at least 1 GB Hard Drive space, etc. but neglect to mention that Internet connectivity is required for use. Not everybody uses their computer as a websurfing device. It is still true that the most secure computer is one which is not attached to a network. You can try to tunnel into the computer I am typing this from, but I dare you to get the data on my other one!
Take cdrecord. cdrecord does the same stuff that the windows cd-rom recording libraries do: write a cd-rom. How do you feed the windows libraries data to write? I don't know. Are they self-documented? Nope. How do you feed cd-record? The most obvious way: give it an image to write via stdin:
cat image.iso | cdrecord
If I didn't know this, cdrecord --help tells me what to do. man cdrecord has a longer explanation with examples. I can get the application, usable by end users, and place it inside my backup scripts. Do this with the windows libraries or Nero or some other burning application. Tell me how long do you have to sift through documentation to do this: Find a way to backup a disk partition to a cdrom using the windows libraries. In any unix, this is something like:
cat /dev/sda1 | cdrecord
Will a end-user have trouble using command line cdrecord? Naturally. But cdrecord is a core application, which shouldn't be used by end users. That's what the Rule of Separation is about. Grab krecord or something like that, and use it.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
The very fact that the Unix world is so full of self-righteous cultural superiority, "advocacy," and slashdot-karma-whoring sectarianism while the Windows world is more practical ("yeah, whatever, I just need to make a living here")... - Joel Spolsky
I have subscribed to Joel's mailing list for several years, and have programmed on both sides of the fence. Joel paints a black and white picture of the differences between Unix and Windows - which I must say, is not true. I have to disagree with Joel's oversimplification because he has made the same mistake that he accuses ESR of making: namely that his own monoculturalism has clouded his view of Unix programming. Anytime someone makes a statement that starts with 'the very fact', you can be sure there is less fact and more conjecture than the writer is willing to admit.
The key error in his analysis is narrowly defining the Unix program as being a command-line 'mostly' affair that doesn't tell 'Aunt Madge' when it succeeds. This is not exactly true; while it is true of strict command line applicatioins (which Aunt Madge will not use anyway) - the GUI interfaces do not follow that formula - and programmers are free (not constrained as he would suggest) to build interfaces that meet whatever needs an end user may have - whatever their skill level.
Just because 99% of the end users are familiar with and resist change from the Microsoft GUI does not mean that it is the best UI - it just means that people did not have much of a choice from the beginning (there were only one GUI for PCs back in the late 80s - Windows; the other major GUI was tied to the Apple Macintosh). While the Windows GUI stagnated over the 1990s, the Linux world exploded and a plethora of user interface ideas have surfaced that are effecting the new Windows interface. Same story (DOS - a rip of CP/M), different day ("yeah, whatever, I just need to make a living here").
He also touches on, but does not explore with a self critical eye, the limitations imposed by not having source code. The dependence of Windows programmers on Microsoft APIs provides too many limitations, and increases the likelyhood of unforseen interactions that cause bugs. He whitewashes these issues by simply focusing on the size of the Windows desktop deployments vs. *nix.
The reality is a *nix developer has all of the options available to him; he is not constricted by artificial barriers; a Windows programmer is at the mercy of Microsoft - who can change APIs at the drop of a hat.
His quote above really hits the nail on the head: the Microsoft monoculture is about money above and beyond any moral considerations. I would much rather be a "slashdot-karma-whore" than a Microsoft-whore. From his writings over the years it is plain that he absorbed the 'money is good no matter how you get it' mentality during his stint at the company.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
No, seriously? Windows GUIs suck... compared to what?
Compared to X? The same X where every single programmer just _has_ to use a different layout, different shortcuts, different menu structure, and for bonus points his own widgets? And where 90% of the GUIs were never even tested in any other resolution or font size than what the developper had? (Here's a hint: 100 DPI fonts are an X standard for a long time now.) And where every app is configured in a different way? And in some cases (e.g., IceWM), contrary to common sense, the changes you do through the menus aren't even saved, and you have to launch a different application to configure your start menu?
Sorry, from the end user point of view, it's the Unix GUIs that suck big time. They suck like an industrial vacuum cleaner. They suck like an expensive hooker.
They're made by geeks, for geeks. And religiously defended by hordes of flaming trolls, ready to insult everyone who dares doubt their idol's wisdom.
What a non-geek user expects is to learn some skills once, and apply those skills again and again. It doesn't matter if you have some cute unique idea. He just doesn't want to have to learn a whole new set of skills for every single program.
He wants that if in Word CTRL+X is "cut", then in every single program it's still "cut". He wants that if F1 is "Help", then by God, it better be "Help" in all programs. And if one program's scrollbars behave in one particular way, then it better be the same way in all programs.
For you discovering how yet another widget set works might count as fun. For Joe Average, it counts as a waste of his time. He'd rather do something else in that time. Like be done sending that e-mail, grab a beer and watch TV, instead of still being at discovering how it works.
And yes, the Windows developpers know that it pays to care about the paying customer. That means, yes, caring about Joe Average who's using those programs. Thinking how you can help Joe Average do what _he_ wants, instead of making it all an exercise in programming for your own ego.
And until more of the Linux crowd discovers the same thing, I just can't see Linux making it big on the desktop. Sorry.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I used to be a 100% windows user, ntil i put together, with the help of the local linux guru/LAN party hosting guy, a linux based file server, i needed RAID, didnt have a controller card and had no use for a gui on a headless box.
the box was red hat 8.
in the past 9 months i've become much more intimatly familiar with *nix. My router is linux, and i just deployed two new boxes, one of them a dual boot with Win2k (for gaming). Only one of the three nix boxes has a GUI, and that right now is KDE. Granted it's a bit klunky compared to Win2k's, in fact ir reminds me more of Windows 95's desktop. Win2k's file manager/web browser/ftp client combo is nice, just type in a different address, but it has many, many, many bugs and holes.
I toyed with the idea of setting up a nix box for my parents, just mozilla, evo and OO.o. until i found out that they needed Quicken 2003 (Crossover didnt deliver).
In any case, I like nix better for some things, windows for others. Is nix suitable for use by the general population? no. it took me 6 months to shake windows logic, the gneral populus would keel over and die, at the least they'd be screaming mad.
Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
I have extensive experience "programming Windows" and programming "UNIX" [ I live and work "without prejudice"], so I've moved between and am comfortable in both "cultures". Interestingly enough, I find that the cultural divide is much more pronounced now than 20 years ago (20 years ago, did anyone program exclusively for Windows? -- the platform was a joke...). I think that because the Windows SDK is controlled by Microsoft, it's more difficult to do really insightful programming for that platform. So much Unix and Linux stuff is "open", that programmers involved in that culture are exposed to more "inner workings", etc... Where programmers have ONLY used Microsoft's Visual Studio and have ONLY produced end-user, non-programmer apps, their skills I feel are limited. UNIX programmers can certainly produce apps for non-programmers (Open Office, Gimp, KDE etc...), but I think that "Windows Cultured" programmers cannot as easily develop "programmer's tools". I don't think it has as much to do with "culture" as much as "depth and varity of knowledge."
Y'know, people keep saying that this is such a trivial little matter of implementation, but I can't help but observe that 20 years after the Macintosh came out, cut and paste in X windows is still completely fucking broken.
At some point, you have to abandon the excuses and admit that it's not just an implementation problem, it's a broken paradigm.
DEVELOPER: "Here's our GUI! Enjoy!"
USER: "Wow, thanks! This sure is pretty. So, how do I cut and paste?"
DEVELOPER: "Well, that depends on which toolkit the app you're running uses."
USER: "Uh, OK. Thanks." [user turns off computer, goes back to his Windows or OS X machine.]
In the above scenario, the user is right, and the developer is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Um, yes that lunacy IS unique to windows. Unix as a practice does not allow email apps to operate as root. A web server running with wheel privilages is considered a design flaw. While it is possible to create an environment where a script could enter a Linux box and infect the system, you would have to have the perfect storm of inept sysadmins running deliberately loose settings, exploiting a bug in the software.
All that comes free with Windows.
The chances of that same script being able to infect a second machine is near zero. The other machine would have to be a near clone of the first.
As far as Unix being locked in time, I would like to point out that we have been using Kerberos and Ldap long before Windows thought it was a good idea. (For your edification, Active Directory is an adulterated implementation of Kerberos and LDAP.) NT and it's ilk are also POSIX complient, meaning they strive to be unix-like.
I should also add that Unix does not have a giant world writable configuration system. Regedit is all I need to access the security files, system configuration settings, even policies. Show me a Windows setup that operates without the GUI, without Visual Basic, and without the registry. Then talk to me about security.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
But I haven't seen a lot of people pointing out that esr is also taking it too easy on the Unix culture.
I started reading the draft of esr's "Art" a while back, and was immediately struck that he was repeating the "do one thing and do it well" slogan as if anyone ever really worked that way. Has he ever seen the man page for "tar"? How about "find"? The Unix Way is more like "do one thing sort-of-okay, and then trick it out with options and modifiers and run command files and embedded scripting languages until you can't tell when it's going to fry eggs or flush the toliet."
You might want to balance out esr's idealized view with the half-serious ranting of The Unix-Hater's Handbook (pdf).
I think the chapter on X is one of the better X-windows tutorials around (though unreasonable people may disagree).
Unix originally didn't even have a network stack, so you would have a hard time finding a way to "root it in minutes", not to mention that TCP/IP didn't even exists at the time.
...)
didn't have a clue what they were doing(not to mention they even did a pathetic
job at fucking up the original Unix ideas... hell, at least VMS had technical
quality and some consistency!).
/etc/passwd, ...) but the basic ideas were
solid(and in good part based in the best of MULTICS), the problems is people
that _never_ understood those ideas, the people that really understood them
fixed the problems and kept moving forward(until Lucent killed them anyway).
Shadow passwords are more complex than the original UNIX design
Shadow passwords are not a solution, shadow passwords are an ugly hack. Of course the most secure solution is not the simplest. In the this case, shadow passwords were barely enough for stand-alone systems; in a networked environment you need a different kind of distributed authentication framework, and that is what factotum/secstore provide with a relatively low complexity keeping in mind the implicit complexity of the problem domain.
As for problems with how in Unix "everything is a file", the problem is not with the original Unix ideas, but with how some misguided souls(*cough* USL, *cough* BSD, *cough* SUN, *cough* RMS/GNU, *cough* Linux, *cough* GNOME,
Who added most of the networking functionality to Unix? a bunch of clueless undergrads in Berkeley, really, who is surprised about the result(BIND, sendmail, etc..)?
Unix, in it's original and "pure" form, evolved, and most if not all the original problems where *fixed*, and so Plan 9 was born, more than 10 years ago, but the "UNIX community"(read, "bunch of misguided clueless religious fanatics") never even understood what Unix was supposed to be like, and more than 30 years later they keep repeating the same mistakes again and again, but now they don't have enough with their own mistakes, that they need to copy others mistakes too(see GNOME...).
There is nothing wrong with the original Unix ideas; yes, there were some horrible mistakes(*cough* suid,
None of the problems you mention applies to Plan 9(and some of them nor to the last version of Research Unix), and in most cases neither to what Unix was originally.
BTW, Plan 9 doesn't even have the concept of "root" or "Administrator", so it can hardly be rooted, as for buffer overflows, all you need is sane libs to deal with string manipulation, which it's true the original Unix didn't have, but the problem is people that in more than 30 years is incapable of fixing a broken lib design, the original Unix designers fixed the "problem" *long* ago.
Best wishes
uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
I don't recall slashes of either variety in VMS file specifications. They used square brackets and dots, like: "DEVICE:[AIDTOPIA.SLASHDOT]COMMENT.TXT;3". I know lots of people hated this syntax, but I found it quite expressive. For one thing, it was easy to distinguish between a directory listing ([FOO]) and the file which stored the directory information (FOO.DIR).
Perhaps they started allowing slashes for POSIX compliance. That was about the time I (sadly) left the VMS world. I recall DEC claims at a DECUS symposium that VMS was the first OS to achieve POSIX compliance, which was quite a feat since it was so non-UNIXy to begin with.
Reminds me of the the famous story about the origins of the US railroad gauge:
"Unix" doesn't have a choice in the matter - it's purely an end user decision.
While it is possible to create an environment where a script could enter a Linux box and infect the system, you would have to have the perfect storm of inept sysadmins running deliberately loose settings, exploiting a bug in the software.
Or you need a typically inexperienced and ignorant end user running as root for convenience.
Not every unix box is managed by a sysadmin (and the proportion that are is only going to get smaller).
Added to that, with the typical scenario of a single-user desktop machine that spreads these "email viruses", it doesn't *have* to infect the entire machine to have a negative impact and propogate.
The "well at least under a properly configured unix box a virus can only wipe out the user's files" argument is irresponsible and specious when applied to a typical PC configuration.
NT and it's ilk are also POSIX complient, meaning they strive to be unix-like.
No, they implement a POSIX layer for compatibility and to help software migration. If you think NT is striving to be "unix like" you're sadly mistaken.
I should also add that Unix does not have a giant world writable configuration system. Regedit is all I need to access the security files, system configuration settings, even policies.
The registry (in NT) is subject to ACLs. It isn't world writable by arbitrary users any more than /etc is.
Show me a Windows setup that operates without the GUI, without Visual Basic, and without the registry. Then talk to me about security.
But for some reason a unix box with X, perl (or sh) and /etc can be secure ?
I'm surprised Joel didn't take on some other major differences:
- Monolithic versus small parts
- Just works versus elegant (but might not work)
- GUI-oriented versus service-oriented
- et cetera
Joel is right on the money here, though: there is a major "cultural" difference between Windows and Unix programmers -- my workplace hires both types and they're quite a different group of folks.I'd like to lock the Joel and Eric in a room and see what becomes of it...
I am the Lorvax, I speak for the machines.