Slashdot Mirror
Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be?
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
Works fine for me, but here's the text anyways:
Pack up the Microsoft sycophants and shoot them off to Mars.
When did Microsoft lose its status among open-source developers as the evil, or better still, incompetent empire? When did open-source developers stop trying to make software better than Microsoft's and start imitating everything Microsoft does? Why do we have to have an open-source Outlook, or an open-source dotNet? Sure, there are examples of how we do things better in Linux than Windows. But I'm getting really tired of the monkey see Microsoft, monkey do Microsoft mentality that has infected open source. And the operative word here is "monkey"--hint, hint.
Aside from being open and free, isn't superiority what got Linux where it is today? Once upon a time, Microsoft was under intense pressure to catch up to Linux stability (in my unhumble opinion, Microsoft still has a long way to go). Now we have several projects that exist for no other reason than to to catch up to and duplicate Microsoft software. Worse, we're duplicating architectural nightmares like the registry, and with no other apparent purpose than to be more like Windows.
I have nothing against cream-skimming the best features of Windows for use in Linux. But creating a registry for Linux is not cream-skimming. It's pond-scum-skimming. What happened to the days when people were appalled at the idea that you'd have to edit a registry in order to make this or that feature work the way you wanted? I don't care if the registry is binary or XML. It's a maintenance nightmare.
Next time you visit Redmond, take a look at big hole with teeth marks in the Microsoft butt. That's a "came back and bit it" bite mark left by the registry. While Microsoft is trying to get around its mistakes, we're busy duplicating them.
Here's another example. Emulating what OLE 2.0 brought to Microsoft Office is not cream-skimming. It's biohazardous-medical-waste-skimming.
I remember the original Microsoft demos of OLE 2.0. You paste spreadsheet cells into a Word document. You click on the cells and the word processor magically transforms into a spreadsheet program. That makes good demo, but did anyone ask what real value it offers? Aside from looking cool, that is? This feature is bad not because of what it does, but because of what it fails to do. It fails to make it easy to create a live link between the original spreadsheet data and what you paste into the document.
Fortunately, not everyone has imbibed from the punch bowl of Microsoft cool-aid. EIOffice, although it looks and feels more like Microsoft Office than OpenOffice.org or KOffice, actually came up with a fresh idea. Imagine that. Innovation. But it took a commercial company, not an Open Source community, to do it. The folks at Evermore Software (the makers of EIOffice) must have at least one non-Microsoft drone on board to enlighten the developers as to what really matters. EIOffice gives you a menu selection to paste a bit of spreadsheet into a document where the cells are live-linked to the original spreadsheet data.
And this next bit of information should send open-source fanatics into a tizzy. EIOffice is based on that evil, despicable language called Java. How dare they? Mono C#, Python, Ruby, maybe even Perl. But Java? Won't that encourage Sun to become dictator of the world if EIOffice gets popular? It's perfectly fine to copy Win32 DLLs in order to make Linux do Windows tasks, but heaven forbid Linux should be infected with a Java runtime. How Sun replaced Microsoft as the evil empire is beyond me. But don't get me started on that.
Back to OLE 2.0 and its successors. Of course, the OpenOffice.org and KOffice folks have faithfully duplicated this monstrosity. Hey, it's how Microsoft Office works. It must be the way to go, right?
That's what they want you to think. Who is they? I don't know, but I can't help but wonder if one or more people within some of these open-source projects are Microsoft moles.
"Here's the plan. Infiltrat
The pop-up key stealing bit happens on Linux too. Ever kick a app off and while waiting switch to the browser and then the one you launched first thrusts itself into view? Happens to me on Linux too.
Gorkman
Linux distro developers might want to explore voluntary standards for certain types of configurations. Maybe something like configuration assumptions for desktops v servers. Like that commercial with the Easy button? Maybe we have an "easy" configuration for desktop distros that tucks more the inner workings out of sight. But if you take away the inconsistency in the Linux environment, you may be undermining one of its most important strengths.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Average users won't know the difference.
Of course, they wouldn't know the difference even if you didn't skin it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
I believe that the main reasons that people have choosen linux over microsoft is the same reason I have, choice. With linux we have the ability to make it appear and work how we want it to, without having to apply third party applications just to provide basic security and functionality. If you like the way windows runs and acts, use it. If you like tweaking your system to become an extension of your personality then I would suggest Linux. Because what it all boils down to is the ability to choose.
A bunch of Tech Stuff
/etc is for configuration files, NOT rants. Rants go in /usr/share.
.program directories (sometimes they were more well-behaved and left .program.d) and .program files. Theoretically, they read configuration information from /etc/program, then .program, the the command line, each location overriding the previous one's directives. Theoretically. Some programs did it that way, some didn't, and you had to read the manual to figure it all out.
GConf is not nearly as much of a mess as this guy makes it out to be. Remember what programs did before GConf? they littered your home directory with
Remember X Resources? X Resources are another kludge that GConf seeks to replace. foo.bar.* String, or Program.foo String, all in one big file. At least what overrides what is clearly specified.
Each program has to provide parsing code for its command line and its configure files, stat() those files manually to determine if they exist, do overriding correctly...
But the GConf puts these configuration directives in an XML format in clearly-defined places and lets the individual application developers not have to write buggy, poorly-documented configuration management, and suddenly people cry 'registry'?
What was wrong with the Windows registry was its corruptible, unrecoverably binary format and the random distribution of keys between the system and user registries. GConf does not have executable keys. GConf does not let one user change system preferences unless that user is root. If a GConf configuration gets corrupt, that corruption is localized to the specific corrupt file, and the user can try to repair that file because it's XML and not some undocumented binary format.
XP is six years old...
No. XP is 4 1/2 years old.
XP SP2 is a year and half old. And I still can't do lots of things (like full use of a USB thumb drive) using a non-priviliged account (not to mention that the default install on my Microsoft-partnered laptop came with the user accounts having full admin priviliges)
Your 'Vista will fix it' argument is quite frankly, the same thing I've heard about XP SP2, Win2k, NT4, & NT 3.5. It wasn't true for those operating systems and I doubt it will be true for vista.
My pics.
This has nothing to do with "Linux" and everything to do with your window manager's design and current configuration.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
This just can't be left alone. It's so very wrong.
KDE will do a decent imitation of windows or mac, or it can even be configured to act more or less like a proper Unix gui as well.
Gnome is mac-and-windows-like in that it refuses to allow the user any choice, but other than that it's no more mac-like than KDE set to mac-like behaviour.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.