the anti-linux args (from AWT thread)

Miscellaneous Topics
#41

;D

I’ve tried to make clear that I know full well I’m only going on personal opinion and limited experience on this particular point.

Whereever it sounds like I was saying “I’ve looked at everything on SF” what I meant was “Much of my exposure to os projects is via SF (as opposed to via freshmeat, PBONE, etc - just so you know what I’m using for source material; if you think sf is a biased source, you can say so directly and hopefully point me somewhere where I could get a better view), and it’s quite a good place to look when trying to get an overview of opensource projects”.

Over the years, I’ve tracked many SF projects. I’ve downloaded and tried something like 300 of them from SF, max. (Out of approx 100k currently registered at the moment, I think? and they haven’t been deleting any for most of that time…). I’ve downloaded and used probably a similar number from other sources (I’m not including anything I’ve got from distro CD’s here - only stuff I found or went looking for). I certainly haven’t looked at all the source for all 300 sf projects I’ve used, but I’ve looked at snippets of many, and looked in detail at quite a few, and even looked at the entire source of all files in detail for a dozen or so.

I can only say that I’ve seen what I identify as a pattern (well, several patterns), in terms of the quality of software engineering in os software. Incidentally, another interesting one I’ve noticed is that it’s only when the major / standard linux app or driver in one area completely stagnates for about 4-5 years that someone comes in and makes a much better one; if the current app or driver is “bad but even slighlty active” (even if it doesn’t fully work for many people!), that seems to be enough to prevent others competing. Off the top of my head I’d say the opposite was true in the commercial world - poor software breeds competitors wanting to take away their money like nothing else. In os, most examples I can think of of rampant competition is where each of the competitors is about as good as each other, but duplicates most of each other (KDE and Gnome; XMMS, Xine and Mplayer; etc etc).

You can also get a really good flavour of the quality of software from looking at the planning and documentation (the link between good docs and good app is not trivial, but I hope everyone understands what I mean, whereas the link between good planning and good app is much more obvious). I’ve looked at the planning and docs for many many projects. I’ve complained about the docs, and offered suggestions of particular aspects that need additional docs for quite a lot of OS projects. I’ve even been responsible (indirectly) for updating of a few HOWTO’s, including one of the kernel ones.

None of this qualifies me to be correct, and I’m only mentioning it now because it’s what I was thinking when I made the comments you (fair enough) called me out upon; I attempted to allude to it, rather than listing my precise experiences and analyses (I’ve also done the odd report on os software for people to make support or purchasing decisions) of os software.

#42

WinNT would never have became popular until the day SAP decided to base their flag ship application (R/3 ?) on it. (The day they announced it in Walldorf, Mr. Gates thanked them in a short speech.)
Ironically MS now enter SAP’s market in a massive way and we all know: on any market MS enter, they don’t tolerate competition.

Probably SAP’s decision to go the J2EE & Linux route has come a bit too late. Well, we’ll see.

Just an observation…

#43

[quote]WinNT would never have became popular until the day SAP decided to base their flag ship application (R/3 ?) on it
[/quote]
What is SAP?

#44

ERP systems and such.
#45

…edited: damn erik you beat me. :stuck_out_tongue:

#46

Okay my 2 cents, YMMV:

(1) Most beautiful, functional, stable OS I’ve ever seen was Amiga Exec. It was also tiny. Simplicity and elegence generally result in stability, its a basic truth of engineering. Windows isn’t either.

(2) I cant believe that working engineers are debating GUIs in an OS thread. It jsut shows how badly \MSFT has confused everyone. GUIS AREN’T OSes. OSes provide virtualized system functionality and properly live in System space. GUIs, and in fact ANY user interface, is properly an application shell/framework that live in User space.

MSFT in a (apparently very sucessful) effort to gain an iron-clad stranglehold on app wrietrs built their GUI into their OS. Then to “fix” their screwed up OS that couldn’t perform well enough in user space to support a GUI they muigrated it into system space and intermingled it with their kernel. This confusion of the code is the source of many of Win’s stability issues.

(3) For the record. I use NT. I have to reinstall every 6 to 9 months. Thats better then 95 and Me where it was every 2 to 3 months but still really crappy.

If you properly shut down and bring up an Unix you shouldnt ever have to reinstall it. (I suspect many people’s problems with Linux stem from the fact that they don’t treat it like a Unix but just blindly shut their machine off when done. Unix caches extensively and thus needs proper shutdown. a UPS is essential when running a Unix of any kind.)

#47

[quote]Most beautiful, functional, stable OS I’ve ever seen was Amiga Exec.
[/quote]
I agree… For it’s day it was the sweetest thing going. It lacked the features you would expect of an OS today though. (e.g. security, isolated process spaces etc.)

[quote]I cant believe that working engineers are debating GUIs in an OS thread. It jsut shows how badly \MSFT has confused everyone. GUIS AREN’T OSes.
[/quote]
While I recognize the distinction that you are making here, I consider the use rinterface to be part of the OS - at least in the context of Windows, Mac OS, AmigaOS, BeOS… these all have a specific GUI that is unique to that OS. As an end user the UI is one of the primary thing that distinguishes the OS. After that comes the core OS features, but other than their effect on stability and ease of use end users see little of the OS core features.

[quote]OSes provide virtualized system functionality and properly live in System space. GUIs, and in fact ANY user interface, is properly an application shell/framework that live in User space.
[/quote]
I would use the term “properly” these are arbitrary distinctions really. In fact System vs. User are artificial names. These really amount to privilege levels, and different OS components could be made to run at various privilege levels - it’s still an OS regardless of what level the GUI or FileSystem, etc. runs in… may just not a good one. An OS is more than a Kernel.

[quote]MSFT in a (apparently very sucessful) effort to gain an iron-clad stranglehold on app wrietrs built their GUI into their OS.
[/quote]
I doubt that was their motive. I think it’s plain incompetance - Microsoft ingeneral is not very good at making software, only marketing. they have maybe 5 products total that they developed themselves that are any good at all.

[quote]Then to “fix” their screwed up OS that couldn’t perform well enough in user space to support a GUI they muigrated it into system space and intermingled it with their kernel. This confusion of the code is the source of many of Win’s stability issues.
[/quote]
It certainly accounts for graphics drivers causing all sorts of system crashes. But there is more to it than that.

[quote]If you properly shut down and bring up an Unix you shouldnt ever have to reinstall it.
[/quote]
from win2k up I’ve never had to re-install for as long as it took for the next version to come out. though I’ve see systems that did require re-installs as the result of hardware failure or bugs in 3rd party installers that corrupted the OS data structures or files… That I do blame on Windows since the OS should manage software installation enough that corruption of the OS would be impossible… The idea of the Linux package system is good in this regard… the problem is that the package system is not enforced by the OS, so everyone is free to screw things up.

The more I think about it the more depressed I am with how little progress has been made in operating systems. the MS monopoly is partly resposible for holding back the industry in that space… If it weren’t for that monopoly BeOS and other innovations would have a fighting chance and we would see some progress. Though MS is making some significant changes with Longhorn… e.g. FINALLY an OS vendor is realizing that a filesystem IS a database and should be designed as such. Though the issue of software installation will still suck. Mac OS is quite a long way ahead in that regard - you want app Z installed… drag the icon to some place on your system - done. You want to remove it - drag it to the trash - done. It is unfortunate that MAc OS misses the fact that the same could be done with their installation packages with just a line or to in the bundle’s config file. There is no need for big install GUIs asking you to press the ‘next’ button every 10 seconds… how archaic. With MS systems you can also get the dreaded ‘partial uninstall’ - that should be impossible, the OS should manage what belongs to an application and no exactly how to remove all of it cleanly. I think RPM databases on Linux might be close to this… too bad RPMs are required to install software though.

#48

Re: SAP

Ah, I laugh at that stuff. Corporations pay huge sums of money for software that helps them be more bureaucratic and inefficient - brilliant. I highly doubt the value of such software. What I have seen of it so often is such a misfit to what is actually needed that it makes work as opposed to eliminates work. You could probably have a high-school student spend a weekend with a database to make something that is ultimately more effective. Of course most corporations could probably run off QuickBooks too… but they have highly paid consultants to convince them why they can’t do that :).

#49

[quote]The more I think about it the more depressed I am with how little progress has been made in operating systems. the MS monopoly is partly resposible for holding back the industry in that space… If it weren’t for that monopoly BeOS and other innovations would have a fighting chance and we would see some progress.
[/quote]
I agree here. This whole thread was about the question “Is Linux ready for the desktop?”, but another interesting question is “Why do some computer experts not even try to use anything else than Windows?”. Almost everyone I’m talking to agrees that the MS monopoly is a bad thing nowadays and hinders innovation and progress. But not everyone even tries to use anything else, although they spend hours in front of their PCs every day. Nothing is perfect, but the way MS uses their monopoly and treats their customers, is more than any of you should bear.

Just one example: I think december last year a security leak in Internet Explorer was found (Ok, this is true for every month in the last years, but read on.). The bug allowed to fake the URL in the address bar. This means you can click on a link, which leads for example to www.want-your-password.com, but www.your-online-bank.com is displayed in the address bar. This allows attackers to fake a serious website to get usernames and passwords. Obviously a serious bug. But the part I liked most is the advisory of Microsoft: They advise people not to click on links, but instead copy&paste them in the address bar manually. ;D ;D (Not even mentioned that this not that easy for Javascript links.) Instead of fixing this bug immediately, they rather prefer to publish really stupid hints, which they can never expect every user to follow. Read the full MS knowledge base article here. It’s fun. ;D

The good news is that MS Windows NT and 2000 finally become “Opensource”: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/12/2114228.shtml?tid=109&tid=187

#50

[quote]Re: SAP

Ah, I laugh at that stuff. Corporations pay huge sums of money for software that helps them be more bureaucratic and inefficient - brilliant. I highly doubt the value of such software.
[/quote]
SAP’s software is being used many times in Europe, also 13 NATO countries use it including the US army. It’s not bad AFAIK.

#51

[quote]from win2k up I’ve never had to re-install for as long as it took for the next version to come out. though I’ve see systems that did require re-installs as the result of hardware failure or bugs in 3rd party installers that corrupted the OS data structures or files… That I do blame on Windows since the OS should manage software installation enough that corruption of the OS would be impossible…
[/quote]
I wish that had been my experience. I installed Office on my wife’s (Windows) laptop… one windows reinstall later…

#52 

I agree here. This whole thread was about the question "Is Linux ready for the desktop?", but another interesting question is "Why do some computer experts not even try to use anything else than Windows?". Almost everyone I'm talking to agrees that the MS monopoly is a bad thing nowadays and hinders innovation and progress. But not everyone even tries to use anything else, although they spend hours in front of their PCs every day. Nothing is perfect, but the way MS uses their monopoly and treats their customers, is more than any of you should bear.

This is probably because while most technical folks agree that MS is bad, most of them are also practical users with a job to do. If they see Linux as less practically useful than some Window variant then they won’t use it, not because they don’t agree with the “MS is killing the world” sentiment, but because they have a job to get done.

Kev

#53

[quote]This is probably because while most technical folks agree that MS is bad, most of them are also practical users with a job to do. If they see Linux as less practically useful than some Window variant then they won’t use it, not because they don’t agree with the “MS is killing the world” sentiment, but because they have a job to get done.
[/quote]
If they are too busy at their jobs (or there are other reasons to use Windows there), they always have the chance to try a non-Windows OS at their home-PC. Do you think people keep constantly using something they don’t like? After all, the time to at least try a non-Windows OS isn’t that much compared to the years they use Windows. Not mentioned that there are sometimes good situations to try it (new PC, reinstall required anyways). Setting up a Dual-Boot machine isn’t difficult, so trying a non-Windows OS doesn’t mean removing Windows immediately.

#54

I wasn’t trying to say that these theorectical folk didn’t know or try Linux, just that some folk do find it hard to work with (as evidence just read this thread) and that they find it impractical and hence don’t try to get into it.

In addition, “they always have the chance to try a non-Windows OS at their home-PC” assumes that you have home time to burn. My evenings when I get a chance to code arn’t that often. When I do get an evening it tends to be a view hours. In this time I have code I want to write and create and prioritize this above trying different operating systems that in the past I’ve had problems with being really efficent on it. (again this is a personal case).

I’m not saying Linux or Windows is better as a desktop (they both have + and - imo) but simply that sometimes its what works for now thats important.

Kev

#55

I changed the question to: “Why do some computer experts not even try to use anything else than Windows?” So if someone tried it once, he/she is already out of the scope of this question. I’d like to know, if there are reasons to not even try it.

Thinking more about it, this would make a good poll.
[… some minutes later …]
I just created a poll, so please vote over at the Site Polls Forum: Do you use Windows or an other OS?

#56

FYI: being forced to shut down all apps now and restart linux. Why? Well, it’s been running for a whole 6 days now, and now it can’t start any new apps (memory leak in X-windows + Mozilla. If I close X-windows, all other apps shutdown anyway).

As I said, linux without X (e.g. as server only) is great, but in general I can’t support anyone who claims a linux box with non-trivial window manager will show significantly more uptime than a similar XP box :(.

#57

[quote]FYI: being forced to shut down all apps now and restart linux. Why? Well, it’s been running for a whole 6 days now, and now
[/quote]
NB: I have in the past found memory leaks in windows-explorer that leaked VIRTUAL memory not just physical (god knows how!). Killing windows explorer freed RAM but not virtual memory.

Very annoying: Task manager shows 150Mb “unused physical memory”, but you can’t start a small text editor (error message: “Not enough free virtual memory to start application” or something like that).

Although, to be fair, linux does this to me several times a month (or several a week if I use Mozilla too much), whereas I only had that on windows once every two or three years.

#58

[quote]If you properly shut down and bring up an Unix you shouldnt ever have to reinstall it. (I suspect many people’s problems with Linux stem from the fact that they don’t treat it like a Unix but just blindly shut their machine off when done. Unix caches extensively and thus needs proper shutdown. a UPS is essential when running a Unix of any kind.)
[/quote]
Perhaps the behaviour of Unix in the event of an unexpected shutdown should be improved. NT tolerates this rather well (and if you push the power switch on the machine itself, then it does a proper shutdown). Not much need for a UPS here except for critical machines (power outages are rare, brownouts unheard of).

Why do people choose Windows with little or no consideration of alternatives? Well for many applications there is NO alternative.

#59

[quote]FYI: being forced to shut down all apps now and restart linux. Why? Well, it’s been running for a whole 6 days now, and now it can’t start any new apps (memory leak in X-windows + Mozilla. If I close X-windows, all other apps shutdown anyway).
[/quote]
Not that it’s a great help, but you can restart the X-Server without rebooting the machine, if you think the X-Server has a memory leak.

#60

[quote]Why do people choose Windows with little or no consideration of alternatives? Well for many applications there is NO alternative.
[/quote]
Don’t think I can agree here. The situation has improved a lot over the past years. What applications are you refering to? Browser, mail, office, video, music, CD/DVD-burner, instant messaging, graphics programs, development tools, databases, webserver …? Some games run only on Windows, but as a last resort you have wine (I use it to run Warcraft 3 for example.).