All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Muzzy, why does Windows rule?
muzzy:
I couldn't care less about startup times and other irrelevancies. Back in the old days some systems took half an hour to boot up and it was ok. I keep my computer running 24/7 so bootup times aren't an issue of any kind.
And you apparently didn't get my point about m4, but then again you're not a programmer. Any programmer would realize what it means that the software you wrote will no longer run due to source incompatibilities, and that any software you write will not run elsewhere because of the same thing. So, it's a different OS and I think that can justify all the fluffy flags for ls, ps and other user tools. However, intentionally redesigning a programming language and still calling it with the original name, now that's nasty. Most people don't realize there's any difference, as they expect that the system mostly conforms to POSIX behaviour... yeah, right.
Then there are a lot of GNU annoyances that are only annoyances because there are stupid users. People who write bash scripts and use /bin/sh as an interpreter to them, for example. If it's a bash script, why can't they fscking name it so? Oh yeah, they have no idea what bash featureset it uses. You could say that this is because of bash, too. It should fscking enforce strict sh compatibility when executed as sh, so people wouldn't do this kind of things. This is basically equivalent to the Internet Explorer broken HTML rendering issue, where IE renders stuff fine but no other browser does, and thus users write horrible crap. The difference however, is that in context of HTML you just get visual issues, while with the shell you get functional issues. The shell issue is thus significantly worse.
Then, the quality of a lot of GPL-licensed software sucks. There's no excuse for this, a lot of the source has apparently been written by some kind of monkeys on crack. Source code so horrible that the whole world explodes because it's so bad. Then again, I suppose this could be seen as a good thing, too. Since GPL practically acts as "you have to be at least this good to make money" indicator, commercial software ends up being significantly better than GPL'd. Well, if it doesn't, it means it didn't deserve to make money anyway. However, typical GNU systems are full of crappy software, which is somewhat practical at times, yet greatly annoying when it does stupid things. Significant portion of the code is something I could write better myself, and so could half of the people I know, if they cared. As of such, the only real value of free software is freedom, not the price tag.
Oh my, this post is getting long already, I better stop here :)
Orethrius:
Actually, for the most part, I agree with Muzzy on his last post. There is, however, one comparison that I must call into question: Messy v. /bin/sh. Seriously, where do you come up with this crap? Internet Explorer is a mass-distributed web browser. /bin/sh is an individualised command line interpreter (certainly better than a mass-produced one, for efficiency reasons). Really, I have no problem with people writing horrid page code with one provision: KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Publishing that shit is just flat out irresponsible, and it seems a disproportionate number of "professional publishers" are using false standards to maintain compatibility. BASH scripts are quite another story. I have yet to see an implementation of BASH scripting so consistent across distributions that someone could use a non-standard subset of commands on one machine and expect them to come across with the same result on another. The straw man you slipped in so eloquently there falls apart under the same rationale: KEEP MALFORMED CODE TO YOURSELF. I don't see techs going out of their way, all willy-nilly, to enforce non-standard BASH scripts, so why does Microsoft feel the need to enforce non-standard HTML?
Aloone_Jonez:
muzzy,
While boot speed might not be important to you it is for me because I don't waste power by having my PC on 24/7.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---My friends tend to have badly behaving Windows systems. Then again, most of my real life friends are typical Windows users.
Are there any other non-Windows users present who have a nice stable system (be it GNU/Linux, *BSD, or Mac OS X, etc.), but previously owned an unstable, insecure, crap Windows system? 'Cause your saying that there aren't too many. I believe that you are wrong, but I can't prove it, unless more people own up!
Pity them all ya want. Which is better, GNU m4 or the original m4?
Is GNU UNIX? No, it is not. Is Windows GNU/Linux? No, it is not.
They're different OSes, incase you didn't know.
--- End quote ---
Let's just agree to disagree on this our personal experiance will vary. I may have not had a problem with Windows NT but you obviosly have. I've had more problems with Redhat Linux being unstable than Windows XP, but Vector Linux is very stable.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---As for the whole bootup speed issue, I just timed my system booting up for the first time ever. I'm using Slackware 10.1 and here are the results:
Time from pressing enter at lilo, to login: 20.7s (almost exactly)
Time it took to get X11 + fluxbox (which is what I've used for 'bout a month now) up and running, after running 'startx': approx. 6 seconds.
Total time: approx. 26.7s
OWNED!
--- End quote ---
I wasn't dissagreeing with you on this, you run Slackware with Fluxbox, that's my point exactly. Now try Fedora core's default configureation and compare it with Windows XP's default configureation on both resource usage and boot speed, I can assure you Windows XP will win!
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---And I'm sure I could optimise it if I wanted to. But why would I want to? :p
It does vary between systems, and my system happens to be faster than Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting.
--- End quote ---
Of course it will be, Vector Linux is slackware based and is faster booting and uses less resources than my Windows XP system. I know I could optimise both Windows XP and Vector Linux if I wanted to but I'm happy with the boot speed of them both. Redhat Linux on the other hand was very slow which is why I no longer use it. Hence my original point stands true, Linux varies a lot form distribution to distribution and how it's configured.
As far as GPL is concerned here is my point of view:
GPL software isn't better or worse in general.
The quality of software depends on who writes it.
If a company writes software they employ professional programmers who are trained to write software well and have had many years of experience.
If a group of amateur programmers on the internet get together while some of them may be very skilled on average they won't be as skilled as the professionals.
Companies often write software and then GPL and this is often where the best GPL software appears from like OpenOffice for example.
The arguement that the Licence a piece of software is released under greatly affects its quality is flawed.
This is also true with electronics.
I've seen many bad circuits on various internet sites, but at work when we design a circuit we ensure its designed to a very high standard, it has to be tested and tested again before its approved for manufacture.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote ---I wasn't dissagreeing with you on this, you run Slackware with Fluxbox, that's my point exactly. Now try Fedora core's default configureation and compare it with Windows XP's default configureation on both resource usage and boot speed, I can assure you Windows XP will win!
--- End quote ---
Why would I do that? You just said, and we all know, that it all varies between distros. Are you seriously asking me to install the distro that you seem to believe is the slowest-of-all-distros, and compare it to Windows XP?
Well guess what? It's not gonna happen. Slackware boots faster than Windows XP.
I've used Slackware for the most of my time on GNU/Linux, and I'm very, very happy with it. Each distro has it's advantages, and each distro has it's disadvantages (the worst thing about Slackware IMO is that it installs lilo by default and doesn't ask the user what he/she wants (I prefer GRUB)). There's so many distros, there's infinite choice (slight exageration).
Why would I compare what you seem to believe is the crappest of GNU/Linux distros to Windows? OKAY then, I'll do the test. As long as you allow me to corrupt the shit outta the XP system first. Do we have a deal? Didn't think so.
--- Quote ---Of course it will be, Vector Linux is slackware based and is faster booting and uses less resources than my Windows XP system.
--- End quote ---
Umm.. Why the Vector Linux specific? Windows XP wastes (or uses inefficiently, if you prefer) lots of resources. It's a well known fact (but, again, not known enough).
I have yet to find a GNU/Linux distro more wastefull (when it comes to resources) than Windows. And don't lie, fedora is not more wastefull than Windows. Else, I dunno how anybody would be fit to use it.
EDIT:
@muzzy: GNU is not UNIX. If it was, it would've vanished some time ago (probably). But it's still alive. Since 1980 something. It's still alive.
Sometimes, you gotta move on to survive. Leaving the old, and now, crap stuff behind.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Why would I do that? You just said, and we all know, that it all varies between distros. Are you seriously asking me to install the distro that you seem to believe is the slowest-of-all-distros, and compare it to Windows XP?
Well guess what? It's not gonna happen. Slackware boots faster than Windows XP.
I've used Slackware for the most of my time on GNU/Linux, and I'm very, very happy with it. Each distro has it's advantages, and each distro has it's disadvantages (the worst thing about Slackware IMO is that it installs lilo by default and doesn't ask the user what he/she wants (I prefer GRUB)). There's so many distros, there's infinite choice (slight exageration).
Why would I compare what you seem to believe is the crappest of GNU/Linux distros to Windows? OKAY then, I'll do the test. As long as you allow me to corrupt the shit outta the XP system first. Do we have a deal? Didn't think so.
--- End quote ---
Well I would say Linspire is the shittest distro in my opinion. I agree with you about slackware though after all Vector Linux is just a more newb friendly versoin of slackware.
Umm.. Why the Vector Linux specific? Windows XP wastes (or uses inefficiently, if you prefer) lots of resources. It's a well known fact (but, again, not known enough).
I have yet to find a GNU/Linux distro more wastefull (when it comes to resources) than Windows. And don't lie, fedora is not more wastefull than Windows. Else, I dunno how anybody would be fit to use it.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---
Iried Fedora and it was the most bloated piece of crap I've ever seen. Yes I know you might be able to make it fast by recompiling the kernel and removing half the shitty services but I'd rather stick with Vector Linux or even Windows for that matter. I'm glad other people find Fedora fast but many people find Windows stable too people's experiancies vary.
Minimum hardware requirements for XP
Windows XP only requires 64MB of RAM bare minimum. I've run it with the recommended 128MB and I found the speed is more than acceptable.
Minimium hardware requirements for Fedora
Fedora core requires 64MB of RAM just to run in text mode, and 192MB for the full GUI. I've run it with the recomended 256MB and it was about the same speed as XP run with just 128MB of RAM. On my machine with 256MB of ram XP is quite fast and I very rarely have a problem with it.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version