Muzzy, why does Windows rule?

[muzzy]

Well, your example doesn't do the same thing my example does.

Anyway, python as a language contains some funny approaches to stuff which are just way different from C or C++, or any procedural/OO languages. Lambda (or nested functions) come in mind first. It's not a bad approach to things, and C++ allows local class definitions and stuff, but good luck trying anything like that in C.

All languages teach you habits which you have to break when you learn to think in a new language. Be it python or Basic, the programmer will have to learn a new way to think about programming, and IMO this isn't a bad thing. I think I was originally trying to say that every language teaches you habits which won't apply to other to other languages, not just Basic.

[Kintaro]

I agree with Muzzy here.

I myself have started to learn C Sharp, I am learning it on a Microsoft Platform and Environment at the moment however I plan to move my efforts in future to GNU Mono.

I think .NET has some major innovations, read these...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/Framework/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1000/Framework2/

[Aloone_Jonez]

:fu: Kintaro for agreeing with Muzzy and liking something Microsoft's done!

No but seriously, I think this .NET shit does look rather cool and the fact it could be multi-platform is rather unuseral for Microsoft, and it maybe their first true innovation. It addresses many things we bitch about Winbloze like the registry and DLL crap, it might rule.

[KernelPanic]

C# is pretty damn good and .NET has the potential to be, I just think MS will kill the multi-platform capability of .NET by adding lots of ancillary extras that end up breaking practical compatibility.

[muzzy]

Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform. Also, nobody says developers have to use what microsoft provides, there are already free implementations of all sorts of useful stuff out there. You can already, today, write gui apps in C# and GTK# so that the stuff works perfectly on both platforms... as long as Mono's implementations aren't fucked, which they often are. Just because documentation is available doesn't mean the developers reimplementing the apis get it right at first try

[KernelPanic]

As long as they're properly documented

I like your humour.

[Refalm]

Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform.

Yes, like a DirectX or ActiveX API perhaps

[muzzy]

Well, if things aren't properly documented, how are developers supposed to develop against them? Thus, no problem, unless you want to run microsoft's products on linux, in which case you might have issues with undocumented crap.

Regarding ActiveX, microsoft has no reason to implement any of it on top of .NET, as .NET can provide superior functionality.

And what comes to DirectX, I think the current windows emulators already run directx apps as well? Doesn't this mean opensource world already has implementations for them? Shouldn't be too tough to fit them to reimplement anything that microsoft provides.

Why not develop OpenGL apis or even something new for .NET instead? That way developers would again have the choice, and there'd be no lock-in issue. If you let microsoft dictate the pace even in open and standardized execution platform, it's your own damn fault of they dictate how things go. It's not Microsoft's fault if everyone else are being complete wimps and unable to implement anything worthwhile.

[Kintaro]

Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform. Also, nobody says developers have to use what microsoft provides, there are already free implementations of all sorts of useful stuff out there. You can already, today, write gui apps in C# and GTK# so that the stuff works perfectly on both platforms... as long as Mono's implementations aren't fucked, which they often are. Just because documentation is available doesn't mean the developers reimplementing the apis get it right at first try

I have been learning C# and it is the best language ever. I have been learning it with Visual Studio .NET 2003 and Windows 2003 Server, both run flawlessly. I hope Mono continues to get better and bigger, I have installed it on my Linux Laptop and found some of its features quite medicore, MonoDevelop lacks features that Visual Studio .NET 2003 has, yet all they do is try to emulate it.

If your interested get oriellys Programming C#, you can aqquire them on certain networks in ebook form quite free of charge .

[piratePenguin]

This is un-fucking-believable...

Here goes nothing:

I suspect windows is just too complex OS for you guys, so linux and such systems might be a better choice for your needs.

Maybe Windows is too damn complex. Since when is complexity a good thing? NEVER!
I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable"). Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.
Conclusion: Windows is shit.

Average linux users know how to manage files, but how many windows users know how to manage objects?

I guess just because feck all people understands Windows, it somehow makes it better? Maybe, but only for the one in a million (you and some others) that somehow does understand it's increadible "complexity". For everyone else, including myself (even after using the OS for about five years), Windows is an unstable piece of shit.

Indeed. The default windows configuration is quite braindead, and the users who are ignorant of how the system works will typically have a bad system as the result. If Microsoft made it easy to create installers for custom configurations, and made it legit to distribute these to whoever wants them, we could have a totally different windows world out there.

Tough shit! "Oh, if Linux supported ACLs by default, we'd have a completely different Linux out there" TOUGH!
Yes, the default Windows configuration is pretty damn shite, and only very few users (namely you, obviously) can fix it up for themselves. I've never ever used a version of Windows fit to call "stable". Ever! You obviously have, we're on a different boat. If windows were free software, you'd be able to fix whatever ya don't like, and I rekon you'd probably do a pretty good job too. Well... ya can't.

BUT: say, approx. 70% of Windows boxes suck balls (using mostly default configs), and the remaining 30% (I'm being very generous here IMO) (like your box that you had to do alot of config'in to get it run smooth) are about as stable as the average GNU/Linux box (dream on!)...
Conclusion: Windows is shit.

I think windows haters are just ignorant, and want to see if this hypothesis holds true.

Muhahaha. Windows haters (moi) are ignorant (and I might be). Well the average Windows user is ignorant too. You're just not normal muzzy...
If you asked every computer user in the world which Operating System is their favourite, I have this mad-"hypothesis", that if anyone says "I dunno" or "What the fuck is an Operating System?!", you can guran-damn-tee that they use Windows. Would you agree, muzzy?

Tech-savvy or not, I've found that most windows haters simply do not understand how windows works.

What percentage of Windows users would you say do understand how Windows works?

I've found windows to be fairly stable, quite secure, and many parts are well designed. Unfortunately, microsoft values backwards compatibility more than security, so there are some total braindead things around left from single user win16 times. I wish they'd go away, however the problem only relates to win32 apis and the concerned executive subsystem. If some day we can throw that away and move completely to .NET, a lot of the problems will just simply disappear.

Again, tough shit.

And so what if the source isn't available? There is documentation, and the binaries are still there to be analyzed. What, can't read disassembly? Well, not everyone can read C.

HOLY FUCK! Muzzy, I know for a fact that you are not stupit.
News just in: there are significantly less people that understand disassembly than  understand C. Surprising isn't it? Dumbass.

In ideal OS design, the scope of access would be minimized in all ways.

Oh no! Well I guess MS made a huge mistake by giving the default user root privileges. So much for such an excellent OS design. Heh.

Linux isn't more secure by design, linux is totally braindead when it comes to design. No ACLs by default, everything's a one big hack, it's a wonder the OS works at all. With processes having to be suid for things to work, everything's pretty damn messy. Also, I laugh at your view that openbsd would be a champion of security. That's just ridiculous.

You aren't as smart as you initially came accross as... This is disappointing...
You're very powerful when it comes to reducing gold to nothing though. Just like MS is damn good when it comes to defeating competition.
I'm not saying this is gold or anything, but I can't wait to see what you do with it...

I know linux, and it's a horrible mess. Just because the source is available doesn't make it any better technically, it's just a matter of freedom. Yeah, I value freedom and that's good stuff about linux, and I hope all of the computing industry will head to move free direction. Some of the things I dislike about proprietary software is that I'm not supposed to fix them, and I'm not supposed to ask the authors about their design and implementation decisions. If I do, they'll likely threaten to sue. This however isn't just a Microsoft issue, it's got to do with the whole industry.

The freedom is nice, and I value it greatly, but I must disagree that free software is only an extra freedom. It's a freedom to do something! Surely I shouldn't have to explain this. A freedom is more than something to add to your list of freedoms.
Do you think that Linux would have gotten this far if it was not free software?


Also, muzzy, would you care to explain why my GNU/Linux box has never suffered a hard lock-down in the ten months I've been using it? And why Windows has locked down hundreds of times (on different boxes) in the five years I've used it? 'Cause I'm dying to know. The Linux kernel might well be one big hack, but it sure is a damn good hack.

I'm gonna close here 'cause I needa sleep...

[toadlife]

This is un-fucking-believable...

Here goes nothing:


Maybe Windows is too damn complex. Since when is complexity a good thing? NEVER!

If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable. Vehicles of today versus vehicles from 20 years ago are a prime exmaple of ever increasing complexity of design not hampering quality.

I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable").

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.

So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.

I guess just because feck all people understands Windows, it somehow makes it better? Maybe, but only for the one in a million (you and some others) that somehow does understand it's increadible "complexity". For everyone else, including myself (even after using the OS for about five years), Windows is an unstable piece of shit.

So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!

BUT: say, approx. 70% of Windows boxes suck balls (using mostly default configs), and the remaining 30% (I'm being very generous here IMO) (like your box that you had to do alot of config'in to get it run smooth) are about as stable as the average GNU/Linux box (dream on!)...
Conclusion: Windows is shit.

I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.

Muhahaha. Windows haters (moi) are ignorant (and I might be). Well the average Windows user is ignorant too. You're just not normal muzzy...
If you asked every computer user in the world which Operating System is their favourite, I have this mad-"hypothesis", that if anyone says "I dunno" or "What the fuck is an Operating System?!", you can guran-damn-tee that they use Windows. Would you agree, muzzy?

Quite correct, which is why I think there is no operating system that will do signifigantly better than Windows if deployed to the masses. The fact is people are ignorant about how their computer works, and they will find a way to screw it up.

Oh no! Well I guess MS made a huge mistake by giving the default user root privileges. So much for such an excellent OS design. Heh.

The overall security model of Windows is quite adequate. The install defaults are unfortunate, but Microsoft really had little choice in the matter. They wanted things to just work - and unfortunately they did.

The freedom is nice, and I value it greatly, but I must disagree that free software is only an extra freedom. It's a freedom to do something! Surely I shouldn't have to explain this. A freedom is more than something to add to your list of freedoms.

Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".

Also, muzzy, would you care to explain why my GNU/Linux box has never suffered a hard lock-down in the ten months I've been using it? And why Windows has locked down hundreds of times (on different boxes) in the five years I've used it? 'Cause I'm dying to know. The Linux kernel might well be one big hack, but it sure is a damn good hack.

Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.

[Orethrius]

If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable. Vehicles of today versus vehicles from 20 years ago are a prime exmaple of ever increasing complexity of design not hampering quality.

Design quality doesn't factor into it at the barest level.  The more complex it is, the easier it is to fuck it up, in spite of the best user-relation attempts.  After all, we all know how GREAT XP is straight from retail.  To be fair, it's more of a "damned if you do..." philosophy - it's just as easy to fuck up Linux when it's improperly configured.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Sounds like someone doesn't consider core stability a serious issue to me.  Don't ignore the message because you don't agree with the author.

I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.

So wait, you're trying to extricate X from the terminal now?  Or are you implying that an amateur should attempt a kernel recompile?  I wouldn't ask you to add Reiser support to Kernel32 to prove to me that you know your way around a Windows box, though I doubt you could given the utter lack of sufficient implementation code.

So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!

I didn't see that, you must be hallucinating.  Knock off the peace-pipe, then note that you're not the only one that can understand the complexities of Windows.  Also note that this does NOT mean that you can magically fix every BSoD you encounter.  However, given that making Windows completely stable (I have yet to breach a 30-day uptime with it) is quite the feat, you would be certainly in the upper .000001% of Windows users were you to make it happen.  But that BSoD can't happen, and you can't have any malfunctioning drivers that can't be recoded.  Ah, now the FUN sets in, doesn't it?  

I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.

If you really believe that, I have it under strict orders to inform you that infection probability based on proportional popularity is shit.  I never saw any of the older (brick) Nokia phones get infected by mobile virii, especially at the height of their popularity.  Certainly someone could have exploited text messaging to do this?

The fact is people are ignorant about how their computer works, and they will find a way to screw it up.

Ever lock a user out of all but their documents directory?  It's simple enough to do, both in Windows and in Linux.  I still maintain that no adduser command should result in a user with root privs unless root dually authorises it, something that I've yet to see as a precaution in Windows.

The overall security model of Windows is quite adequate. The install defaults are unfortunate, but Microsoft really had little choice in the matter. They wanted things to just work - and unfortunately they did.

If I'm the only one who sees a HUGE problem with what you just said, then we need a serious reconsideration of the issue.  So the security is adequate, but it defaults to an "unfortunate" (euphamising "unsecured" is a clever twist, I'll give you that) state.  Then things "just work."  Superficial functionality has surprisingly little to do with actual security and actual stability, and it's quotes like that that convince me you're really Muzzy in disguise.

Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".

It's admittedly better than acting like software patents are a good idea (cheapshot, I'll admit it).

Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.

Nice answer.  Now explain why the first-party company feels that it's a good idea to continue producing shoddy drivers for their major OS share, rather than simply requesting the optimised code from the third-party.  That's right: they're locked into NDAs with Microsoft, and wouldn't want to disclose previously disclosed code to potential competitors, God forbid.  Colour me crazy, but this is one of the times where open trumps proprietary.

[Kintaro]

The main security issue of common Windows boxes (Windows 2003 not included) is that you have no real control over execute permissions. If one thing is just a damn mess, its the way executables are handled on their workstation series of operating systems. Windows 2003 is quite sweet to run nonetheless.

(Maybe other "Server" versions of the operating system have these issues either, and you can control execute permissions)

[piratePenguin]

So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.

um. I've recompiled the kernel loadsa times. And I said GNU/Linux, being the operating system of GNU tools and the Linux kernel. I could survive on the console if I needed to.

So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!

Ignore the fact that this is a bad thing for Windows.

I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.

Well actually, seeing as my system doesn't suffer hard lock-ups at all, and it did back on Windows, and GNU/Linux is running perfectly here, I'd say GNU/Linux would do far better than Windows. Prove me wrong.

Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".

Yes, actually, I do.

Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.

"cheap hardware", I doubt it. Anyhow, I guess that means GNU/Linux is better here?

[jtpenrod]

If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable.

The question, though, is the design better? Now I can show you lots of highly complex circuits for audio amplifiers which are quite complex. Indeed, it looks like the end result of a competition for the "fanciest" design. However, not a single one has the performance of a simple design that originated in 1964 (which, in turn, was adapted from a far older design from the "glass FET" days) when it is implemented correctly. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

piratePenguin: I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable").


toadlife: Sounds like a personal problem to me.

No! This is not a "personal problem" for piratePenguin or anyone else. The documentation for Win-Doesn't is horrible. Just this morning, I saw yet another advert from someone calling himself the "Video Professor". He was advertising his latest version of Windows training CDs. This guy has been in business for at least five years now, doing the very same thing. Furthermore, these adverts do not appear on your run-of-the-mill "prime time" TV stations, but rather on specialized stations whose audience is presumeably above average in intelligence, and professional folks. Once again, the Windows user has no choice but to turn to yet another third party provider to compensate for the manifest inadequacies of this "operating" system. It is unacceptable that there is nothing comparable to the Linux Documenation Project. It is doubly unacceptable that the documentation for Winderz remains so piss-poor that the Video Professor could still be in business. The attitude at Microsoft is the customer be damned. "We're Microsoft: we don't care because we don't have to."

piratePenguin: Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.


toadlife: So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.

This is rich: accusing someone who leaves the Redmond fold to join the Linux users community of following a "herd". What's the market share of Win vs. Linux? How the hell would you know what piratePenguin did -- or did not -- learn about Linux? Or is it that you presume that all computer users are as clueless as your typical Win-luser?

Two days ago, I had occasion to use the neighbor's XP rig (a Sony VAIO -- OEM installed Win XP Home) to download a Linux ISO, as the landlord here won't install cable, and I don't want to tie up my ISP for two days to download it over dial-up. During the time I did this download, the following occured:

• Coming out of the screensaver, I found myself logged into the wrong account, that of her third-grader. Upon finding a file "Einstein.doc" I decided to do some snooping to see what a third grader had to say about Einstein. It took MS Word so long to load that I was beginning to suspect that it had crashed before the Word welcome screen appeared. It took another ten seconds or so before the actual document opened. (The kid writes quite well for his age, BTW.) I could have opened the thing two -- three times with Abiword in Linux. So much for the myth that Win is faster.

I have never had any Linux system log me into a different account upon exiting a screensaver.

• Using "Explorer" to burn the ISO to CD, the damn thing never asked what I wanted to do with the file. It just burned the raw ISO to disk. I had to re-burn with cdrecord to produce an actual bootable CD.
• Upon logging out of the Linux mirror site, Internut Expl-Horror popped up windows faster than I could mouse them away. These looked like "official" XP dialogs, but were not as I had seen the same things before getting Firefox. This caused IE to crash, with a "Windows needs to shut down now. Sorry for the inconvenience" message, followed by a "Report error" dialog that refused to take "No." for an answer. Trying to mouse that one away a few times finally resulted in a hard lock, requiring a reboot.

That was less than ten minutes' worth of XP useage, and the damn thing went down hard. I'm quite glad that I chose Linux, as I don't have to put up with that bullshit every day.

In conclusion: Windows does, indeed, suck mightily.  :p