On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Kari Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > You typed all that out on an ipod? Wow, you're talented.
More just bored. The iPhone OS software also manages to correct most mistakes. > But seriously, your point is fascinating. *All* software is rubbish? Is > that the intrinsic nature of software, or is it all rubbish b/c of the > imperfect people who make it? Imperfect software by imperfect people used by imperfect users, run on imperfect machines. But quite seriously, after using a variety of operating systems I'm not so sure any OS is actually "better." All of them perform just fine, and if you're trained and experienced in using a particular OS, you can perform essentially any task in a reasonable amount of time. Going from zero to webserver on Debian GNU/Linux is going to take about as long as it will on Mac OS X Server as it will on Windows Server as it will on Solaris as it will on BSD - if the person using it has been trained and is experienced in it. Similarly, all software has its quirks and problems. I can't use mpm-worker on Apache 2 because I use mod_perl, so I have to use mpm-prefork. Getting Ruby on Rails working on IIS on Windows is a right little slice of hell from what I've heard. Mac OS X Server uses Apache, so the same oddities apply there as well. Now Apache 2 is a perfect example of your rabid open-source community-driven software, and it's still a load of rubbish. The Apache 2 migration essentially broke Perl until version 2.2 or so, and it's still a bit pissy at times (prefork being the only mpm that Perl will tolerate). IIS is a perfect example of your paranoid closed-source IP-grabbing big-brother software, and it's still a load of rubbish. It doesn't play well with software stacks that don't end in .NET, and it's vaunted modular architecture has failed to make it any more ready to work with other bits of software (such as Ruby on Rails, which is currently the premiere web language AFAICT). Two different philosophies of licensing. Two loads of rubbish. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. > I had to laugh when I read this b/c quite a bit of my income comes from > computers / technology, and yet, I pretty much hate computers. Well, not > really, but you might know what I mean. Yes, I've been in quite a few shouting matches with my computer (including a lovely spell where GCC refused to link a template class in C++ when I split the header from the implementation. When I put the implementation back in the header, which is horrible form, it worked. Go. Figure. I tried using llvm, but they still use the GCC parser, so until CLang stabilises I'm kinda stuck with GCC for C++. I've tried using MSVC++ before, but their compiler is so ill-maintained (they favour C#) and their last C++ standard was so focused around "managed code" that it takes ages to fight the compiler into a standards-compliant state. Again, two bits of software of different philosophies, but they're both rubbish.) I guess it boils down to this: In Open-Source, you get what some volunteers want for themselves. In Closed-Source, you get what some business-suits think you need. Neither of these situations has any kind of accuracy to what you actually want/need, so all this "OMG LINUX IS TEH SHIT!!!" stuff just sounds like naïveté to me. So, if you want to save some time, grab what works for you regardless of who made it. If it costs money, oh well. That's a cost of doing business. If you can't afford it, then use the free stuff (even if it's harder/doesn't work as well). That's a cost of doing business (your time, as opposed to money which could save you time). Just the thoughts and opinions of a much battered and bruised computer user. -- Registered Linux Addict #431495 For Faith and Family! | John 3:16! http://www.fsdev.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup
