At 01:53 PM 1/11/00 -0500, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
>Please do not take this as a flame, I am serious about this. I would like
>to hear opinions of why users of this list are so happy with Redhat compared
>to Microsoft. I have always delt with Microsoft Windows and NT machines and
How timely. I came into work early this morning to work on a web project.
Instead, I spent a lot of the morning wrestling with my Windows 98
workstation which is in the habit of grinding to a crawl after it has had
astronomically long uptimes (i.e., > 24 hours). I clicked the little
"Update Windows" icon (after rebooting) and I guess the update net app
filters the available updates and so my machine needed, by my count, 14
security updates and a Y2K fix and a monolithic update. It took about 30
minutes to do download and install all of that.
I use Windows a lot and I see a lot of advantages to Linux, especially for
anything remotely like a server. I do readily conceded that Microsoft has
obviously spent a lot more time making many things "polished". Like the
update applications for Linux are perhaps not as smooth as the one
described above. You cannot run Linux well without knowing Linux commands
which may be perceived as "hard." I don't think Linux is for everyone (yet!).
So my complaints about Windows, relative to Linux, are: (a) W98 crashes a
lot, (b) it is near impossible to fix some things, (c) it has too many
security updates, and (d) it has too few options. NT may be better. But
some of the criticisms below still apply.
Here's a bit of detail for each one:
(a) Windows crashes a lot: I use Windows 98 and it crashes almost
everyday--but far worse, sometimes many times in one day. I have NEVER had
Linux crash. If someone would estimate the number of hours spent rebooting
Windows, I think one could easily make the argument that Windows is a
perceptible drain on the US GNP. Blame for this is usually placed on buggy
third-party software... OK, so why doesn't buggy Linux software crash
Linux constantly?
I hear that NT is a lot more stable and I believe it (could anything be
less stable than w95/w98?). I bet both NT and Linux and plenty stable for
many applications. For a few, however I think you're looking for complete
stability and NT simply cannot deliver.
Gnome has wedged itself up on numerous occasions (usually when I was
"experimenting") but that does not require a reboot. I think that welding
a GUI to the underlying OS is a big SNAFU.
(b) it is near impossible to fix some things. Don't get me started. All
of the many problems I have in Windows either end in "I don't know, let's
see if it goes away" or "reinstall Windows". This is really annoying in my
personal life and quite embarrassing at work (like, when I have to explain
to the CEO that I *could* have my guys spend a month trying to track down
the incompatibility between Windows spooler and Novell's client and
who-knows-what *or* we could just buy him a new machine).
Now imagine that these problems weren't just annoying; imagine that they
were things like security bugs on a widely visited website. I know many
sites run just dandy on NT but I've also heard the horror stories about NT
admins who spend their days wrestling crackers for control of NT servers
and hoping MS will release the patches they need to button them down.
(c) it has too many security updates: A loaded Linux server with, say, 200
packages might need 20 updates a year. A Windows machine might need the
same number [they may be wrapped up in one "service" pack--which is worse
because (1) you have to wait for them and (2) you don't have control about
what you are updating--and what you're thereby breaking]. Since Windows
doesn't have a "package" concept, you can conclude that (1) Windows is
equivalent to 200 packages (or many more) or (2) Microsoft's OS needs more
updates. If you conclude #1 then I insist that Windows is bloated,
feature-rich and control-poor (you can have a lean Linux server with only a
handful of packages); I think we need more control over what get installed
than MS allows. If you conclude #2 then I think that's pretty consistent
with the claimed advantages of open source software.
AND, consider whether Microsoft is closing bugs at the same rate as the
Linux community? Pure speculation but I cannot see how since the source is
closed. Which would mean that Windows has far more security problems than
Linux which are tougher (impossible in some cases) to close.
(d) Finally--and I know that many disagree with me here--I like command
line interfaces. It's nice when there is a dialog box that lists all your
choices and you just click a few times and everything's done. But it
inevitably seems to me (and I'm thinking of both Windows and Linux software
here) that there are further choices that you cannot make through the GUI.
I think that having a dialog box interface can allow Windows admins to
think they know more than they do; conversely, you can sometimes feel
really dumb when learning Linux. Compared to editing the Registry, I think
editing config files is pretty easy. Imagine if Linux had only one big
config file to edit...(!)
Also, GUI documentation is usually close to nil because "it's so easy to
use". I wanted more depth about one field in a Gnome configuration dialog
and the on-line help file entry for this field said, I swear, "self
explanatory". Windows help files are of the same calibre; they explain the
simplest things but the esoteric or confusing choices usually have terse or
missing help. (And not by chance; those fields might require long
explanations that just don't fit the scope of the typical on-line help file
or the acumen of the technical writer.) With Linux, however, it's usually
easier to get help. Either there is an on-line document, comments in the
config file, or people in lists and newsgroups who know how to use the
software. I haven't found Windows on-line resources (KB, newsgroups,
websites) nearly as helpful (maybe Windows fault rather than the resources').
Assorted other examples of fewer options: Windows NT won't act as a
bridge--I don't know why not--but Linux will. Linux usually has several
ways to do whatever you want; Windows usually has one way which is easy as
pie--unless it's broken in which case you are screwed. Windows only has a
single interface (I guess you can claim DOS/Command Window as a second)
while Linux usually has several graphic (window managers) and command-line
interfaces (shells). A Windows distribution supports ... Windows
networking; Linux supports Windows, Novell (somewhat), and NFS out of the
box. Etc.
-Alan
---
Alan D. Mead / Research Scientist / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing
1801 Woodfield Dr / Savoy IL 61874 USA
217-352-4739 (v) / 217-352-9674 (f)
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
