In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Why Tea
<
[email protected]>
wrote
Why are there so many bickerings and insults between Linux and Windows
users? Just ask yourselves this question: how much do you know about
_BOTH_ OS'es before you judge them? I guess it's often the case that
one knows one OS well, but little about the other (or the rest); and
thus harsh comments are made about the other OS out of ignorance.
/Why Tea
Well, part of the issue, at least here on COLA, is that we
have a fair number of ignorant Wintroolies who like to
make provably false statements about Linux, and have been
for some time.
Of course, insults are a bit like candies: fun to suck on but
of little value from a nutritional (informational) standpoint.
I would hope for meatier fare.
As for how much I know? I know quite a bit about Unix (having
used it since 1980 off and on), and enough about Windows to
know some of its uglier internal sides (so can anyone who wants
to delve into WindowsX.h, admittedly) though not quite enough
to be definitive about everything (e.g., I know little
about the mechanics of COM or ADO, and have not seen much
C#/.NET).
And I know some of the quirks of Linux, though it's so similar
to Unix at the application level, apart from ALSA which is
purely Linux (AFAIK), and work around them.
I'm also aware of some of the issues regarding such things as
benchmarks, use cases, and performance. Briefly put, I
can state as opinion that this box (at work) runs fairly
well under Linux (and I can log in extremely quickly), whereas
rebooting and then using WinXP is a bit of a chore. Of
course part of that is simply because I leave it running Linux
most of the time, leaving the pages faulted in.
This is not, of course, a formal benchmark. Some of
the more interesting (but probably biased) benchmarks,
in particular, suggest that Windows IIS, once it gets
going and has enough memory, can outperform a Linux Apache
server on similar hardware, as Apache starts to bog down.
(Some of the more dishonest benchmarks also suggest Windows
is cheaper by comparing an x86 server farm with a zx90.
The problem there, of course, is that that's not exactly
equivalent value; a base-level zx90 will blow away, at
a pure bandwidth level, an equivalent 44 1-U unit farm.
However, it kinda depends on what one is doing, methinks,
and this isn't a formal benchmark either, but merely
reading some specs and calculating.)
True? I have no idea.
In any event, Windows is easily disparagable because it:
- requires people to include VGA, keyboard, and mouse
connectors to servers. (The cost here might be
measured in terms of megaflops per cubic centimeter.)
- has a cute little search doggie that is next to useless
(though the search facility works for the most part).
- has spawned an entire line of clothing ware based
on a certain error screen, suggesting that this particular
error screen has been seen often enough to make this
profitable.
- has annoying quirks such as requiring a reboot to change IP
addresses (this, thankfully, was fixed about Win2k timeframe
but the pain lingers).
- is associated with a company that's made some
questionable statements and decisions in the past,
such as the AARD code, the Netscape debacle, and the
"Unix-Killer NT" which in retrospect was about as
effective as flinging a wet strand of spaghetti at a
biker in a biker bar, hoping the flingee will go down
before the flinger gets pummelled into a wet spot on the
floor. (Linux is a more effective Unix-killer than NT
ever was; it probably wasn't Linux's or Linus' intent.)
- is infested with viruses on many machines, which then go
out and attempt infestation of other machines.
