Maybe we could keep the religious Windows vs. Linux discussions out of here? I think they're hardly productive, nor do they make people who argue for one or the other look very intelligent...
The question was asked whether Asterisk runs on Windows. Answer: Yes it does, but only to a limited degree. I still want to respond to various points that Benjamin brought up, because I appreciate the knowledge and insight shown in many of his posts... With the exception of the windows vs. linux discussion. > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:06 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Linux and Windows > > The trouble is innertia. Most Windoze folks are so much into > their Windoze routine, they won't even use a Linux or BSD box Not true. The problem is the learning curve presented by a completely new operating system. Windows is easy to install, configure and very intuitive to maintain. This user-friendliness is bought at a cost. Yes, you can lock up a linux box tighter than you ever could a windows box... But you have to know what you're doing. The average non-professional user will prefer a pretty GUI and a few clicks to make their box "mostly secure" over hours of googling for appropriate information and config files to bomb-proof their linux box... And this is *after* you figured out the search terms. > if you install it for them. I have got a friend in the UK who > is always complaining about his Windoze box being down and > having to rebuild it from scratch because of viruses, DLL It's not that they won't. It's that they can't. I think I had an advantage coming to Linux from my Windows world, because when I started with PCs, there was no Windows. I used to optimize my config.sys and autoexec.bat files, controlling every byte of the precious "lower 640k" to maximize my DOS performance. And going to linux STILL was difficult. > The next time he had a story to tell what a horrible > experience he just had rebuilding his Windoze PC again I do want to remark that your friend must be doing something wrong with his Windows machines: I have eight machines ('98, 2xXP, 1xXP Pro, 2xWin2K Server, 2xWin2K Workstation) at my home office, and in the last five years only had to reload *one* machine (due to a harddrive failure, no less). I use them hard and often, for programming, hardware prototyping, home automation.... and to telnet into my three Linux boxes. If you have a decent firewall and excellent virus protection, you really can't hurt them. Now if you are upgrade crazy, you'll run into some issues... But then, I had to recompile a linux kernel in order to enable support for a certain network card as well. THAT stuff happens everywhere. > works properly, you enjoy this Windoze disaster too much. But > you don't have my sympathy anymore." If he can't keep a Windows machine running without constant need for rebuilding, maybe you shouldn't try to push him into Linux... He'd be in WAY over his head. > I think this is symptomatic for most Windoze lusers. That statement is offensive. Consider that most professional windows USERs are driven by *need*, not by preference. Consider that most personal windows users are driven by market dominance -- you actually have to *look* for a non-Windows computer if you want to buy one. Calling one group "lusers" is out of line and insulting, and rather reminiscent of the Amiga vs. Atari debate that raged in Europe a decade ago. Someone here brought up a car-analogy. Consider windows a top-of-the-line luxury sedan and linux a bare-bones SUV. Both will essentially do the same job, getting you from point A to point B, but if you're willing to put in the effort, your SUV will do more for you and be tougher. You can retrofit your SUV with a fancy stereo and a navigation system, if you're willing to do the wiring. Your luxury sedan will already have these options ready (and EASY) to use. And for what it's worth, I'm sick of people arguing how linux is free because it's open source, and Windows is oh-so-expensive. Be fair and FACTOR IN YOUR TIME. I can set up a windows file-server from scratch in a couple of hours, and get all the permissions right -- yes, it's windows, but it works. I'm *still* looking for useful Samba documentation to share the files on my * box without allowing access for everyone. If you go back to cars, it's the same as some yokel putting in $2,000 in parts into the SUV and getting all excited about beating the sedan on 0-60 acceleration... Never mind that he spend the better part of three months putting those parts in and tuning his upgraded engine. Some people are drivers, others are mechanics. Rather than proclaiming Linux and Windows "camps", can't we just agree that there are different indications for choosing different OSs, and one size does not fit all. For telephony, firewall and web-applications, I use my linux boxes. For file-serving, programming and various other task, I use my Windows boxes. Linux is best at certain things, Windows is best at others. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
