----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Win 98 Registry (Shortened down response to a long thread)
> > I don't have to deal with that directly, but I've seen it. I write > > software that is incorporated into a field logging system. Certain > > features come and go as both the software and hardware are upgraded. > > Features that become essential parts of software go away when a faster > > box is bought. A small software group has to spend its top talent to > > rewrite their software around the changes. The manager/guru of the > > group has nothing but dirty words for Linux. > > This is quite vague. Again, the same thing can be said for almost any > operating system. But if you have the source, you have a fighting chance > at fixing it. > Well, from my experience with people running field systems, that's not really the case. I'm restrained because I'm talking, in part, about other people's work, but lets see what I can do within the constraints. Hardware manufacturers support Windows in a manner that they don't support Linux. What I mean by that is that, if you have Windows based software that runs on their 200 series machine (say a 500 Mhz laptop) and they are now producing their new 220 machine (say a 1 Ghz laptop), they will support the port from their 200 series machine to their 220 series machine. I know specifically that big name computer manufacturers have said "if you use Linux, you are on your own." The sellers of Linux said the same thing. We all kvetch about new bugs in new versions of Windows. But, there are advantages to software developed by the evil empire. They can afford to pay for a tremendous amount of alpha and beta testing. > > Microsoft has many features that I don't like. But, it is easier to > > work with than any version of Unix I've worked with. > > As long as Microsoft works, it is easier to work with. When it stops > working, there is a limit to how deep you can go to find out what is > wrong. There is a ceiling that you bump your head against, then you just > have try the 3 R's (reboot, reinstall, reformat) > That's true. But, consider even a user who is developing applications software. If it is on a network, the solution is to do regular backups, so that no more than a couple of days of work can be lost. In my case, I do regular backups myself. When I was hit with a virus that required me to reformat two machines, I saved 99% of what I had done. Every hour I sit down and work to understand Unix is a non-billable hour. If I've saved my data, it soon gets to the point where it is cheaper to buy a newer faster machine that debug the present machine. > > This is incredible to me. I have the exact opposite experience. Huge > amounts of Unix documentation are available online, man is your friend > (no expensive library necessary). Ah, I tried that. For example, when I rebooted and rebooted Linux because I had a file error, nothing happened. I tried man and got very little that was helpful. If I already knew the command (IIRC it was e2fsck, but I was just told it by someone was able to access professionally for field system work I was doing) then man would have helped. But, I don't think I could have typed man boot problem. It turns out my Linux desk reference did have the command, so it is possible that I could have guessed the problem and figured it out. FWIW, I did go to the web and the first 20 hits only had the most simple Unix commands. This same person told me how critical it was to be able to bypass the root password if a machine had trouble booting up. Otherwise, it would be impossible to ever get the system to reboot. He quickly ran through the commands that were required, but I did not memorize them. > With windows, when the registry gets munged like Ronn's, what do you do? > Even magic words can't help you. Reformat and reinstall all of one's programs and data. In those cases, it would have been better knowing someone who really knows Linux and having a Linux based machine. I don't doubt that you find Linux better, and its good for you to use it. I'm saying it costs me more money to use Linux than Windows. If my own system were Linux, then every hour I spend on Linux is an hour I don't bill. And, StarOffice is a big step down from M$Office, IMHO. The browser is a step down too. For example, it only sorts on name, not date modified, etc. I can use Linux/Unix and have off and on for years. But it appears to be designed for people who like working on computers to work on computers, not for those who work on computers to do something else that they really want to do. I think that this is a YMMV issue, and I certainly don't want to sound like I think that Windows is better for all users. But, I do think that there is a good reason why Linux is not making impressive gains. I use to run a Unix box and switched to a M$ box and considered it an upgrade in service. I consider myself a fairly technical user who is not a computer geek. I write C code for embedded applications and for insertion into fairly complex systems. But, the computer system itself is merely a tool for me. Its as though I need a car to commute but really don't find it economical to spend time tinkering with the engine. If people like me don't find Linux a convenient operating system, how will it make gains outside of a small group of computer geeks? Dan M. You buy a new machine. Its much cheaper than > > -- > "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/ >
