Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, January 31, 2012 6:30 pm, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 06:05:12PM +0100, Michael Hampicke wrote
>>>>>> Sweet. I had 15 minutes in the office "how long before someone makes a
>>>>> pointless, unrelated Windows insult out of my post" pool; I just won
>>>>> $5.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was using Win3.1 - and was happy with it
>>>>> I was using Win95 - and was happy with it
>>>>> I was using WinNT4 - and was happy with it
>>>>> I was using Win2000 - and was happy with it
>>>>> I was using Win Server 2003 - and was happy with it
>>>>> I was using Win7 - and was happy with it
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am also a Linux SuSe user since 6.0 and Gentoo user since
>>>>> 1.something (but up until now just on the servers).
>>>>>
>>>>> I made the final switch from Windows to Linux on my Workstation (Gentoo)
>>>>> and Notebook (Lubuntu) only a few month ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> So please, don't accuse me of making Windows insults.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that Win98SE was the best Windows ever, and could've been even
>>>> more of a killer if Microsoft hadn't so stupidly tried to ram ActiveX
>>>> down people's throats. Remove ActiveX, and 99% of "drive-by-downloads"
>>>> would've disappeared. WinME was a sad joke, however.
>>>
>>> I enjoyed MS Dos, then played a bit with MS Win3.11, MS Win95 and MS
>>> Win98SE.
>>> However, for important stuff, like day-to-day desktop, I switched to Linux
>>> in 1997. That was the last time I lost files due to a crash of MS
>>> Windows...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joost
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> When 3.1 came out, I changed jobs. Swapping 15 floppies is no fun to
>> me. Funny, reinstalling fixed the problems back then and it still is
>> the best way to fix windoze.
>>
>> < sighs >
>
> Actually, the reason for that's pretty easy to explain. It's because
> Windows, unlike every major Linux distribution since Apt, wasn't
> designed around pulling software from centralized repositories.
> Instead, ISVs were expected to provide installers, which users were
> expected to obtain from outside channels and run. That seems archaic
> to Linux users, but even Red Hat was like that before yum.
>
> Since there was no centralized, curated software repository maintained
> by people ensuring things worked properly together, you got everything
> from DLL hell to developers violating Microsoft's recommendations
> (and, considering that Microsoft *designed the platform*, you can
> consider their recommendations as part of the platform spec) and good
> development practice. So you have things like:
>
> * People bypassing APIs and munging registry keys directly. This would
> be like a Linux app going in and modifying Debian's package database
> without going through an intermediate library kept in lockstep with
> the package manager code. Eventually, one's going to behave in a way
> the other isn't going to expect, and either the package database will
> become corrupt ("f'ing $OSVENDOR! Their stuff keeps breaking!", the
> user will curse), or the application will stop working ("F'ing
> $OSVENDOR! They keep breaking my stuff!")
>
> * People not bothering to understand DLL search paths, and getting
> into the habit of dropping their DLL into the SYSTEM32 folder. That
> would be like manually building and installing a package to /usr/
> instead of /usr/local, or a library in /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib with
> an improper soname. Eventually, you risk changing the behavior of an
> unrelated app, or having an unrelated app change your app's behavior,
> all because a couple DLLs had the same name and no differentiating
> metadata.
>
> * People only ever testing their programs while they have
> Administrator privileges, and so their programs only ever work
> correctly while running as Administrator. This would be like an app
> found in /usr/bin assuming it can write anywhere it pleases, call any
> API call it needs, and doing some marginally unsafe things with system
> calls. To get it to work properly, you'd have to make it suid root,
> and it'd be a vulnerability vector.
>
> The analogies aren't perfect, but the points still stand. Sad thing
> is, if and when Microsoft takes steps toward a repository model (these
> days, people like to call them app stores) they'll be lambasted as
> being evil for applying a gateway to the platform, even though it's
> going to be a necessary step to fixing a lot of what's wrong with the
> development culture on that platform.
>
> Linux isn't perfect in these regards, but the combination of being
> open source, of distros having their own software repositories and of
> distro maintainers feeding fixes upstream is an exceedingly effective
> combination. Linux systems don't accrue systemic cruft nearly as
> rapidly as Windows systems, in large part because of the forced
> cooperation applied by the LSB and by distro maintainers.
>
> Cruft buildup can still happen, though, and that's why "emerge -e
> @world" exists. And, actually, that's a pretty analogous action to
> reinstalling Windows. It's just much easier, and does a better job of
> retaining user and application settings.
>
So basically, WINDOZE SUCKS !!!! LOL
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!
Miss the compile output? Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
