On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:12 -0700, Darren New wrote: > > There's a whole bunch of stuff that Windows does for the programmer that > Linux doesn't (and indeed can't) do.
Like piss the programmer off at every turn? :) Of all the systems I've programmed on (VAX, some mainframes on military bases, Evan's and Sutherland, Various Mac versions, Linux, Windows (all versions), DOS, CP/M, OS/2, embedded systems like VxWorks) Windows has been better than all of them at only one thing.... ....Pissing me off. I've spent more time fixing Windows and the various IDEs running on it (and the worst of these being various versions of M$VC++) than I have spent programming on it. In fact, I've spent more time fixing Windows while trying to program on it than I have all other OS's combined. Hell, last week one of my Windows IDEs broke for the...well so many times now I've lost count...causing me to have to run the MSI repair tool once again just so I could complete the maintenance upgrade of an application. What kind of POS system requires a repair tool to fix applications that are compiled for the system because they know the system will, at some point, break to the point that a special tool is needed to make it work again!? Windows does not even come close to UNIX type systems in reliability and functionality. It was never designed as an industrial strength OS. It's a piece-meal OS made by consumers, for consumers. It's bloated and crowded with legacy support. It's not an enterprise OS (any version). It rates as no better than a toy. > There's a bunch of system-level > stuff that Linux does better than Windows, You mean like run for long periods of time (or any period of time)? :D PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
