Re: For those in need of some amusement.....

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>>...Microsoft products are much nicer to deal with than Linux.
>>No need; you're entitled to your point of view, which is probably based on 
>>your experience with these things....
>Since both you and Adam wanted a little clarification, I thought I'd 
>respond to this.  It is hard to define, but It seems to me that if I 
>want a quick payoff with little effort on my part, Windows is the way 
>to go.  I know my way around Windows really well and generally find 
>that I can be very productive in it.  Other MS products also provide 
>a quick ramp time and rapidly bring me to a point of being productive.

I want to take a quick time out here and point out that each of your
paragraph length statements are not line-wrapped; I'd like to know what
sort of software originated your mail messages, 'cuz as a basic text 
processor, it dearly needs a lengthy one-way visit to the can. Fortunately,
vi provided some easy remedies in a real hurry.

Sorry, back to our main line of discussion.

I beg of you, Chris, please refrain from speaking in jargon; I'd dearly 
like to know what you mean by:
"It seems to me that if I want a quick payoff with little effort on my 
 part, Windows is the way to go."

and

"Other MS products also provide a quick ramp time"

I really don't know what these statements mean.

I *can* understand:
"I know my way around Windows really well and generally find that I can 
be very productive in it."

This implies to me that your level of familiarity with Windows is high 
enough for you to be productive, and that's fine. It is equivalent to saying
that you'd rather live in your home-town, because you already know where 
the streets are, and the grocery store, etc. The core of your argument is:
"I'm familiar with this, so it's better"?
Have I got this right? Please let me know what I'm missing here.

What's to stop you (or anyone) from wandering around Linux, and becoming 
really familiar with it? Who's to say what's "better" until you have?

>On the down side, the reason why I started with Linux, their products 
>require immense system resources and cost a fair bit of money. However
>with hardware prices dropping like a rock, and most hardware "coming 
>with" much software, where's the payoff (for the home user)?
As I recall, one reason why you wanted to get involved with Linux was 
that you wanted to build your own web server, and that Linux gave you
not mere cost advantages, but also the flexibility to do what you wanted
to do, how you wanted to do it. The website we talked about at the time
was going to do some rather sophisticated server-side processing. The 
cost advantages were what made this work POSSIBLE. I don't know what 
exactly a "home user" is; does this qualify? If not, I would suppose
you're not a "home user".

>>As for other aspects of "nicer", I'll assume you have not had a Win32 system
>>crash on you, or had a system at home on which you relied for your livelihood?
>Of course I have had a Win32 system crash on me.  Who hasn't?  
I have no idea. The point is that crashes should be so rare that they are 
actually extraordinary events. You're numb to crashes, because you seem to 
have accepted them as part of the working environment. I haven't; mostly 
in that this crash-and-reboot mania is a symptom of deeply flawed design,
and lack of consideration for the people it inconveniences. In the mainframe
world, this kind of behavior is really unacceptable. Why need we accept less
simply if the box sits on or next to the desk?

>But, it's no big deal, I just reboot.  
But it IS a big deal, if your system is a server on the Internet, and
suddenly all the clients have lost work, too! You're not merely effecting
yourself, but lots of others, too.

>I lose, what, 3 minutes?  
Enough time for a brain to die, or a plane to crash, Chris. Remind me not to 
configure NT on medical instruments used to monitor your progress after an
operation. A lot of this thread has been somewhat amusing, but this is SERIOUS.
When people start building these systems into things that must be reliable,
real problems can arise. 

Earlier this year, a US Navy missile cruiser was really crippled when 
the on-board NT systems crashed. "Nice test", you might say, or "Too bad". 
Anyone who is the slightest bit familiar with these things knows that 
we're talking about a billion dollar ship, with about 400 crew.  The 
assessment is that this vessel would have become vulnerable to immediate 
attack, and failed to fulfill its primary mission, which is generally 
protecting a fleet carrier (2.5 billion, 5500 men). Sail that into a real
military confrontation, and you could have the worst naval disaster in
the history of the US Navy. This doesn't only concern me as a software
professional, it concerns me as a voter and a citizen.

>And, since, as you pointed out, I don't rely on the system at home for 
>my livelihood, I don't have a problem with this.
That's fine. I have things like that around too, for my personal enjoyment,
like my stereo system, or my bicycle. The term for this, broadly speaking,
is a "toy". Not that we don't accomplish good things with toys; we do, and
please understand that I'm not belittling something by calling it a toy. 
However, recognize that different criteria of reliability are usually applied
to "toys" than to things we depend on for our lives and livelihood, and 
this may perhaps be such a case.

>My Workstation at work is a WINNT system, as you know.  We've discussed 
>this before.  I leave it on most of the time and don't have a problem.  
>But when I do have a problem, it is usually caused by a non-Microsoft 
>piece of software.  Whatever the reasons for this, it's still a fact.
Let's take a moment and look at the reasons, they bear examination.
My experience with NT in a corporate environment has been  surprisingly
positive, so let's take this one out for a spin. For the benefit of those who
are not aware, Chris is a full-time employee in an organization for which
I do consulting work. This organization employs numerous full-time system
maintenance people, and a full-blown help desk operation. There are also 
very carefully established standards for software configurations, and a 
strong initiative not to change anything. This policy is rather aggressively 
enforced, even to the extent of requiring re-installation of an entire OS
workstation when it is found to be "corrupted" by the installation of "non-
approved" software.

All of the above is fine for a production environment, but as a software 
developer, it pretty much freezes any innovation. If that is the price of 
stability, it's too high for me. I need a platform with high stability, even
as I introduce changes. I also need to know what elements of the system 
are changing BEFORE the change takes place. I have found that the MS "Service
Pack" upgrade method does NOT provide me with that, and I've been treated
to numerous bitter surprises and failures as a result, on software YOU would
want to use. My NT box has not had 25 crashes in 14 months, my FOUR Linux
boxen: 0! Oh, I get all the service packs, updates, new packages, etc. from
Microsoft. The record I have starts to speak for itself. Are there any other
readers of this message that have substantially different experience?

The above is not Microsoft's "fault"; they do the best they can, given the
constraints and time pressures they work under. Much of the problem comes from 
the relative lack of documentation that accompanies updates. Yes, there is
some, and it's very nicely laid out, but it does not give me the low-level
info I need in order to choose how to update intelligently. In general, the
sort of questions I have are best answered by browsing source or related 
low-level stuff MS does not release. All of this material (as well as the 
developer is often available to me in more open environments.

>>How long do you keep your Microsoft OS running at a time? You may not experi-
>>ence the sort of stability problems others have if you are up for only a few 
>>hours at a time. Or you may be luckier than most. My personal experience with 
>>Windows NT has not been great, and frankly I think it's a pity that it's only
>>typical.
Perhaps a response to these questions would clarify things a bit.....

>>>I haven't had my Linux box on for over two weeks.  And, you know what?  I 
>>>don't miss it.
>>Depends on what you want to do. Served up any web pages lately? Had a machine 
>>on for weeks? Wanted to fix up your Linux box so it worked? Maybe Linux is 
>>not for you, I can't say. I also don't know what your goals are, or what you
>>want to do, so I can't pass on any of that (no one else can either, another
>>reason flaming is so inappropriate).

>Okay here's where I get really bitter.  I looked into Microsoft products 
>initially to start hosting a web site.  The cost was prohibitive, and 
>the ramp time was high as well.  In fact, at the time, I don't think 
>the tools were available to do what I wanted.
I think you will find that this is generally still the case (especially when
you tell me what the devil "ramp time" is! :)... hardware costs have dropped,
but the cost of software has remained about the same.

>Now, OVER 2 YEARS LATER, the tools are available, the hardware is cheaper, 
>And, I'll bet the ramp time is shorter than two years.
Chris, did you get your web site working in those two years? Did you build
the software you needed to build? How about the rest of the work that goes
into building a web site? Data research? Lining up clients? Publicity?
Populating your database? Signing up with an ISP? Learning about these 
things?

If the answer to more than a couple of these things is "no", I think your
website project has not borne fruit yet for reasons having nothing to do 
with the operating system you chose. They might be good reasons, or bad 
reasons, none of us are in a position to judge that, but please, PLEASE 
don't blame it on something it isn't.

My time, from a need to serve web pages to serving them, was about 2 weeks,
mostly of spare time, and not at top priority. I had a few of the ducks in
a row, but I thought of painted warriors on horseback when someone said the
word "Apache". I can see this taking 6-8 weeks of spare time if you need
to do ISP connections and learn some stuff about DNS, etc. However, when
I see times like 104 weeks (2 years) to cover the same ground, I start to
think something else is at work here.

>>However, some of us do have goals that would be much more difficult, 
>>expensive,or downright impossible if the "Free UNIX" systems didn't exist. 
>I'm not sure I agree with this, any more.
It may not be true for you, but I can tell you that as the sun will rise 
tomorrow it's been true for me. There are broad indications that I'm not 
alone, either. I have clients who were delighted to be able to test
software via a website, but they would have shocked if I'd attempted to 
pass along the costs for doing this. To remain competitive I needed a
highly reliable web presence at low cost of delivery. A free UNIX gave
me this, a proprietary OS did not. That's not taste, it's history.

>>I don't like to see those systems smeared with a bunch of half-truths, 
>>and since I believe in a free market, I'd like to see something like 
>>choice restored.
>Nobody likes to see good things smeared with half-truths.  Yet, this 
>is precisely what the Linux community does to Microsoft and Bill Gates.
But Chris, I can't speak for "The Linux Community"; I don't know of anyone
who can. OTOH, the statements I am objecting to appeared on a website owned 
and operated by the Microsoft Corporation, and they are responsible for that
content. I am responsible for what I say, and I encourage others to be as 
aware of the effects of what they say. You will find nothing "anti-Microsoft"
in our website content (and if you find some, we'll see it removed); we
prefer that KLUG be pro-Linux.

>In this semi-free market economy, I think the product that requires the 
>least amount of effort to provide the biggest payback will eventually 
>win out.
First off, why need we settle for a "semi-free" market economy? I feel this
condition is not satisfactory, and that practical ways of freeing the market
further are in order.  What is it that causes this market to be other than 
free?

Second, and with all due respect, I find this attitude both jaded and cynical. 
Moreover, it is not applicable to many situations, and it is subject to ones
taste and work habits.

>Oh, and BTW, I couldn't untar the rpm on my decoder ring because it 
>required a 13 meg download from the internet....
Pity, I download over 40 Mb every day, and serve up over 2 MB a day, all
on a 56 Kb line. 

>...I read all the FAQs on comp.linux.decoder.ring and visited ...
But you have to decode them FIRST! :)

>...  So, I have no idea what Bruce called me.
> :)
I think it's better we'll leave it that way. Trust me. :)
Gee, sounds like the attitude of some software vendors! :))

                                                    Cheers!
                                                       ---> RGB <---