[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: For those in need of some amusement.....
---- you wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >
> > Your email is messed up in my client as well, which makes it difficult for
> > me to respond to you.
>
> I guess you need to update your e-mail client as
> well.
>
> > Html as a text medium for email is a horrid choice.
>
> I disagree. But that's okay, we are entitled to our
> opinions.
>
> >
> > umm, Outlook Express won't run on my linux box, although I suppose I could
> > get HP Openmail to do the job....
> >
>
> Too bad.
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ramp time = learning curve = time to productivity.
> > >
> >
> > I'm curious to know if Chris is Certified in any MS Certification
> > program....
>
> No.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Ok, so what was easy and intiutive for them, specifically? I mean
> > punching the reboot button is easy, but it doesn't actually solve the long
> > term problem, and puts the user into the mind set that THEY DID something
> > wrong when 6 times out of 10 they did NOTHING wrong.
>
> I didn't say fixing problems, I said "using". It is simple, straight forward,
> easy to learn. You don't have to read irrelevant material. Most of the system
> administration is taken care of behind the scenes.
>
> Let's take a time out for a specific example. How about browsing the file
> system? (Most users don't even know what that sentence means) In windows you
> double click on a filing cabinet (or magnifying glass over a folder) and you
> are shown a tree of folders. "Inside" these folders is a list of files. Just
> like the "real world" I'm used to. Now, they even put little pictures next to
> each of the files that help me understand what they are related to. And, if I
> want to see what's in one, usually, I can just double click on it. God, it
> couldn't be much simpler.
> OTH, in Unix, let's see. You type ls. It's two letters, easy enough to
> remember. Don't know what it stands for, but I can remember two letters. Then,
> I see a list of words. Are they files or directories? Hmmm... How do I tell?
> Oh, I know, I'll get help ... man ls...
> I'll quit here. Already, I've had to do more reading than I did in Windows.
> And, I haven't even opened the file yet.
> DOS was similar. I also realize that there are now graphical file system
> browsers for the Unix world now too. This is just an example. The point being
> that MS is working hard/very hard to make their systems easy to learn. The Unix
> world doesn't care if you can use it. If you can't figure out how to use it,
> then you don't deserve to be using my software.
>
> >
> > > So, it's more than just familiarity. Something about what Microsoft does
> makes it extremely easy for Users and Developers alike to use their products and
> develop products using their products.
> > >
> >
> > I would like you to expand on this. I know many Windows user's that think
> > this way when talking about their systems, yet don't actually know how to
> > use them.
> >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > The quantity of documentation I have to read to do simple things. (I NEVER
> read that documentation for Windows products.) The amount of crap I have to
> learn that is totally unrelated to the thing that I want to do. The total lack
> of standardization across software packages. The lack of "plug and playability"
> of software. The apparent lack of concern by the developers of software
> packages that someone other than a system administrater might actually want to
> use their software.
> > >
> >
> > The things I need to do with my computers don't have documentation in
> > Windows.....
>
> Sorry. I'm assuming you're doing low level programming and are in the
> minority of computer users. I have conceded that Windows is lacking in
> low level documentation.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >>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".
> > >
> > > This is true, and no, it doesn't qualify me as a home user. However, I do
> have home users in my house who got kinda tired of waiting for me to figure out
> how to get my Linux box ready for home use. It took me less than an hour to
> swap my modem out of my Linux box and into my Windows box and be up and running
> with my ISP. I can't say that about my Linux box. So we can swap testimonials
> all day. Mine was not a good experience.
> > >
> >
> > So are any of those user's qualified or have the inclination to be your
> > sys. admin. since you claim incompetence, ignorance or lack of time?
>
> This is the kind of pompous bigotry that clearly shines through in the
> Unix world. If someone is having problems getting a system running,
> assume first that he's an idiot. It's fortunate that not all KLUG
> members have this kind of attitude or Linux would never make it.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >>>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?
> > >
> > > I didn't say I liked it. I just don't think its a big deal.
> > >
> >
> > That is exactly how many proprietary computer software companies want you
> > to think. The question is why is it not a big deal?
>
> Because, as I said further down, the time saved in learning curve outweighs
> the time lost due to rebooting.
>
> >
> > > >>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.
> > >
> > > But my computer isn't a server yet.
> > >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the most recent failure left my system so crippled that it won't boot.
> I'm tired of hitting problems every time I do something, and I just don't feel
> like running it down right now. God knows what I'm going to have to do to get
> this thing going again.
>
> >
> > > > >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.
> > >
> > > But my computer isn't running life support, flying planes, or some other
> critical operation. And, I'll be dead before you finish reading the
> documetation required get a Linux box set up to run life support for me. (Okay
> maybe not, but hey, I'm bitter, it gives me poetic license.)
> > >
> >
> > What EXACTLY are you bitter and cynical about? Did a linux user yell at
> > you or embarass you? Did the time to figure out something seem wasted or
> > misapplied? Did you invest in Microsoft and seeing Redhat's share price
> > within a few dollars of that pisses you off? Perhaps you missed the IPO
> > (as I did, PS valinux filed with SEC)?!
> >
> > > <snipped material about NT crippled cruiser> >
> > > >>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.
> > >
> > > Ho, ho, wait a minute. My car is not a toy. I rely on my car for my
> livelihood. I wouldn't classify a telephone, fax machine, or photocopier as a
> toy either. Yet people use all of these items every day without ever reading
> the manual! The easier it is to use, the shorter the time to productivity (ramp
> time) the more likely it is to be accepted by the business. Reliability is
> important, but in most cases, secondary. There is such a thing as "reliable
> enough".
> >
> > You aren't making sense. How often does your car "crash" and have to be
> > "rebooted". I mean if you are driving down the road and your car just
> > dies, you will be one pissed off car owner. Yet it happens to you on your
>
> But this happens every day to lots of car owners all over the world, doesn't
> it? It's life. It's accepted. Maybe not if you're an ambulance driver,
> but the "average" car driver has learned to accept that sometimes things
> don't work. Your car is reliable enough.
> Now, you may argue that your car doesn't die once a week or that you'd be
> upset if it did. I say that the auto industry has many more years of R&D
> behind it than the Operating System industry does. So, you expect more from
> your car. And besides, if All you had to do was wait a few minutes and
> restart it, you could deal with it. People with old cars do it all the
> time. It sure beats becoming a mechanic in order to have a car that's as
> reliable as an ambulance. This is especially true if you are, say, an
> electrician. You need to spend your time learning your trade, not becoming
> a mechanic. Can't you see this?
>
> > computer and you don't care? What gives?
> >
> > > Microsoft has capitalized on ease of use and sacrificed reliability. Yet,
> the stuff is reliable enough to suit most needs. In those minutely few cases
> were reliability is life critical, Linux/UNIX alone won't solve the problem
> either.
> > >
> >
> > Reliability does not have to be sacrificed to give useability. You've
> > bought a PR job I'm afraid.
>
> Then, I counter that usability doesn't have to be sacrificed to give
> reliability. But the Linux/UNIX world has done this. You've bought the PR job
> on the other side of the fence.
>
> You must put your resources into one or the other. MS has chosen to put it into
> usability. I think that's were the most benefit lies.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I don't know about NT, because I left that job before I had NT any
> > significant amount of time (VB is HELL for a large project by the way),
> > but as a developer 6 reboots a day (Win 95) is a HUGE time waster, and
> > frustration builder, and COSTS A LOT OF MONEY IN DOWNTIME, lost work, and
> > loss of flow (as a programmer having a lockup disrupt your train of
> > thought/coding is the WORST possible thing to have happen).
>
> A disruption is a big frustration, but 6 times a day?!? I
> never have that kind of problem! NEVER! And, true VB is not
> for Large projects, but why not Visual C++?
>
> >
> > > Given the significant benefits of ease of use, the time lost to rebooting is
> far outweighed by the shortened ramp time.
> > >
> >
> > For ME this is utter bull<snip> (pardon the language). If I have to
> spend > more time getting to know a product that is NOT going to crash
> leaving me > with NOTHING, or LESS than what I had to start with, then I
> WANT to spend > that extra time. Sheesh, how can deadlines be met when the
> freaking
> > machines are DOWN.
>
> A different opinion. Without quantifiable data all we have to go on is personal
> feel, based on our own experiences. I feel that Windows is stable enough to
> outweigh the ramp time required to get Linux going.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Here, I agree with you. If you want to know, you cannot find out. This is
> a problem. This was once my beef with Apple. However, in most cases, I don't
> want to know, don't need to know, and can do my job well without knowing.
> > >
> >
> > For MY previous job, and the one I currently hold. I NEED to KNOW, in
> > order to DO MY JOB.
>
> Conceded.
>
> >
> > > <snipped more stuff about reliability and what do you use it for?>
> > >
> > > > >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! :)...
> > >
> > > Now you know. I hope.
> > >
> >
> > yep. "ramp time" is a buzz word for making people "productive" without
> > really looking at what productive is.
>
> So how do you define productive?
>
> >
> > > hardware costs have dropped,
> > > > but the cost of software has remained about the same.
> > >
> > > Okay. I haven't looked yet.
> > >
> >
> > Actually many versions of linux have spread their cost, i.e. the same
> > package will range from $0 to $80 when before it ranged from $0 to $20.
> >
> > <snipped website conversation using data not supplied to the casual
> > reader>
> > > Maybe. But I sure spent a lot of time beating my head against the wall
> trying to do simple things, that when tried in a Microsoft environment took
> minutes. I had to learn things that had no bearing on what I was trying to
> accomplish. It's like getting your pilots license to fly Delta from NY to San
> Franscisco. It's nice to know what the pilot's doing, but who cares? It's not
> pertinent to my objective.
> > >
> >
> > I'm curious what did you do for help?
>
> I consulted this group, asked questions
> at the meetings. I got a lot of great
> help from everyone. Even got some
> personal attention. I have no beef
> with the people. My beef is with the
> knowledge level required to run
> smoothly.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >>>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.
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > <snipped stuff about Linux Community. I have no response.>
> > >
> > > >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?
> > >
> > > Actually the computer software industry is probably one of the closest to
> free markets (if not totally free) in our economy. My apologies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Second, and with all due respect, I find this attitude both jaded and
> cynical.
> > >
> > > This is extremely likely as my experiences have caused me to become cynical
> and jaded.
> > >
> >
> > How do we give you experiences that will reverse your jade cynicism?
>
> When Linux reaches a point where I can use it to do real work without
> spending more than 10% of my ramp time learning system administration,
> I will reconsider. Until then, Linux is a hobby.
>
> >
> > > > Moreover, it is not applicable to many situations, and it is subject to
> ones
> > > > taste and work habits.
> > >
> > > On the contrary. It is applicable to most situations. I would argue that
> those who put forth a large effort for a small payout are in the small minority.
> Come on, it just doesn't make good business sense in most cases.
> > >
> >
> > You will have to be very specific about what you are talking about here,
> > because, the business case of saved time, money, and user satisfaction
> > for Linux seems from my point of view to far outweight what Microsoft has
> > to offer.
>
> What's to be specific about here? Large effort -> becoming a unix system
> administrator... small payout -> a perfectly stable system. Obviously, if
> you value a perfectly stable system more highly than I do, your payout is
> larger, and perhaps outweighs the effort. I maintain that for most people
> this is simply not the case.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If this group would like Bob and I to take this off-line, please say so. It
> is a lengthy thread, and may be boring to some. However, I think it's important
> that a differing opinion be expressed in order to help you see that Linux is not
> all roses for some of us. There's lots of places for improvement in Linux. Bob
> knows this. A discussion such as this can help ferret out those places.
> > >
> >
> > Keep the conversation, but fill us in (or drop) the banter about the
> > (perhaps failed) website project etc. as we can't follow it without more
> > information.
>
> The website was to present data from a database to the browser. Two years
> ago, the tools didn't appear to be readily available. Today they are. I
> wrote C code to capture the data and present it to the browser in html
> format. It is (was) functional. It is not "up".
>
>
> Chris.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com