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

[Jeffery Douglas Waddell <jwaddell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 cjgidman@mindless.com wrote:

> >>>>...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.
> 
> Well, since this is a web based e-mail account my editor is a multi-line scrollable text box.  And, yes, as a text editor it stinks.  However, the problem with text wrapping is on your end.  All of my paragraphs are a single line (an industry standard.) and it is the responsibility of your editor to wrap them properly.  This way, paragraphs can be nicely formatted to the screen width you prefer.  Contrariwise, the e-mails you send force a carriage return at the end of what appears to be 80 columns.  When my shorter width screen wraps your lines, I get a long line, then a short one, a long, then a short, etc.  It's very annoying.  We got away from the forced carriage return technique back in the late 80s.  Please update your software.
> As an aside, if we were both using Outlook Express, we could send HTML back and forth.  This is an industry recognized text formatting language that makes documents appear much nicer allowing emphasizing, bolding, even graphics, if needed.
> 

Your email is messed up in my client as well, which makes it difficult for
me to respond to you.

Html as a text medium for email is a horrid choice.

umm, Outlook Express won't run on my linux box, although I suppose I could
get HP Openmail to do the job....

> > 
> > 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....

> The above two statements you mentioned are similar.  I'm not sure what is "jargon" here.  I get productivity in a short time without reading much documentation; without expending much effort "figuring out how it works".  I judge software largely on this criteria.  If upon running the software it is not readily apparent how to use it, then my first opinion is that it's junk.
> >From that baseline, it must prove itself.  If it's really bad, I don't give it a chance.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That statement is correct.  However, I've met a few people who said "If it weren't for windows, I wouldn't be using a computer today."  And, I think what they mean is if it weren't for an intuitive, easy to understand user interface, I wouldn't ...  Windows provided that for them.

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.

> 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.....

>  
> >>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?

> > 
> >>>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?

> >>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?

> > >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
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.

> <see previous article for snipped discussion of the network support practices of my employer>
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Not having NT at home, I cannot argue one way or another. I know as a developer at work, I install packages at will.  I have yet to have been forced by support personnel to reinstall the standard OS configuration.  Yet, I continue to run stable.  I do reboot occaisionally.  But given my working environment, this is no big deal.  It is stable enough.
> 

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).

> 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 bullshit (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.

> > 
> > 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.

> <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.

> 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?

> > 
> >>>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?

> > 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.

> 
> 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.

> Chris.
> 

By the way, Outlook and Outlook Express is a wonderful UI for email, wish
it wasn't such a hog and that I could run it on my linux box, but oh
well...  Too bad it handles LDAP so crappily.  Pine handles LDAP so
smoothly it's a joy....

Sincerely


Jeff Waddell
jeff@smluc.org
or
jwaddell@ix.netcom.com