Re: and yet another zdnet "article" re: Lnx

[Dirk Bartley <bartleyd2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bryan J. Smith" wrote:
> 
> Richard Zimmerman wrote:
> > I could be wrong on this but I really get the impression
> > he hasn't used Linux any / much at all. The wording in
> > the article suggest it.
> 
> Which is the problem with 98% of Linux articles at the major IT
> publications these days.  Most of them are complaining that Linux
> "should have this" and "should have that" when it, in fact, DOES!
> 

As requested I will attempt to move this to os-discuss.  I want to say this
without slamming the talented MS admins out there.  So here is my attempt.  

Most articles I see that say Linux needs to do this but it does not often times
is about a subject that it does do.  The writers of the article describe that
Linux is more difficult to administer than with the M$ gui interfaces.  (i.e.
therefore it is not possible is the conclusion)  I think these writers want
Linux to be just as simple to administer as the MS counterpart.  Take the MSSQL
admin interface as an example, I was impressed when I first used MS SQL admin
interface.  Now I'm glad I am not a slave to it.

Now to the good part.  With any software program: as the number and complexity
of features increases, so does the difficulty to administer/use.  Hey, it takes
longer to learn more features.  In general linux server side programs have a
great deal of features.  This is usually because many people have added more
features to the software that someone else started, then it snowballs.  Many
times people spend hours looking for that one thing they don't understand that
makes some package behave in an undesired way.  My first one was the encryption
line in smb.conf.

To me the choice is clear.  Be forced to learn more about the software you use
or administer, feel good when it works and let it work for a long time, have a
greater number of choices with how to change it if more is needed.  OR: Get
something functioning quickly with little understanding of it, reboot, live
without much flexibility, reboot again.  When asked why the service goes down
shrug your shoulders and look stupid.  Reboot.  Tell everyone it works.  Wait,
try to figure out what happened. ... ...

Which brings me to the projects making an effort to gui-fy Linux.  I'm all for
it.  However, they really ought to tell you what text/configuration files it is
editing when they do it.  A big difference to me between Linux and MS is that
windows is a mystery, Linux is an open book.  I'd like the new people trying to
use Linux see the book through gui.  Lets say I'm in Linuxconf and I just
changed something in sendmail.  I would really like it if it told me what file
it changed what the original file was renamed to and give me the option to see a
result of a diff command between the two.  They also could have more
explanations.  Assume you don't understand something, url to an explanation on
the web somewhere.  I know what your thinking, Join the linuxconf team then.  OK
I'm a hypocrite.

Dirk


Everything is clear if known.