Entered as a new post because of character limit

[robinturner]

In response to b0rg:

Risking to start another flame I can tell you one thing: microsoft have a luxury of huge amount of ppl testing their code for bugs, and publically announcing those bugs.

[Cut to the scene in Aliens where Ripley straps the flamethrower to the combined assault rifle / grenade launcher.]

I wonder why otherwise educated people take some strange (well for me) pleasure in slagging the presentation language of (surprise, surprise) MS CEOs?

"Otherwise educated"? You really do want to play with fire, don't you?

Actually, I'm not a "grammar nazi", I'm a semantics nazi. I can quibble about grammar points (in fact my job demands that I do) but I generally come down on the side of flexibility: I loathe made-up grammar rules (like not splitting infinitives or not ending a sentence with a preposition); I quite like the "so ... NOT" structure, even if I don't recommend it to my students; I start sentences with co-ordinate conjunctions. What I can't stand is sloppy semantics, especially when used to avoid saying anything definite. You are right that MS executives are not the only offenders; I picked those two examples because I read press releases by software companies, but I have no reason to read Fortune or Forbes. I imagine you're right, though - I've heard some terrible things from managers in my school. (I'm in the unusual position of working in a university, but in an English department which is staffed mainly by people from the commercial world of TESOL, which has adopted management-speak in an attempt to give business respectability to a profession that was founded by backpackers.)

microsoft have a luxury of huge amount of ppl testing their code for bugs, and publically announcing those bugs. Which in turn being fixed.

So why are there so many bugs? I'm not talking about bugs in applications - anyone can write a buggy application - I'm talking about the OS. I used the original, not the second edition of Windows 98, and it was enough to get me off my arse and install Linux. Netscape was crashing every twenty minutes. Sure, Netscape in those days was buggy, and it also crashed sometimes when I was in Linux. The difference was that when it crashed in Linux, I didn't have to reboot, because the OS was stable. Then Windows 98 Second Edition came out - a bugfix trumpeted as an improved version. I use it occasionally, and it's still buggy.

Recently I moved offices and had to deal with networking a computer which some poor sucker had installed XP Home on (apparently we even paid for it). I spent a whole day trying to get it to accept printing commands from Samba, only to find out that this was impossible in the Home version. I then tried to set it up so that I could virus-scan it from my Linux box, as I do with the Win98 computers in our office. No deal. Next week it got a virus - something trivial like Sobig. Er, hello? Bugfixes? Trustworthy Computing?

Being in software for about 12 years I can tell you another thing: every computer program (well apart from hello world) has bugs in it

Hello World and TeX ;-)

it's only a matter of finding and fixing them. Which they do.

Which they don't, or if they do, they make new bugs in the process. Last time I was home, I had a look at my mother's computer, and downloaded about a year's-worth of MS security patches and updates. The result was that Windows broke and I had to reformat and reinstall from scratch (that's not me being bloody-minded; I had my brother, who has almost thirty years' experience in programming, look at it). I only managed to save her data files by installing Linux on a different partition and copying them over. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't make people pay good money for it. If I download some alpha software from Sourceforge or Freshmeat, I expect problems, but if I pay $100 for anything, I expect it to work. If someone sold me a microwave oven which burnt my food, I'd ask for my money back. Why should an operating system be different?

The biggest problem in software as I can see is not the software itself and not the programmers - it's the damn users who always moan for the reason "we want that next best feature", or just moan with no reason at all :-)

This is nonsense. I realise that users can sometimes be a problem (I had to work with one person who was death to computers - she once called me in to deal with a computer "problem" caused by her accidentally going into the BIOS settings). However, it is not users who demand the next best feature. New features are pushed on users by software companies who need to push the latest verison on them. The average Word user uses a tiny fraction of the available features, and usually doesn't even know about them: all they want is a smart typewriter (anyone who wants to do real typesetting uses something like Quark or LaTeX). The typical computer user wants to surf the Net, send emails, play games and write stuff. They do not want their computer to crash; they do not want to have to pay for anti-virus software or firewalls; they do not want an "experience". In other words, they have no reason to use Windows.

Comments

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

I really have to disagree with you here.

Comparing Windows and Linux is really apples and oranges. If you're running a server, Linux is probably the way to go in 90% of the cases. For desktop, though, it's just not even close. The way I see Linux, from way inside the industry, is a couple million geeks rushing around trying to reinvent Windows 3.1 - a useful user interface slapped over the top of a command-line OS. Linux is simply not appropriate for mainstream consumer computer users - it's too complicated, doesn't support enough HW, doesn't support power managment, it has no concept of backwards compatibility, etc. etc. etc.. As soon as Linux provides all of the features that Windows does, out of the box, it will be just as big a piece of buggy bloatware as Windows is.

Windows did not get the way that it is from lack of good engineers, or innovation - some of the most brilliant engineers on the planet work at MS. Window became what it is as a victim of its own success. With every release, they must add new features, make it more user friendly, reduce bugs, and maintain almost complete backwards compatibility for the sake of large corporate users, and computer manufacturers. Hell, it's almost ten years later and they still haven't been able to completely eliminate support for 16-bit applications.

The computer is now a consumer-level information appliance, and Linux simply can't compete in that space. You go to my dad's house, tell him how to download a kernel, burn the CD's, install it, find drivers for all the hardware he has(assuming they exist), recompile his kernel to add those drivers, then go find applications to do the stuff he needs his computer for, then get back to me about what a good thing Linux is.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Speaking from a fair way outside the industry ...

Linux is on the way to dominating the server market, because people who run servers (apart from minimally-trained NT faux-sysadmins) know what they are doing. It has yet to make major inroads into the desktop market because most dektop users don't know how to install Linux. They also don't know how to install Windows, but they use Windows because that's what came with the computer.

As I said, the average user just wants to surf the web, e-mail, word-process documents and maybe use a spreadsheet. So they need two applications: let's call them Mozilla and OpenOffice. They could use these on either Windows or Linux. If some evil techie suddenly switched their OS from Windows to Linux, the only thing they would be likely to notice would be that the thing in the bottom left corner would say "K" instead of "Start".

I have a Linux box in my office, and colleagues who are nearly computer-illerate manage to use it to surf, e-mail and write documents. When I had to reconstruct my mother's Windows setup, I installed Firebird for surfing and OpenOffice for word-processing. If I'd managed to get her BT Broadband system working under Linux, I would have changed over in a jiffy - she would have had the same applications, and she wouldn't be having her current problems with her anti-virus software or programs that have installed themselves off the Net and pop up whenever she starts the computer.

Your comment about compiling kernels really is comparing apples and oranges - it's the equivalent of editing the Windows registry. Buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and you won't even need to know what a kernel is. As for upgrading, when Mandrake 9.1 came out, I upgraded my computer, and after answering a couple of questions about things like what language I wanted and testing my mouse, the only thing I had to do was change CDs when the computer beeped at me.

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Point taken about the pre-installed Linux.

However, you are most definitely not an 'average user', believe me.

Windows is the way that it is, for two primary reasons:
1) The attempt to inherently complicated things simple enough for someone with no training - in anything - to understand them.
2) When you put out a new version, make sure that it has everything that the old one had, will still run all the programs the old one did, makes things even simpler, and still support all the newest hardware and features that customers want.

Sure, the upgrade cycle is driven by business desire to stimulate upgrades, but it's equally driven by customer demand - or at least demand from Computer manufacturers.

Don't get me wrong - Microsoft blows - they make my life a living hell on a regular basis. But, they do put out some pretty damn good software, when you measure it against the scale of features that they deliver. Linux will, and should, take over the server market. But, I don't think you'll see it ever do well in the consumer space without becoming just as big a behemoth as Windows. Support costs alone would kill any attempt.

[guirex.livejournal.com]

all i ever asked from windows was a system that works.
That was never achieved.

[thedward.livejournal.com]

Um. Linux has supported power management for ages now... and I can attest that it works great on my iBook. Also, on my x86 Linux box[1], I have no problems running many of the same applications I was running in 1994 (though I seldom have cause to, since the newer ones are better), so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it isn't backwards compatible. I've seen many more problems with backwards compatibility on Windows than on Linux. And speaking of "Linux" as one operating system is misleading. Every distribution is different, and every desktop environment is different. There really isn't one monolithic thing that is "Linux" outside of the kernel itself, which is really the smallest part (though a very very very important part) of the whole package.

I certainly won't argue that Linux has all the same ease of use or WhizBang that Windows and MacOS X have, but I do think that for they way most folks use the computer (word processing, web browsing, email) that it would certainly be a viable alternative. If ease of use and cool features are the benchmark, I have to vote for MacOS X ( I run Linux on my iBook not due to any antimony towards MacOS X, but rather because I am used to Linux, and like it).

[1] And via a project called qemu, I can even run several x86 linux binaries on my iBook (including WINE!! (which in case you are unaware lets you run Windows applications under Linux (without using any Microsoft code!)))

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Linux supports APM, but does not support ACPI suspend states, or D0 states. While this is fine for desktop, it kills it when it comes to mobile applications, unless you like reducing your battery life by an hour, or so.

Also, I'm not saying that Linux is bad, I'm saying it's not the consumer-level application that Windows is, and that if it was, it would likely fall prey to the same problems that Windows has.

[solri.livejournal.com]

It would probably have some of them, but I think it would avoid others, simply because it's written in a different way. Because it's Open Source and very modular, there's much more of a Darwinian struggle for survival in Linux/Unix applications. A good example is the evolution of Star Office / OpenOffice. When Star Office came out, it was heralded as _the _ Linux killer app, which would wipe evil MS Office off the face of the Earth. It didn't, because it was crap. It was slow, buggy and ugly, and it set new standards in bloatware. They were trying to out-microsoft Microsoft and it was a spectacular failure. then they open sourced the code, and OpenOffice was born. Out went the mail client and browser that no one ever used. Several years later, with OO 1.1 released, we finally have a product that does almost everything MS Office does (and a quite a few things it doesn't do, like drawing and PDF export) and it's around $500 cheaper (i.e. free). It's still bloated by the harsh standards of the 'nix world, but that's the price you pay for writing software that has to work on Linux, Unix, Windows and Macintosh computers - the application needs to contain almost all its own libraries.

[thedward.livejournal.com]

I never said you were saying Linux was bad. ;) I was just asking that you make your criticisms of it accurate. :) And Since mid 2.4.x kernels, linux DOES support ACPI, and AFAICT D0 suspend states (though I can't speak from experience on that one because my iBook uses an entirely different power management system). I actually seem to get better battery life under Linux than under MacOS X, but that is purely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.

I would like to respectfully disagree that the problems that come along with Windows are inherent to the niche it fills. Look at MacOS X for example. It does not suffer from all the same problems that Windows does, yet it has basically the same functionality (more in some places, less in others). Not to say it doesn't have problems, just that they are different ones, and in my opinion generally lesser ones. I imagine a "consumer-level" version of Linux would have a lot more in common with MacOS X than with Windows in the type of problems it faced.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Well, "suspend" is certainly there in the menu, though I don't know enough about power management to be able to say if it's real suspend or pseudo-suspend.

[Pauses to think what a non-geek would make of that last sentence out of context. And to think all this started with my post about mangling the English language!]

The Mac analogy is good, especially considering that OSX is essentially a pretty GUI on top of Unix.

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Mac is almost never a good analogy for Windows. You're talking about a codebase that is almost entirely developed by the same company that put out the hardware it's running on. Apple doesn't have to worry about a nearly infinite combination of hardware components, every time it puts out a release, the way that Windows does.

As for ACPI - the version of ACPI in 2.4 is rudimentary, and doesn't support suspend states - some people have tried to wedge them in, but they generally don't work very well. And, just as a point of reference, I work for Intel, and I work about twenty yards away from the guy who wrote the version of ACPI that went into the 2.4 kernel, and the version that's in 2.6. With the 2.6 kernel, ACPI will be much improved, but it will still be nowhere near the functionality provided by WinXP.

thedward is quite correct in saying that the problems of Windows are not inherent in the niche it fills, but I think the problems are inherent in the way in which Windows came about filling that niche.

x86 architecture has been more or less the same, and public, for about the last twenty years. Win16/Win32, is only slightly younger. Each of them have to maintain at least a level of backwards compatibility with each release, or they get support calls from a couple of billion people - when I put out a new platform, I still have to test to make sure we didn't bust DOS. They also have to support a couple thousand individual component vendors who are all making products targeting those releases, and past releases. Linux doesn't bear this burden. Apple doesn't bear this burden. Windows is a behemoth. It dwarfs both Linux and OSX by orders of magnitude, if you measure lines of code. And yet, with each release, it does get better, and it does get more stable - there haven't been real stability problems since the first version of Win98. Both Linux, and OSX had the luxury of starting from scratch to try to support the features of a modern OS.

[solri.livejournal.com]

The backwards-compatibility problem is interesting. In hardware terms, Linux is pretty good as regards backwards compatibility. You can take the latest offering from most distributions and run it on an i386 (Mandrake is an exception - they stopped supporting anything bleow i586 from around version 7.2). Sure, you have to pick your software packages carefully - running KDE on an i386 would be like watching paint dry- but at least it means you don't have to junk your old computers (the computer centre at my school still has a load of i486s doing service as printer servers etc., and my plans to turn the one that was hanging around our office into an X-terminal were only thwarted by its twenty-year-old monochrome monitor).

Software is more problematic. I see plenty of posts along the lines of "I want to use version n of application x with distribution y - will it work?" The answer is usually "Maybe" (an even less helpful answer is "sure, if you compile it from source" - as though someone who needed to ask that question would know how to compile a program).

[solri.livejournal.com]

And yet, with each release, it does get better, and it does get more stable - there haven't been real stability problems since the first version of Win98.

It depends on how you define "stability problem". If stability problems only include the OS crashing of its own accord without your having to go near the keyboard, then I suppose Windows 98 First Edition was the last to do that (not counting servers, since they are doing crashworthy things all the time). If stability problems include anything that makes you have to reboot, then we stil have them with XP. Note the example I gave of MS Update killing my mother's computer (Win 98, Second Edition) - that wasn't just a reboot, that was a reformat.

To be fair, I've had to reboot Linux occasionally, though that's usually because I can't be bothered to find out what was causing the problem.

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Windows can still be unstable, certainly, but most of the stability is from poorly written third party drivers, not MS code. I work Windows hard - really hard - and between Win2k, and WinXP, I get a crash requiring a reboot maybe once a month. IE on the other hand, is, I'll agree, still pretty buggy.

At any rate, I think we're going around in circles - if you want to talk stability and streamlined code - Linux wins, hands down. But, if you want to talk consumer-level functionality, and ease of use, I think Windows still wins, not to mention the pretty do-it-yourself support structure around Linux. My only real point was that Windows isn't the way it is through poor planning, poor development, or lack or trying, it's just a monster of a problem to solve, and they've done it piecemeal, over the last decade or so, whereas Linux could come along and benefit from everyone else's trial and error.

[xlnyc.livejournal.com]

I have no idea about linux and the problems with windows
BUT
Speaking as a common man who just wants to jump in front of his computer, and complete a task without porblems, I agree whole heartedly. I pay good money, it should work.

AMEN
Brother

[solri.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of a piece Dave Barry wrote back in the days of DOS:

The other major kind of computer is the "Apple", which I do not recommend, because it is a wuss-o-rama New-Age computer that you basically just plug in and use.

[b0rg.livejournal.com]

Well, may be it was a rush decision on my part to start a conversation with a Slashdot type argument, but anyway, what's said is said.

I understand you desire to blame MS for all the evil in this world but not only MS CEO talk that way :) I guess manager's talk-the-talk is an American business culture of talking loud saying nothing. Even after I've worked for an "organisaion consultance/eLearning" company I'm still quite amazed by ppl ability to charismatically talk for 30 mins and still say nothing. The good news is that company is dead by now :) On the other hand I had a pleasure of working with some very good CEO's who were great public speakers. But still "charismatic bullshiting" annoys me greatly even though I'm not native English speaker.

Software is a complex system, and as you know every complex system are prone to have errors. If you increase the complexity you will also increase the probability of errors (what's that? a Law of Universal complexity? :-) You said yourself you've installed unix, now tell me was it working straight away for you? Or you did spend considerable amount of time getting it to work? Probably spending a lot of time in newsgoups or with a friend. Same thing with windows: you have to know what you're doing.

What I really disagree with is some people zealotry against Microsoft (or may be it's just humans: as long as you have dualism you'll have zealotry). Now this is really funny: European Goverment is really pushing towards unix, with the main argument that it will allow them to save on licence fees. The funny thing is professional unix maintenance fees are about twice as high as the windows, if you break it down to installation, training and support.

In therms of windows machinery I would recommend windows 2000 professional: been serving me good for 3 years by now. Can't say never had a problem with it - of course I did, but really nothing I couldn't fix.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I understand you desire to blame MS for all the evil in this world

Well not quite - there's George Bush as well ;-) Seriously, though, I complainb about MS loudly because they have a high impact on my life, even though there are far worse corporations - it' just that I use computers a lot, but I don't work in an Indonesian sweatshop or a Namibian uranium mine. So you are right, we need to keep things in perspective. Bill Gates is a ruthless businessman and, arguably, a criminal, but he's not really up there with sLobodan Milosovitch or Saddam Hussein.

You said yourself you've installed unix, now tell me was it working straight away for you? Or you did spend considerable amount of time getting it to work? Probably spending a lot of time in newsgoups or with a friend.

When I first installed Linux (RedHat 5.2 or 6.0, I forget) installation was very hit or miss. It could go right first time, but if it didn't it was rocket science. I spent hours in emacs editing modelines in my XF86Config file just to get the GUI running, and, as you guess, recieved considerable support from friends. However, Linux has changed with the times - installation is usually a breeze, and requires little computer knowledge (that's assuming you're using a user-firendly distribution like Mandrake - I hear the Debian installation manual is still the size of a Tolstoy novel).

The funny thing is professional unix maintenance fees are about twice as high as the windows, if you break it down to installation, training and support.

You're right about training - Unix sysadmins don't come cheap. Even in our university, some of the low-level techies don't speak Unix (or claim not to, in order to avoid work). On the other hand, money spent on training is money well-invested, which is probably why Munich went for the contract offered by SuSe even though Microsoft offered them a whopping discount which would have (initially) resulted in a slightly cheaper deal. It's the old "give a man a fish" principle.

[guirex.livejournal.com]

I think 99.9999% of the people are asking only one thing to their computer :
that it works.
That was never done with windows. On purpose, me thinks, so you get the lastest stuff hoping it'll work.
When you buy a new component you have to inform the cpu, find the new drivers, etc...
When i buy a washing machine i don't have to inform the wall.
May it be Linux, or Windows, or glueXpress21.betaX pro, i don't care, i just want SOMETHING THAT WORKS ^^