Subj : Re: Windows vs Linux
To   : tenser
From : boraxman
Date : Mon Apr 25 2022 12:27:37

 te> Nope.
 te> 
 te> This was not the "design philosophy" behind Windows,
 te> which was designed to be a multi-tenant microkernel with
 te> different "personalities" tailored to individual jobs.
 te> Recall that Cutler had done RSX-11m at DuPont and then
 te> VMS at DEC and was working on MICA for PRISM before the
 te> Alpha.
 te> 
 te>  bo> Windows is changing, but Powershell and WSL are recognitions of the
 te>  bo> advantages that we already enjoy.
 te> Windows had POSIX compatibility bolted on more or less
 te> from the beginning to meet FIPS requirements.  It used
 te> the aforementioned personality support to provide a
 te> more or less Unix-like experience to those who wished to
 te> pay for the experience.  Things like UWIN and Cygwin
 te> made this largely transparent (e.g., for those of us stuck
 te> on Windows machines on US Government networks for a time).
 te> 
 te> WSL is new and is different.  WSL1 is an ELF loader and
 te> system-call adapter that presents the Linux system interface
 te> to applications; WSL2 boots a Linux kernel under Hyper-V.
 te> 
 te> However, this is all moving the goalposts: you started this
 te> discussion talking about the ability to "customize" Linux,
 te> but beyond selecting a window manager, I have yet to see
 te> what you are referring to that you can't do on any number of
 te> other systems.
 te> 
 te> As I said before, computers are tools; MSFT is invested in
 te> you being able to use their OS as a tool, just as the Linux
 te> and BSD and even Mac people are.
 te> 
 te> --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)

The difference in opinion is you are looking very closely at the technical capabilities, whereas I'm looking further back, in how Windows systems act as a whole.

I've worked almost exclusively with Windows machines in my professional career, and my job involves information, being an "information worker" myself, someone who does most of their job on a computer.

All the systems I've used have had the issues I've described.  Without exception, going back to 1999.  The tools have never, ever matched the workflow.  It has always been a case of opening the application which controls the data, and then jockeying information back and forth, usually in a labourious way.  The "solution" to these problems is just as bad, pay a company hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a closed web-based ecosystem which barely solves any problems, is usually just as hostile. The company I work for has put down a LOT of money for this program, and the people deciding how it works can only think in the "application" paradigm, so the result will suck.  We'll still be literally tying in information from "master" documentation by reading the screen, then transcribing.

Windows 11, I believe won't run on older machines.  Period.  It won't run on this computer I'm using.  Being able to make your hardware actually operate is a fairly important part of an OS.  That alone is an indictment on MS.  By default, with a new install, you can't compose workflows like you can with MacOS and *nix. I've used the GNU tools, and cygwin.  The former has quirks, the latter just doesn't seem intergrated. The GUI is important, because it allows admins to actually tailor the graphical interface specifically for their companies needs. Not just "Branding", but something deeper.  You have less control over updating, and less over telemetry, and there is the "can I pull this hard drive out to a newer machine and just have it run" issue.

You CAN make Windows customisable, but it take more effort.  As I said earlier, no one actually does.  It's always just throwing in boxed applications and let people come up with crappy workflows.  That is the practice, the reality.  No one can see a better way, and it sucks.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.