Subj : Re: Windows vs Linux
To   : boraxman
From : tenser
Date : Mon Apr 25 2022 13:46:15

On 25 Apr 2022 at 12:27p, boraxman pondered and said...
 
 bo>  te> As I said before, computers are tools; MSFT is invested in
 bo>  te> you being able to use their OS as a tool, just as the Linux
 bo>  te> and BSD and even Mac people are.
 bo>
 bo> The difference in opinion is you are looking very closely at the
 bo> technical capabilities, whereas I'm looking further back, in how Windows
 bo> systems act as a whole.

I know a lot of Linux, BSD, and yes, Windows kernel developers.
What you are describing is simply not accurate.

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

I see.  So you haven't had an opportunity to evaluate
equivalent Linux (or whatever) options in a professional
context.  Why then, make claims about them, or for
that matter, about Linux?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but raising
concerns that somehow "Linux" will change directions and
become hostile to the sorts of customizations you like
to do with it if it becomes more popular is a bit much.

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

What you are describing is a bad, inefficient situation.
However, you are creating a logical fallacy by asserting
that a) this is due to Windows (or something; I'm not
quite sure) and b) that the situation would be different
with Unix/Linux (or something; again, I'm not quite sure).

Indeed, I'm having a hard time understanding how that
relates to Linux/Unix/whatever.  Is your argument that
you would like an open, or even "free" solution so that
you wouldn't be tied to whatever vendorware you're being
subjected to?  If so, I could see that as an argument,
with some caveats: you need people that are both
sufficiently talented and sufficiently incentivized to
support that software.

Or is your argument that you think this big pile of bad
software (a friend likes to refer to such as, "the compost
heap") could be replaced with a handful of shell scripts
and some pipelines?  If that's the case, I seriously doubt
it.

 bo> Windows 11, I believe won't run on older machines.  Period.  It won't

Uh ok.  What does that have to do with anything at discussion
here?

 bo> run on this computer I'm using.  Being able to make your hardware
 bo> actually operate is a fairly important part of an OS.  That alone is an
 bo> indictment on MS.

I have a VAX 4000 down in my basement that won't run Linux.
I don't think that's an indictment of the Linux developers.

 bo> By default, with a new install, you can't compose
 bo> workflows like you can with MacOS and *nix.

Powershell comes with Windows 10.

 bo> I've used the GNU tools, and
 bo> cygwin.  The former has quirks, the latter just doesn't seem
 bo> intergrated. The GUI is important, because it allows admins to actually
 bo> tailor the graphical interface specifically for their companies needs.
 bo> Not just "Branding", but something deeper.  You have less control over
 bo> updating, and less over telemetry, and there is the "can I pull this
 bo> hard drive out to a newer machine and just have it run" issue.

Now you're mixing things.  Do you want to write shell pipelines
using the Unix model (something, I'll note, you can do with
PowerShell -- which also understands structured data), or do
you want a graphical experience, in which case, why not invest
in the native Windows ecosystem?

 bo> You CAN make Windows customisable, but it take more effort.  As I said

Saying that it "takes more effort" is subjective.  I know
lots of scientists and engineers who'd rather not futz
about editing text files to customize things.  Perhaps
that is easier for you, and that's fine!  But it is a
mistake to assume that it is easier for everyone else, too.

 bo> earlier, no one actually does.

Nonsense; plenty of people do.  Absolute statement trivially
disproven by a single empirical example.

 bo> It's always just throwing in boxed
 bo> applications and let people come up with crappy workflows.  That is the
 bo> practice, the reality.  No one can see a better way, and it sucks.

Perhaps in your experience you haven't encountered anyone
who can see a better way, but I have.  What you are describing
is a _preference_.  And again, that's fine, but it does not
mean a universal truth.

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

.