TACKER:  mjt (barnacle)
SUBJECT: .. UNIX sucks WINDOWS rules
DATE:    10-May-07 15:27:45
HOST:    sverige

plz excuse upcoming long post.

UNIX *is* a pain in the ass. even eric raymond readily admits that it has
horrible usability problems. this is what they lament about in "the unix
hater's handbook". however, it's important to note that they never tell you
that unix doesn't do its job well; they only assert that the control
interface is esoteric and bizarely-structured.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

UNIX is a "better" OS, if one takes "better" to mean "more stable, more
configurable, logically designed, makes more sense as a cohesive funtional
plan, etc". not to mention, it's a big self-righteous "Free". it's for
people who love to tweak their systems, and like to have a lot of control
over their OS.

in fact, for many linux (BSD too) users, the operating system becomes
nearly the whole of their computing experience.

a computer's operating system should be something you *don't* focus on, at
all. it should be an invisible hand, that lets you use the programs you
want to use. and pretty much all of them fail in this regard, at least
conceptually -- "what OS you use" is a fundamental part of computing
identity, and of computing itself. it's really weird, if you think about
it.

a lot of this attitude is a result of many people just not doing too much
with their computers. and oddly, that productivity which many do accomplish
is output in a windows environment, in their offices. and yet they remain
staunchly pro-UNIX, even though with it they only chat, surf the web, and
log onto SDF. har. it's easy to become religiously pro-nix if you've spent
all of college writing programming assignments on those machines, and
have seen those programs work. "but what are you *actually* doing with your
computer?" sometimes the admission is "nothing". and this is ok -- if you
don't want to produce anything, but only want to tweak and fiddle, then
UNIX Is For You.

the question is almost always "what kind of computer do you have?", to
which the answer is "windows/mac/*nix". a more meaningful question/answer
would be "what do you do with your computer?" "business
stuff/design/programming and tweaking". who cares what the operating system
is? why has this been made important? i suppose it's because that fact
determines what you do with it; "the right tool for the right job". but i
still think there's undue focus on OS'es. funny how the human mind defaults
to religion.

me, i'll use whatever noncrashing OS for which i can *acquire* the adobe
product line.

i had my first experience with linux not long ago. i installed ubuntu
(which seems to be doing an OK job of reaching out to
nontechies-who-know-some-techies) on an old machine. it's really nice
looking -- designers did a job on the GUI of apple-like proportions. and
pre-installed you get gaim, firefox, ftp, etc -- everything a teenager
needs. but then if you want some productive software, you run into
problems.

i came in totally unprepared for the package system. in my opinion, this is
the biggest hurdle someone new-to-linux/nonmac-unix faces.

problems ensued when i tried to use totem, the included media player, to
look at porno movies (a clear example of the use of productive software);
it wouldn't play any normal format, and (for some reason -- this was about
a year ago) i couldn't find any appropriate plugins for it.

so, i searched the package list for mplayer, which some of my *nix buddies
use to watch their porn. it wasn't there, i swear to you. i found
"kmplayer", which installed, but then didn't work. i was informed by the OS
that i had to go to the mplayer site and get some files. i tried, and
failed. etc. it all was harder than it should have been, and it didn't
work.

i simply couldn't believe that you can't download from the web a graphical
abstraction for an "installer", double-click it, and then end up with a
usable program. you can do this on mac and windows. why is linux bound by
this weird package system? it's totally bizarre, and, i think,
unacceptable. maybe i just had a bad experience with it.

one day maybe i'll give ubuntu another shot, but i have limited desk space
for that 700mHz ubuntu machine sitting in my closet. and at any rate, even
if i *did* try it again, it would be purely as a hobbyist -- the programs i
"need" aren't made for linux. of course this isn't linux's fault, but
that's immaterial to me. it's not an appropriate OS for my...production
goals.

and it really does have a bad usability problem, one that is taken as a
game or fun puzzle to solve by its techie user base, but that is taken as
an insurmountable obstacle by potential converts who use computers as tools
to complete projects, and not as things unto themselves. this is not to
mention that "there is no software for linux".

you-nix in its present form really doesn't stand a chance of going
mainstream -- sorry.

it's hard to seperate what's actually bad about windows vs. what's part of
the zealous movement against it. from what i understand, 2000/xp/nt is
pretty good. however, i do find that it's buggy -- if you try tweaking it
around a little, some things pop up that shouldn't be there.

typical example: after fiddling for a bit with the "users" control panel, i
find that every time i log on, veendows defaults to the "Administrator"
account, and subsequently beeps at me that it cannot use this account. so,
i have to go and backspace over, "Adminstrator", and replace it with
"owner". this is semi-retarded and embarrassing if a mac-head is watching
(do you see how i fall into the trap of peronally identifying with an OS?),
but it's not a serious issue. sometimes, windows inexplicably forgets
things you've configured. it generally does stuff without you asking. it's
vulnerable to outside programs mucking with the filesystem (*ahem* itunes
*ahem*). all the programs try to take over and say "run me! i'm the
best! forget everyone else!" (*ahem* realplayer *ahem*). etc.

glitchy issues like this point to modern windows as being sort of shitty
and patched together, but it basically works. i still remember windows ME,
which crashed/froze even more than mac os 9 (not to mention was ugly).

don't get me wrong -- i think unix is a better OS in many, many ways. i
just don't think it's in ways that anyone beyond an insular culture of
geekyfolk is going to recognize.

maybe i'm just hopelessly aculturated. wut u think?

home