KCLUG --> KCMUG?

[Dustin Decker]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Tony Hammitt wrote:

> Hey Jonathan, some windoze advocate hijacked your account!

You'll prolly think the same of mine but I'll disclaim in advance.  I'm
not a zealot of any kind beyond open-source itself.  (i.e. not for
Linux exclusively, anti-m$ [at least not _too_ terribly so] or the
like.)

> If not, I might point out that being able to choose between using GUI
> tools where appropriate and high-level modern command shells, also
> where appropriate, is certainly much much faster than being stuck
> with just a GUI or a shell.  And is especially faster than being
> stuck with the crappy, out-of-date windoze GUI or the ancient archaic
> DOS "shell".

I manage several Windows based (as well as Linux based) networks at a
national level, the majority of which are based on Windows 2000 and
Active Directory.  I find it quite easy to script the majority of my
work just as easily in this environment as it is for me to do the same
in the Linux world...  only difference is I'm not always using Perl to
do it.  Windows is NOT devoid of a powerful command shell if you dig in
and learn it.  (I.E.  you're only forced to click and drool if you limit
yourself to it.)

> Also, being able to actually _use_ multiple processors in a box with
> a desktop OS speeds things up as well.  That's more of a past problem
> but windoze was never designed to let more than one processor be of
> any benefit to the desktop user.  Whereas with a real OS, it's
> implicit in the design.

While NT 4.0 wasn't worth a shit for this, I've enjoyed a great deal of
additional performance on SMP hosts in with Windows 2K and Windows XP
arena.  The support is there out of the box, and works quite well.
(Mind you, delving into processor affinity and the like is prolly not
nearly as stellar as Linux, but you get my point I'm sure.)

> Being able to collect a bunch of files together and send it in an
> email in one easy command line is a really nice feature.  How many
> menus, dialogs, and programs would you have to use to do the same in
> windoze?  Just curious...  That's an example of what I mean by
> 'painfully slow' when I talk about windoze.

Ummm... I can grep anything I want on windoze just as I do on Linux.  Or
concatenate.  Lots of what we do in the *nix world transitions into the
Windows world in one way or another.  It may not be the superior OS, but
if forced to use it then USE it - don't merely ignore what tools are
available.  If you don't wanna use Windows then by golly don't - won't
hurt my feelings a bit.

> And speaking of speed; try listening to an MP3 on windoze.  Notice
> the skipping every time the network card gets used or you save a
> file?  Some 'speedy' OS you have there...  Oh, and try programming
> your mouse wheel to adjust the volume of your player when you use it
> on the desktop. Wait, M$ didn't add any capability of running any
> arbitrary thing based on a user's input?  Too damn bad.  Maybe in 15
> years.

Get a better network card.  Never tried the mouse thing - prolly not
available in windows.  Not what they had in mind, and not sold as such.
(I.E. not marketed to geeks like us really, but to folks who haven't the
need of using the mouse wheel that way.)

> Anyway, windoze users just think they have a decent system because
> they've never taken the time to learn anything else.  They get used
> to working around bugs and badly designed software and get pissy when
> the other systems they might try to use actually do things in a
> logical way.

Admittedly, lots of click and droolers out there are proud of the time
they have invested in learning the clunky interface they deal with.  If
they've not seen anything else, then they think it's better than sliced
white bread.  I haven't a problem with that - they're just ignorant.
Sticking your hand in fire once and getting burned is ignorant - doing
it again is stupid, and that's the real difference between ignorance and
stupidity.  Insanity however is doing the same thing over and over
expecting a different result...  Perhaps sticking to just one OS is
insane, particularly if you've been exposed to more than one.

What bugs the shit out of me is being a user of both [many], and seeing
folks in the *nix community bag on it [windows] for the sake of
political agenda or something else without a hefty bit more technical
reasoning behind hit.  Yes, I DO feel Linux is a superior OS - but it
certainly doesn't justify ditching Windows.  Hell, if Windows weren't as
broken as it often has been, I'd prolly be hungry, or pumping gas or
something.

If we want to bag on Windows for being closed source, then we should.
But call a spade a spade.  Same thing for the monopoly issue - don't mix
technical merit in with your monopoly tirade or you're wasting your
time.

> So, I'll disregard anything further about windoze being "faster to
> use" because it's complete nonsense.  To me.  And the rest of the
> people on this list.

It all depends on what the machine is tuned for, what OS is running, and
most importantly WHO IS USING IT.  I am quite sure there are LOTS of
folks on this list that work faster than I do, and can frag my ass solid
for hours at Quake (whatever version, doesn't matter) regardless of OS
or hardware involved on my part.  "Faster" in this case is subjective -
it can mean a lot of things.  I for one have never been impressed by
most benchmarks, but that's just me.

Mind you, this is also just _my_ subjective opinion, and their like the
planet Uranus.... everybody has one, right?

Dustin

-- 
"Every now and then, when your life gets complicated and the weasels start
closing in, the only cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and then
drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas ... with the music at top
volume and at least a pint of ether."
-- Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"