Warp wrote:
> 1) Whenever someone belittles Windows, especially on its API and its
> capabilities, for example by saying that Windows does not support this
> or that, you almost always have a counter-argument ready, telling that
> Windows *does* support it. 

Well, oddly enough, when I say in public that Linux can't do something 
it can, I usually get corrected also. :-)

> (And even if the support is extremely hard
> for a regular user to use, while the same feature in eg. linux is rather
> simple to use, you still manage to make it *sound* like it's a completely
> trivial thing to do in Windows as well, even if it really isn't.)

It's not hard to use named pipes or the "odd syntax" names if you know 
about them and use (for example) man(2) level calls instead of man(3) 
level calls.

> 2) Whenever someone exalts unix in general or linux in particular, and
> this is something which is absolutely undeniable, you often aknowledge
> it, but *still* manage to somehow find something negative about it, making
> it sound less useful. (While I'm not doubting your honesty, it often is
> something which is rather difficult to verify in a few minutes, especially
> for someone who is not thoroughly acquainted with the internal workings of
> unix/linux/posix, which sometimes just feels too convenient.)

I've done a lot of work with UNIX, usually on server type stuff. Before 
that, my server type stuff was all done on mainframes, where lots of 
attention was paid to getting things right in corner cases UNIX 
traditionally doesn't (or didn't) address. So yeah, I often mention 
problems I run into.

I've done more user-level stuff in Windows, usually using the MS servers 
that come with it and are thus nicely integrated et al, so I don't have 
to worry about the crap parts. I suspect if I'd done more system-level 
high-reliability work in Windows, I'd have just as many war stories 
about that too.

I think I'm pretty fair at mentioning stupidities in Windows, too, yes? 
It's not like I deny Windows has its warts.

The Windows API is way, way more complex than the UNIX APIs, even 
discounting legacy stuff. Most people don't ever actually learn it in 
any sort of organized way, in part because (as far as I know) there 
isn't any way to just sit down and read the API. There's no man(2) 
equivalent you can just spend a week reading. So I correct 
misconceptions, is all.

>   I'm not saying that what you are saying is not true. I just sometimes
> get the feeling that you make things sound more positive or negative than
> they really are, on purpose.

I guess sometimes I just feel it needs some balance. :-)  Besides, it 
would be boring if we all just agreed with everything. ;-)

But yeah, I guess when someone says "UNIX is great because it has X that 
Windows doesn't", my first reaction is indeed to say "Windows has X, and 
UNIX's X has limitations that have bitten me in the past." Mainly 
because UNIX in general tends to target the "90% correct is good enough" 
market, and I strive for excellence in my programs, and I learned to 
program on a machine where a crash produced about a ream of print-out so 
you could track down what went wrong.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message