Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:51:29 -0400 From: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> To: FreeBSD Advocacy <advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ExBSD Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010527183131.017f4858@mail.threespace.com> In-Reply-To: <8072844.990964800@[192.168.1.60]> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010523093020.017d3fb8@mail.threespace.com> <014301c0e249$debd93f0$0300a8c0@oracle> <4.3.2.7.2.20010523093020.017d3fb8@mail.threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:00 PM 5/27/2001, Stuart Krivis wrote: >Unix is unix. Once someone learns one well, it's quite easy to figure out >another one. The vast majority of things will transfer right over. Heck, I can barely get around the differences in Linux distributions, and they all claim to be the same OS. :-) The differences in UNIX OSes can be large, and any time I've claimed to have some UNIX experience to anybody in a business setting, the question of "Which one?" tends to come up enough to make me think it matters to *somebody*. And try telling that "transfer[s] right over" story to a developer who is spending time compiling and testing on several different versions of UNIX. >I'm sure I can find a dozen people who "know"' Windows before finding one >skilled Unix admin. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that those >Windows admins generally can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. >As a Unix admin, I am constantly having to diagnose problems for Windows >admins who can't figure it out. Their overall lack of knowledge is frightening. > >As an example, 99% of the Windows admins I have run across think that >pinging a mailserver is the way to tell if it is working or not. They have >no idea that you can telnet to port 25 and see what's happening or not >happening. > >You might then reply that they know Exchange and that SMTP, POP, and IMAP >are not native to Exchange, so that's why they don't know them. Well, I >hear about Exchange a lot too. When it stops working, they call for help. >If it's really broken, they just re-install. > >[snip, snip] Well, without insulting Windows admins around the world, it sounds like the ones that you've dealt with are idiots. And by the same token, you sound like a pretty smart, experienced person. Which is exactly my point--Windows software is watered down to the point that the average schlup can get a few books and a PC and teach himself to be an "expert" in his own spare time. (Which would explain all the philosophy majors turned Windows admins, for instance.) Most decent UNIX users/admins can easily figure their way around Windows (whether they actually like the trip or not). The reverse is usually not true. >Good enough? Yes, Windows is quite mediocre, so I guess that fits the >definition of "good enough." > >How about using something that is actually "good," instead of just "good >enough?" > >Easy on the eyes? Yuck. I am not a fan of the Windows look. But that's >just m opinion. Do you actually have any proof that Windows is easier to >use or easier on the eyes? I didn't think so. > >Prevailing on the desktop? Most people don't have much choice. They didn't >evaluate all the options and decide that Windows is best for them. > >Application availability? How many spreadsheets do I need? How many of the >large number of Windows apps actually differ from each other in >significant ways? How many of them are actually any good? How much time is >wasted because you must reboot constantly when you're installing or >removing a Windows app? It makes evaluating apps a real chore. I remember hearing a materials scientist asking a group of consumers if they would like a light bulb that they'd never have to change in their lifetimes. They were all quite eager until they were told that the bulb would cost over $80. Suddenly their 79 cent bulbs that lasted six months were acceptable to them. By the same token, I like being able to walk into any computer superstore and grab a box off the shelf for about $30-40 that will do what I need. I like being able to choose from competing products. Despite my resignations about Windows itself, some of the apps are pretty darn good, and I wish those guys were developing on UNIX. But in the meantime, an application that does what I need with about 98% reliability (my personal experience with Windows) is just fine. The hunt for UNIX software and the learning curve that follows are often daunting to an average schlup like me. :-) And looks are an issue of personal preference, so I can't argue with you there. But I will say that I like the post-Windows 95 look. And don't even get me started on my opinion font handling (or lack thereof) in the X Window System...ugh. --Chip Morton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010527183131.017f4858>