Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
A rant on religiousness about OSes
iphigenie:
(this was triggered by a near-religious linux post in a thread about windows XP. I figured I wouldn't pollute that with my rant and will just rant where people can ignore it easier)
Please don't come and tell me that your particular OS is the bestest of them all, super stable, easy to manage, easy to learn, no security issues. It isn't. None of them are. If you think so you have forgotten all the times you scratched your head or tore your hair trying to figure out how to do...
It always bothers me when I see people get religious about an OS (or programming language) - this started as an open minded conversation and at some point it starts being an advocacy discussion - with people using the usual myths about each other's OS (linux is not that user unfriendly and mishmashy, neither is windows that insecure or unstable). The worst is that most of the people get all religious not about the reality of their OS (or language) but the idea of the OS, and the image it projects about them.
Once someone gets religious, then others feel they have to defend their choice (even if they weren't religious about it, their image has been attacked, implying that they are morons/heretics for using something else. Hard to shut up after that)
I have used: several flavors of DOS, Vax/VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Opensolaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, desktop distributions of BSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, Windows Server (NT, 2003, 2008), AIX, OS/2, HPUX, SGI, MacOS, about 20+ flavors of linux over 15 years.
I have administrered/managed, in a commercial setting: DOS, SunOS, Solaris, FreeBSD, Windows (the whole list above except for server 2008 which i only played with), AIX, OS/2, MacOS, Linux: Slackware, Redhat, fedora, debian, DLD, Suse, Centos, and a few specialised one (router/firewall) i can't remember right now. Some as servers, some as desktops.
So when people talk to me about how wonderful X is, or how innovative, I tend to see red.
First, If you cannot list at least 3 ways in which the other person's OS is better than yours (things you wish your OS had) then you don't know enough to debate in the first place. This is called Nebbe's rule when applied to programming languages, i'll call it iphi's rule for OSes.
1. All OSes suck - they fall way short of what an OS should be and might be one day - but most of them don't suck enough that we cannot get used to them and like them
2. All OSes are unstable - at least any one I have ever used with a GUI has had mysterious crashes, problems, freezes. The worst was probably redhat/fedora, and that even without a GUI.
3. Updates and software install are a problem on all OSes. There will be numerous cases and people who have had things mess up just by trying to install or uninstall on any OS - whether windows, macos, solaris, bsd, aix, linux distributions. If you think you haven't had any you either have been extremely lucky, or you have forgotten the teething problems in your enjoyment of the idea of your OS.
4. All OSes are insecure in the hands of an uninformed user. Granted, some are safer because an uninformed use cannot even begin to use them.
5. All OSes are frustrating - With any OS, there's a time right out of the box where they are fun. Then as you start to really do work with them, especially with deadlines, the cracks will appear and you will tear your hair out. Then if you stick with them you will get to the point where they are stable, work to your satisfaction, and you will be comfortable like and old couple. It can take a month or 18 to get there, depending on luck, the match between the chosen OS and the task you are trying etc.
6. All OSes are fun if you use them to dabble. If you use an OS mostly to have fun and dabble, without pressure, you will like it better. So if you used windows at work but linux at home, linux will feel infinitely more easy, fun, stable - because you can just put up or ignore things that are less than ideal, and what projects you conceive will be projects that fit within the limitations of your chosen platform. If you have linux at work but windows at home (for games and chatting), you might feel otherwise. I have at some point or another absolutely hated every single OS I have had to use, except for the ones I have only ever dabbled with.
iphigenie:
Please get me right, this is not a rant against linux. I have used linux a lot, I was using slackware in 1995, that's how far back linux and I go.
I am a big fan of opensource, i think it is the future and have been saying it for over 15 years. I have forced it down the throat of numerous people, convinced some companies to go with it, failed to convince others (one notorious failure meant the company spent hundreds of thousand on Autonomy, and yet the final product didnt deliver the solution. Perhaps open source woudlnt have either, but it would have been faster and cheaper the the same failure.). But it is not perfect, it does not have the monopoly on innovation, good ideas, efficency.
You make the case for open source realistically and aware of the warts (often the warts are documentation, partial support for hardware, lack of detail polish etc.)
But as someone who has used many OSes, I get tired of the arrogance of some linux users, an arrogance that often makes claims that are totally untrue.
The one that really irks me is that many of the claims are linked to things used by linux distributions which arent at all linux. They are used by linux, but they come from other projects, other people, and they existed independently of linux. Open souce is not Linux! Most innovations do not come out of linux, they are just compiled on it or ported to it.
Innovation happens in open source projects, and also in closed source projects, and in universities and companies. Most of it does NOT happen in linux distributions, very few innovate in anything (very few write anything apart an installer and package manager, very few create anything except a wallpaper and icons), all the rest comes from other projects.
Innovation finds its way onto major linux distributions after it appears elsewhere. Now some people involved in some distributions volunteer on some of the innovative open source projects, but that is usually after these projects have left the forefront of innovation. Neither is there that much innovation in the linux kernel, it is all about stabilisation and steady performance on multi cores these days (as it should be!!! don't mess with it!!!).
And while we are at it, gnome is not linux, kde is not linux, gimp is not linux, firefox is not linux, apache is not linux, perl is not linux, openoffice is not linux, reiserfs is not linux, iptables is not linux, mysql is not linux neither are the hundreds of librairies everything rests on, or the applications everyone uses, or the windows managers, or the games... oh sorry, i ranted about this already.
Josh:
AMEN AMEN AMEN!
Did I say AMEN? If not, AMEN!
I grow very tired of either an OS religious zealot or the ever popular amongst DC "Converted" or "Born again" OS Zealot. The last one really annoys me to no end because they act as thou this magical OS they have discovered is the best thing since sliced bread and often times will not admit to it's shortcomings.
The fact of the matter is, this NEW os that you have discovered is not that fantastic, it's just different. It's like getting rid of that toyota corolla you've owned for 10 years and buying a ford mustang. It's not some new technology (It is, but it's not like it just appeared recently), it's just a change from what you are used to which most people welcome.
iphigenie, I commend you on an outstanding post. Thank you for the outstanding read!
iphigenie:
I am rather agnostic when it comes to OSes...
my own desktop machine is windows xp. I own 4 licenses. I have tried multiple times to go full open source, and have at times at work for development machines. It has always had a multi boot option to another OS, OS/2, DLD ( a german linux distribution which was very nice, bought by suse around 97?), Suse, Slackware, BSD variants, opensolaris, but since the death of OS/2 (which was my main OS for about 4 years) it is almost always on windows. The main reason is a)games b)a few programs, (changed over time, was dreamweaver and freehand back then, now it is mostly email and information management - i am too young to have learned pine and as a result i need a good email client)
If i had to bring a novice to computers I would probably choose a linux based option right now. If it was a young child whom I also want to get hooked on messing about, I would pick a slackware or debian based desktop distribution, for example Vector, because it is nice to have a mature, non commercially minded, and meant-to-be-fiddled-with distribution underneath the GUI. For an adult who is wary (say, elderly parents) I would pick Ubuntu-based Mint (this week, it could be something else next week), or I would make them shell out for a mac or windows. After all this is what they are most likely to encounter elsewhere.
If i had to use an open source desktop to work, I suspect I would go for suse right now. I have known it a long time. Or I might go for a BSD or solaris based desktop, because that is what I would most likely be using on the servers, and it might make it easier. Vector was my desktop of choice in the early 2000s and it is getting new versions, so I might also revisit that.
Linux distribution when i just want to mess with things: Arch linux, for the compile-from-source power, and Slackware, for pure speed, clean efficiency, and unix like shape. If I want to mess not with the OS but with a new framework, say, or service, I go FreeBSD. 4 minutes to install the core, then about 5 minutes to get everything ready through ports, start the right portsinstall and let it download, install and compile all you need, pottering about and answering a question every few minutes (can be avoided with a script if you do it often)
For a server, say a mail or web server, I think I would still go for a BSD distribution as a default. Although Solaris is awfully sexy, I have been playing with it and that file system... that file system... If it had to be linux it would probably be debian.
For a file/corporate server, i might go opensolaris or even windows server (budget allowing).
cranioscopical:
Please don't come and tell me that your particular OS is the bestest of them all
--- End quote ---
Interesting posts :)
I suspect that many of us feel the same way.
Personally, I no longer much care which O/S I use as long as it gets the job done.
As you imply, any that I've used left a scent of "I wish this could do what X can do" hanging in the air.
Bless you, my child ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version