KCLUG --> KCMUG?

[Tony Hammitt]

Actually, it's obvious you actually know how to use both windoze and
Unix-based OSes.  And it seems like you want your windoze systems to be as
much like Linux as is possible.

My main point is that I can spend about 5 minutes of my actual time setting
up a fully usable, scriptable, great-looking GUI system with Linux and it
would take, what, a couple of days to set up a windoze system to have the
special software required to try to have the same functionality?  Plus the
fact that you have to pay so much for windoze and all of the special
software, plus your time.  Then you have to justify why this server or that
client box needs to have all these special tools to whoever typically
complains about such.  Then when you have to use some other box, you don't
have any of your familiar tools at all.

In short, using Linux is just plain easier.  And cheaper.

I realize that some unfortunate people are actually stuck with that
travesty they call Windows.  And they aren't allowed, mostly, to install
any of the useful tools you get to use to make your system more Linux-like.
Weren't they going to get rid of the command prompt in windozeME?  Then
people are stuck with the slow crappy GUI tools for _everything_, even
when it's inefficient as hell.  I'm really glad I hardly ever use windoze!

I pity windoze users.  That's really all I have to say about the issue.

Later,

	Tony

Dustin Decker wrote:
> 
> 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 stuck with the crappy, out-of-date windoze GUI or the ancient archaic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"
>