Linux is a pieve of crap compared to Windows 2000.

[ch_123]

Thats quite comical. Unfortunately your rant is not based on reality. CSRSS.exe(win32 subsystem) is one of the most stable pieces of code in Windows. Windows Safe mode relies on it.  As far as drivers go you can choose not to install any graphics drivers.

Irrelevant. Anything that runs in the background without needed is a potential liability. With software, it's only as stable or secure as long as long as problems don't show. GUIs are particularly problematic in the case of Windows because of how entangled into the working of the OS they are.

And if you don't install drivers, you're still using whatever default drivers that Windows has. How else would the GUI with that command prompt window work?

The UNIX spec has nothing to do with kernel modularity. Also the Linux kernel is anything but modular. Its a giant binary blob. Thats the reason there is never going to be a stable kernel ABI layer for many things such as display drivers. Something that NT had about 17 years ago.

It certainly appears that the lack of modularity in Windows is at least partially to do with the Windows OS architecture, so it's fair to say that Unix enjoys better inherent modularity over Windows. Either way, in practice just about any Unix-based system is miles ahead of Windows in terms of modularity, so it's something of a moot point.

Also, if the NT display driver architecture has been such a success for 17 years, how come they seem to change it every second release?

You're mistaken. MinWin is *already* in Windows 7 and server 2008. They're refactoring their codebase and while they're not going to make a new product with it they're using it to build a complete OS - aka Windows.

I said that MinWin was the underlying kernel being used in Windows 7 and Server 08 R2. You reply with "No, you're wrong, it's being used in Windows 7 and Server 2008". Apparently I'm missing your subtle genius here.

Thats it? Got any more refutations for imaginary points that I never made?

Well, you were the one who was talking about the great MS kernel that takes up 25MB of RAM, and how it could be the basis for embedded systems, so if you are so offended by your own ideas, I suggest keeping them to yourself.

[ch_123]

Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux.

If that was true, how come the repositories are distribution-specific?

[zefrer]

I read somewhere that the debate in the early 60s at IBM between a 6-bit or 8-bit byte almost caused fistfights in the hallways at Old Armonk...

Haha that's awesome and completely unsurprising considering Symbian went through the same 'fight' for their own OS. (they eventually had _two_ APIs, one for 6bit bytes and one for 8bit.. ever wonder why symbian is not considered very developer friendly? )

[instantkamera]

This is true. But, you can have a similar problem on the Linux side of things too. In the future its possible that hundreds and thousands of software vendors would want users to install software through their own repository. And guess what - The same problem of not having a sufficiently vetted white-list appears.

Its just a matter of scale. If tommorow all the commercial software on windows was available on Linux, who is going to employ people to test and verify that the software doesn't contain malware?  Heck even if it was all magically open sourced, who is going to sift through all that code and verify that its kosher?

Well technically apple does it right now. It's called the app store. Not that I believe they give a **** what the code looks like, but they pretend to. At least then the user has someone to blame for not keeping the riff-raff out.

I don't agree that popular proprietary software could be somewhat of a monkey wrench for linux.
Currently, the open source stuff has a proven model that works well. Strength in numbers. Linux users all suffer from the same problem: we can't run X piece of popular software. So the community tends to go through a phase of trial and error, where the bad software gets weeded out, and the better bits rise to the top. Since the community tends to "support" very few pieces of software for a given task (and we like to share our opinion), these software choices tend to propagate easily to the next user, and so on.
I like to think the same would apply if a good enough piece of prop. software was introduced into the fold (like photoshop). Having a community that likes to help others, but at the same time takes pride helping themselves, I have to think a big release like that would again, have the weight of numbers behind it. I can think of a couple pieces of software acutally where this is the case, opera being one of them.
The main reason though, that I don't think proprietary software will hurt the linux distribution model is that we are happy with the thousands of (free) tools we have that there IS no proprietary replacement for. This is also why I think a repo for windows would work. I really don't expect a big package like PS or Office etc to cause the user harm, it's the little utilities that you have to scour the net for that are more likely to be dubious.

[keyboardlover]

Dependencies are a problem in windows. Java, that is a dependency. .NET framework is a dependency. Python, perl, ruby ... all dependencies. The difference is that you are used to dealing with them. Doesn't make them any better, in fact, it's far worse. Often prebuilt binaries on a windows box try to bundle in the required libraries, add ons etc. This is really haphazard and can lead to software conflicts, duplicate versions, leftover registry **** etc etc.
All GOOD package managers for nix handle all this in stride.

All the dependencies you mentioned you typically install once (in both Linux and Windows) and fuggedaboutit (until you have to upgrade). Those aren't the dependencies I'm talking about. I'm talking about package-level dependencies due to the way binaries are created in Linux. For example, you want to install a package only to find out it depends on 6 other packages. THat kidn of stuff is very confusing for people coming from the Windows world where most things are quite nicely bundled. Actually I've never had software conflicts or duplicate version issues in either system. In Windows you do have the issue of leftover registry entries hanging around but it's a trade-off I'm willing to live with. Linux's lack of ease of installing pretty much everything is one of it's biggest weaknesses IMHO. I've yet to see a GUI package manager in Linux that isn't confusing and you can't expect people to use the command line to install,update,etc. I agree that when you know how to do this, it's a pretty slick system. But too confusing for new users. In the end it's all about usability anyway - that's what makes or breaks your software.

[ch_123]

But given that most decent package managers automate the dependency handling without any user intervention, what's the issue? It's not that much more different than installing, for example, a game under Windows which tells you during installation that you need to install DirectX, a multiplayer client, an anti-hack utility and some audio/video codecs.

[zefrer]

All the dependencies you mentioned you typically install once (in both Linux and Windows) and fuggedaboutit (until you have to upgrade). Those aren't the dependencies I'm talking about. I'm talking about package-level dependencies due to the way binaries are created in Linux. For example, you want to install a package only to find out it depends on 6 other packages. THat kidn of stuff is very confusing for people coming from the Windows world where most things are quite nicely bundled. Actually I've never had software conflicts or duplicate version issues in either system. In Windows you do have the issue of leftover registry entries hanging around but it's a trade-off I'm willing to live with. Linux's lack of ease of installing pretty much everything is one of it's biggest weaknesses IMHO. I've yet to see a GUI package manager in Linux that isn't confusing and you can't expect people to use the command line to install,update,etc. I agree that when you know how to do this, it's a pretty slick system. But too confusing for new users. In the end it's all about usability anyway - that's what makes or breaks your software.

Again very innacurate. To repeat once more, you are comparing two very different things. You can't compare a *nix package manager that can upgrade/install the entire OS to anything in the windows world because there is nothing in the windows world that can do that.

As for GUIs, ubuntu seem to have finally made a good one.

[keyboardlover]

keyboardlover, making a point that is absolutely, unquestionably factual and that I agree with?

I think hell froze over...

[db_Iodine]

There will always be 1% of the market that uses Linux on the Desktop.

I believe in diversity and  so do Canadian magazine editors.

Show Image

She's obviously suffering because someone cut the top of her head off.

[HaaTa]

But given that most decent package managers automate the dependency handling without any user intervention, what's the issue? It's not that much more different than installing, for example, a game under Windows which tells you during installation that you need to install DirectX, a multiplayer client, an anti-hack utility and some audio/video codecs.

One question, why the hell do you have to install DirectX every time you install a new game? This is $#%# retarded. Why the hell should you waste space and time reinstalling the same thing over and over again.

But yeah, Windows is a terrible environment for developing complex software using non-standard libraries (there should be no reason for me to point my compiler to the lib path of the dependencies I'm using with my compiler). And I'm not talking about .NET and the Microsoft libs, just everything else.

[fl1ckmasterflex]

GUIs are particularly problematic in the case of Windows because of how entangled into the working of the OS they are.

It is true that Win32 subsystem is almost entirely in kernel mode as compared to Xwindows.  However thats not sufficient reason to assume anything. Its a different design. Xwindows has its drawbacks too. Since it shares memory space with other user-loadable binaries, and I've seen this happen quite a few times, a rogue app can take down Xwindows (and all other running applications) while keeping the OS working (a hollow victory when faced with possible data loss from crashing the other running apps).

And if you don't install drivers, you're still using whatever default drivers that Windows has. How else would the GUI with that command prompt window work?

Yes, but it defaults to basic VGA drivers that don't interact much with the card. Thats what I meant. You don't need to install 3rd party drivers.

It certainly appears that the lack of modularity in Windows is at least partially to do with the Windows OS architecture, so it's fair to say that Unix enjoys better inherent modularity over Windows. Either way, in practice just about any Unix-based system is miles ahead of Windows in terms of modularity, so it's something of a moot point.

I think the issue is customization is not a necessary condition for a OS to be modular. One philosophy is that when writing desktop operating systems for mass usage you want to keep the number of possible configurations to a small amount to allow software developers to target the platform. They can write software assuming X,Y,Z, components are always going to be present. And subsequently you don't have to re-train your support staff to handle all possible configurations while troubleshooting.  Thats fine for your average user but for power users its a major downer not being able to customize the OS.

Also, if the NT display driver architecture has been such a success for 17 years, how come they seem to change it every second release?

I just gave an example of where it has a higher modularity index over the Linux kernel. A stable driver interface means a display driver author doesn't have to care about changes in the kernel and can just treat it as a blackbox.

I said that MinWin was the underlying kernel being used in Windows 7 and Server 08 R2. You reply with "No, you're wrong, it's being used in Windows 7 and Server 2008". Apparently I'm missing your subtle genius here.

I didn't word that correctly. What I meant to say was MinWin *is* Windows 7 & WS2008.  There is no separate kernel from the "normal" Windows kernel.

Well, you were the one who was talking about the great MS kernel that takes up 25MB of RAM, and how it could be the basis for embedded systems, so if you are so offended by your own ideas, I suggest keeping them to yourself.

Um, I merely pointed out a fact which surprises people - Which is that NT can be made to run on a much smaller resource budget. I didn't realize that it could be taken as trumpeting from the rooftops.

[keyboardlover]

I think the problem isn't just Linux, but also a problem with C/C++ in that it isn't really supported by a modern application framework that handles dependencies nicely, like Java or .NET. As such, Java packages do tend to be the easiest to install in both operating systems. The package dependency issue I'm referring to is similar to the DLL-Hell days of COM C/C++ on Windows systems. If you've worked on stuff like this, and worked on C/C++ applications in Linux, you know that these two environments are just as frustrating for developers and why.

[instantkamera]

I think the problem isn't just Linux, but also a problem with C/C++ in that it isn't really supported by a modern application framework that handles dependencies nicely, like Java or .NET. As such, Java packages do tend to be the easiest to install in both operating systems. The package dependency issue I'm referring to is similar to the DLL-Hell days of COM C/C++ on Windows systems. If you've worked on stuff like this, and worked on C/C++ applications in Linux, you know that these two environments are just as frustrating for developers and why.

I've been kinda glossing over one thing you seem to be insisting:

That no modern package manager has solved the dependency dilemma.


I believe you are wrong, I think there are a few that do just fine, they offer ease of use AND flexibility.

[keyboardlover]

Well, I disagree. But I am not a fanboi of either operating system. Can you say the same?

[ch_123]

It is true that Win32 subsystem is almost entirely in kernel mode as compared to Xwindows.  However thats not sufficient reason to assume anything. Its a different design. Xwindows has its drawbacks too. Since it shares memory space with other user-loadable binaries, and I've seen this happen quite a few times, a rogue app can take down Xwindows (and all other running applications) while keeping the OS working (a hollow victory when faced with possible data loss from crashing the other running apps).

X11 sucks big time, and recently it seems like there is serious interest in moving away from it (Canonical, Intel, Nokia and others planning to move to Wayland in the not-too-distant future). But the thing about X is that at least I have the choice to get rid of it if I don't want to use it.

Even if we assume that the Windows GUI is not a liability, how much RAM is it using up that wouldn't be used otherwise? If I have a data center with a thousand Windows server boxes, what many gigabytes of RAM do I lose to something that no one is ever going to interface with? People pay through their teeth for server RAM these days, it would be nice if the OS didn't waste it.

I think the issue is customization is not a necessary condition for a OS to be modular. One philosophy is that when writing desktop operating systems for mass usage you want to keep the number of possible configurations to a small amount to allow software developers to target the platform. They can write software assuming X,Y,Z, components are always going to be present. And subsequently you don't have to re-train your support staff to handle all possible configurations while troubleshooting.  Thats fine for your average user but for power users its a major downer not being able to customize the OS.

The real problem comes of course when not even the manufacturer can properly customize the OS themselves because they don't understand what two decades worth of development has done to the design. You could even question the intelligence of anyone thinking that an OS design can be both a good desktop AND good server OS at the same time, but that's another debate.

I didn't word that correctly. What I meant to say was MinWin *is* Windows 7 & WS2008.  There is no separate kernel from the "normal" Windows kernel.

Yeah, I think I might have phrased my point wrong myself there.

Um, I merely pointed out a fact which surprises people - Which is that NT can be made to run on a much smaller resource budget. I didn't realize that it could be taken as trumpeting from the rooftops.

The problem is that people did trumpet about it and acted as if MS was going to release a Windows derivative that can run on tiny amounts of RAM. Guess I developed something of an allergic reaction to it

One question, why the hell do you have to install DirectX every time you install a new game? This is $#%# retarded. Why the hell should you waste space and time reinstalling the same thing over and over again.

Companies make bad software that installs onto the machines of the customer in stupid ways. This is not limited to Windows as I discovered the hard way when I tried to install the Intel C++ compiler onto something that wasn't Red Hat...

[zefrer]

KL, can you provide actual evidence/example of what you are insisting is correct? Because I know for a fact what you are saying is not the case.

It maybe that the last time you used Linux was with early versions of Redhat which did not in fact resolve any dependencies. Still, does not make what you're saying right.

[instantkamera]

Well, I disagree. But I am not a fanboi of either operating system. Can you say the same?

Nope, I guess not. I have preference. Shame on me.

[keyboardlover]

KL, can you provide actual evidence/example of what you are insisting is correct? Because I know for a fact what you are saying is not the case.

I already did, and Kishy agreed. Use both systems for any extended period of time. The proof is in the pudding! And if you "know" it's not correct, then prove it!

It maybe that the last time you used Linux was with early versions of Redhat which did not in fact resolve any dependencies. Still, does not make what you're saying right.

Nope, the last time I used Linux was on my Kubuntu 10.04 machine. I've been using Linux for 5+ years. Windows much longer. (And developing/building/installing software much longer).

[ch_123]

How is the dependency 'issue' under Linux different to that under Windows? From what you've said, it appears the same issues affect the two equally.

[keyboardlover]

How is the dependency 'issue' under Linux different to that under Windows? From what you've said, it appears the same issues affect the two equally.

Well that was correct, in the Windows COM days (before .NET).
Not anymore. Windows has cleaned up their operating system and application framework a lot since those days.

Linux still needs to catch up...

[zefrer]

Show me, not with words, an example of this problem you speak of.

[ch_123]

Only time I've seen problems with dependencies under Linux is with either outdated software, or proprietary software (which is usually outdated too). Otherwise, in my many years of using Linux, I've never been affected by it for just about anything else.

[keyboardlover]

Show me, not with words, an example of this problem you speak of.

Can I show you with a hyperlink then?

Although these repositories are often huge it is not possible to have every piece of software in them, so dependency hell can still occur. In all cases, dependency hell is still faced by the repository maintainers. Examples of these systems include Apt, Yum, Urpmi, ZYpp, Portage, Pacman and others.

[zefrer]

I know what dependency hell means, thanks

You still have not shown an example of where and how dependency hell occurs in a linux distribution from a user's point of view.

From the article you just linked:

Dependency hell is a colloquial term for the frustration of some software users who have installed software packages which have dependencies on specific versions of other software packages [1]. This was mainly attributable to old Linux package managers. Current package managers have largely solved this problem by automatically resolving and downloading dependencies.

Emphasis my own. So, again, you are saying dependency hell still occurs in modern linux distributions? Show me.

[keyboardlover]

Emphasis my own. So, again, you are saying dependency hell still occurs in modern linux distributions? Show me.

No, I'm saying that in terms of the user's perspective, the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing. More so than in the majority of Windows application installs, where everything is nicely bundled. What the user experiences, is a result of how well the operating system's package management/install tool handles such dependencies (or the package that's being installed itself). The issues are a result of all those things.

I don't know how you want me to show you. Use the ****ing operating systems, compare them, and you'll see for yourself.

[zefrer]

No, I'm saying that in terms of the user's perspective, the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing. More so than in the majority of Windows application installs, where everything is nicely packaged. What the user experiences, is a result of how well the operating system's package management/install tool handles such dependencies (or the package that's being installed itself). The issues are a result of all those things.

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

You're not making much sense, sorry man

[keyboardlover]

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

That's not true in all cases. It all depends on the structure of the package you're installing. I'm sorry I can't name a package off the top of my head to give you as an example. But I know that it happens and I've seen these issues.

I'm sure even if you search Ubuntu's forum (install/build section probably) you'll see many examples of what I'm talking about.

[instantkamera]

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

You're not making much sense, sorry man

yeah, I call BS.

[instantkamera]

That's not true in all cases. It all depends on the structure of the package you're installing. I'm sorry I can't name a package off the top of my head to give you as an example. But I know that it happens and I've seen these issues.

I'm sure even if you search Ubuntu's forum (install/build section probably) you'll see many examples of what I'm talking about.

So now it's not all deps, it's ones you don't have an example of. Meanwhile, I'm sure no user has ever had issues installing software on a windows box. I think your NON fanboyism is getting to your head.

[keyboardlover]

Well Kishy agreed with me, so apparently I'm not the only person on the board whose experienced this.

What I'm saying is that in my experience, I've seen fewer issues installing things in Windows, and I gave reasons why that is. I don't understand what part of that anyone has an issue with, at this point.