[NEWS] 'Linux is too much like Windows'
LINUXCPA at netscape.net
Tue Dec 31 17:16:30 CST 2002
adam.smith at sageautomation.com wrote:
>>People choose Windows because the available (commercial)
>>support is much
>>more mature and the platform is unified.
>>Unix people can't even agree on standard email formats let
>>alone a standard architecture - it's the great undoing of
>>Linux and Window's strength.
>And since when could Windows do these things?
My point is this...in Windows, you generally do not have a separation
between the application and its configuration, or if you do, it is
intermingled with other configurations. I agree that this is inferior
architecture, and yes a weakness.
However, you don't need to know or understand any of the below to use
Windows and it shouldn't be that way for Linux.
This is a *much _stronger weakness_* its a weakness that keeps Linux off
95% of the desktops. Windows' weakness will not be exploited untill the
stronger weakness is solved in Linux.
Linux has to be just as easy to use, or it will go on unused, which, to
me is a tragedy.
Linux is educational, but at the same time, very difficult to accomplish
things *for a beginner* because it requires that you understand a lot of
the things listed below, and it shouldn't have to be that way. As a
result, it takes an unjustifiable amount of time or money to learn it.
>A) STANDARD EMAIL FORMATS
>Outlook is full of inconsistent formats. From RTF to HTML, to Plain
>Text -- If you set Outlook to PLAIN TEXT MODE it will *always* reply to
>an RTF email in RTF. And use those annoying blue lines. It's most
>frustrating. Consistency, maturity, unified? Hah! It even removes
>line breaks for you and messes up emails unless you turn that feature
>Unix has a brilliant cross-platform architecure that allows flexibility,
>like being able to run Linux programs under BSD, or being able to copy
>configs from any distribution and throw them straight into another. I
>wouldn't dare do that on Windows. Imagine copying registry settings
>from Windows NT4.0 to Windows 2000!
>Or are you referring to the fact that there are different locations for
>/etc directories, and the like, according to distribution? If so, let's
>take a look at Windows.
>Windows 98 - C:\WINDOWS
>Windows NT - C:\WINNT
>Windows 2000 - C:\WINNT
>Windows XP - C:\WINDOWS
>Red Hat - /
>FreeBSD - /
>Debian - /
>Windows 98 - C:\WINDOWS *or* C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\login name
>Windows NT - C:\WINNT\PROFILES\%username%
>Windows 2000 - C:\Documents and Settings\%username%
>Windows XP - C:\Documents and Settings\%username%
>Red Hat - /home, /usr/home
>FreeBSD - /home [symlink], /usr/home
>Debian - /home
>Windows 98 - C:\WINDOWS\TEMP
>Windows NT - <not sure, possibly
>Windows 2000 - C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Local Settings\Temp
>Windows XP - C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Local
>RedHat - /tmp
>FreeBSD - /tmp
>Debian - /tmp
>OK, so you could also argue that Windows 95 and Windows NT are different
>architectures, and you're right, they are. But overall consistency?
>Not really. I'd say that's comparitively gross. Sure you can specify
>where you want to install Windows to, but at least under Linux, it's
>consistent. You have specific directories that do specific things, and
>although they all exist in the same logical directory, their mount
>points are irrelevant. Windows is entirely different. Windows'
>Strength? NO! WEAKNESS!!
>Additionally, why are you responding to emails without quoting anything?
>I have no idea what you're responding to if you don't quote.
>Information Technology Officer
>SAGE Automation Ltd.
>adam.smith at sageautomation.com
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape!
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/ IRC: #linuxsa on irc.openprojects.net
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
mail linuxsa-request at linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject
More information about the linuxsa