IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Gauntlet (What's missing in windows?)

0 helpful
320 replies

by ungle 5 views

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I've been reading/participating in the discussion around OS bashing. My impression is that people have a favorite OS and will bash others out of, primarily, ignorance.

This is particularly predominant with Windows bashing by the Linux group.

Having worked with about everything, I have favorites for particular tasks (Windows on the desktop, Linux for Web, Sun for rich people, for example. Not necessarily saying they are the best, mind you. Just my preference) and I feel they are all pretty much on a par. However, I'm most interested in the Linux crowd who like to bash Windows.

Let's here specifics from the Linux crowd ("I can do this, can you?") and see if the Windows admins/developers can't answer their doubts.

320 replies

by akalinowski

I dont feel windows is secure so i use HP-UX or Redhat(linux) for my mission critical servers, nothing beats AD, i'm sorry, its easy, and it works (for the most part)

on the desktop, its a close tie between OSX
only reason i've been sticking w/ windows on the desktop is because of the ease of management between AD and windows XP

for laptops, i have been using Mac's (unless some a windows only app is needed)

and at home i use a windows box only because battlefield2 isnt on the mac :)

by oz_media

Having grown into a Novell environment, I prefer NDS as far as capacity and security and overall manageability goes.

by cyberjunkie21

Wow, I didn't know if there was anyone besides my main network admin who likes NDS. NDS doesn't offer any capacity or security over AD. I've always thought it makes sense to add a third-party client software to a pre-existing windows desktop environment. Talk about safety.

by mmcdonal

The Microsoft philosophy has always been to create installs with the product WIDE open, and leave it up to the administrator to close the security holes as they saw fit.
The bigger problem is that MCSE training never included instruction on how to close the security holes in Microsoft products.
A properly maintained and secured MS Server can do as well as a Linux server against attacks.
The biggest problem is that since MS is found in practically everyone's server farm, it makes sense to write your malware for the OS that is most likely to be found.
Mark my words, if Linux overwhelms MS and completely takes over the market, malware will be written for Linux exclusively, and succeed as well as it does now for MS. People will bemoan Linux then, and some will long for the relatively secure days of MS.
We use NetWare in our network (updating to MS in a year or so) and we are super secure because no one writes malware for NetWare. Why bother!?! No one uses NetWare.
If you want a name for yourself in the black hat arena, you have to write malware for what's out there, and what will most likely propagate your code.

by gphoto45

Windwos 2003 server, SP1 and XP Sp2 solve your "wide open" problem. They ae locked down by default. Not wide open. However, I agree completely with your thoughts on why malware is rare for Linux. Now that it is becoming more mainstream, virus, spyware and exploits are hitting it. Even a simple fork attack will drop most linux, with the noted exception of Debian. That attack stopped effecting Windows with 98. As for the vulnerabilities, a lot of people are more than a little shocked to visit http://www.osvdb.org/search.php and find the Nix OS's have almost as many problems ass Windows.
I noticed that when Firefix was found to have a huge hole in it, and had to be completely rewritten, there was no way to patch it. When the exploit was found in Kerberos, a critical exploit that allowed anyone to access your security, only aa single line mentioned that exploit did not affect Windows, just Nix os's. If it has been th other way around, it would have been headlines. Linux has a great PR machine. And it is best to remmebe that a Fanatic with a befeif is far more dangerous that and Hell Angel with a chain.

by Member 30634329

Just take a look at the official Resource Kit for any version of Windows to find all the little goodies that should have been in the operating system but aren't.
Just a couple of examples:

1) Event Log management. As any admin knows, Windows event logs contain important troubleshooting information, but aside from basic size and overwrite parameters, there's no native way to manage the events.

2) Auditing and Reporting. There is no good native way to audit and report on system and file security.

There are plenty of companies who will charge you thousands (even hundreds of thousands) for software that was developed to handle "missing" tasks like these. I've also used ADSI and WMI scripting to create automated reports and audits. But the OS should have native capability for this.

by ungle

I understand the complaint, but please remember that these tools under Linux are simply applications sitting on top of the OS.

I have written several different applications for doing just what you describe. I have scripts to dump the security of the entire directory structure, analyze event logs, and in fact have automated reports sent out every morning with this data within my company.

I don't believe the functionality is missing, personally, and I'me sure you can find good tools like this on Sourceforge (for example) which is probably where they originated for Linux.

by krichmond

I was under the impression that WMI and ADSI were both "native" to windows. On another note there are many other functions you can perform with standard windows Event viewer interface. You can order the items on any field, you can filter the view on specific error numbers, decription, or date, and other paramerters. You can connect to and view any event viewer on any windows machine to which you permissions. You can export the contents as csv or text files to be imported and manipulated by manym any tools, such as excel, access, crystal reports (crystal reports will connect and format event viewer info out of the box), the equivelant star office products, etc. None of the prodicts listed even come close to the thousands of dollrs you mention in the post. Lets not forget either, that the resource kit doumentation and tools can also be downloaded for microsoft at no cost to the consumer. You can use SNMP and an SNMP trap server to pick up real time events.
Remember the event viewer is a reactive tool not a proactive tool. If you are trying to use the event system as a tool to help proactively prevent a failure, then maybe SNMP would be a better choice. SNMP support is also freely included with the windows operating systems.

by lord deonast

You can get SMS server for monitoring and collecting event information and server status data. All data is collected into an SQL database.

Of course you will also pay a pretty penny for this, M$ is about making money, they will supply you with basic tools - to get the more advanced and perhaps easier to use functionality you will have to expect to pay for it. M$ don't write tools for the love of it, like some open source programmers.

Open up that corporate cheque book, dig deep into that budget and see if it is worth it.

by oz_media

It's what's there that is. I use a mix myself but other than on my personal notebook, I prefer SuSE Linus for it's leightweight in corporate environments.

I prefer a less cumbersome and unused feature ridden OS.

Other than that, there have been some good comments on how Windows could improve the search function in the one-sided BASHING you refer to.

I don't see it as bashing, as much as an example of how many IT people in so many different areas of expertise prefer Linux flavours.

by ungle

Yes, there has been some good suggestions, and yes I agree that there are a number of unnecessaries in Windows (Have you ever done a default install of Redhat??).

However, there was a lot of "Microsoft sux" from people who did not want to really expand on what they felt was inherintly bad in Windows. I'm more interested in what people feel is so horrible about the OS and see if it is not simply a case of not knowing how to achieve what they want. To me it felt like a witch hunt.

I really mean this as a legitimate attempt to find out what people dislike so vehimently about the OS, I apologize if you do not agree with what I am trying to do.

by oz_media

Search the TR archives, this one's been done to death and even with the same premise for replies.

More of an old worn pair of slippers than a gauntlet. Sorry, but that's the way it is here.

by jez

I used to be a 'windows sux' linux user, but now i feel there is are some good uses for every OS.

I like to know what is going on in my system and i always felt shut out from windows... error messages that are incomprehensible and unsolvable annoyed about windows - and the documentation was useless.

But the main reason i use Linux is because of the wealth of applications out there for free. The initial learning curve may be steep but it is worth it and now i know how windows works much better (especially the boot process).

I have never had a virus on Linux, and when a site tries to download malware it is amusing to watch it fail.

HOWEVER, I recently got my 75year old uncle onto the internet with his first computer and yes i installed windows. I would like to have put linux on there, but i am not confident enough in the state of the desktop for a complete novice user.
I myself am currently having fun (?) trying to get my DVD burner working in Linux and also my PVR card. If i was not a developer, I would probably feel a little differently about hacking config files etc.

Now six months on from his first computer, my uncle has told me that when he upgrades he wants a mac. (he has taken to the whole computer thing better than i could have ever hoped).
His reason is that it does not get virus'.
I myself have toyed with the idea of getting a mac (cos they are like linux with out the hardcore config), but they are too expensive for me at the moment.

Windows works on the idea that anyone should be able to just work it. This is a respectable ideal, but is a bit short sited as it leaves so many holes for expert hacker to take advantage of.
Would you allow people on the road without any kind of driving training?

There is a place for everything, and sooner or later the place for windows is in the bin (once you have prgressed to anything but a complete novice).

by fadelza

The fact that windows users accept as a fact of life that they have to reformat and reinstall everything once a year astonishes me. In my old Mac days I never had to do that and un-installing a program was as simple as draging and drpoing to the trashcan of the program's directory. Can anyone in the window's camp beat that?

by nick

After I get a new copy of windows my wallet does
seem to be lighter compared to when I get a new
distro release.
But I really think windows has its place, I just
dont have a real need for it anywhere near me. It
can sit on a couple desktops and run Dreamweaver
and Photoshop, yes cxoffice is nice but it is a
little slow.

by alex.hart

Well I think msot Windows IT profesionals just ignore all the ranting and raveing. So you tend to hear only from those IT people that are Linux supporters. I personally like Windows and use it (just wish it was cheaper - R/$). But does not mean I do not use other o/s when it would serve better. I find that the hardcore Linux users bash windows and use Linux for everything even when it does not server the purpose.

And lets not get into the "FREE" and "OPEN SOURCE" argument becuase we all know if everything was really open source and free. Then msot IT pro's would die of starvation.

Just my two bits. :-)

by tony hopkinson

Separation of user level priveleges and space from system/kernel ones. 90% of the complaints of your so called ignorant linux crowd raise about windows come from that one architectural decision.

In your spare time explain

Why on a server I have to carry the overhead of a GUI.

Also one I'm really interested in as a programmer, what can be done to successfully propagate error conditions though the multitude of excutables in the OS so the actual fault is reported correctly as opposed to to the one some bored programmer decided to test for and report 30,000 instructions later. Admittedly there's no specific reason aside from peer review why you couldn't write such pathetic code for a linux box but this sort of foolishness is abundant in windows code.

by ungle

I appreciate you actually trying for the spirit of the discussion.

I myself have wondered about the unnecessary overhead of a GUI. When I first moved into the Windows environment it was my first complaint, in fact.

Since then I've discovered that the overhead seems to be minimal (especially when no one is logged on) and the ease of building GUI apps makes it worthwhile, in my opinion, as does the simplified administration.

I agree with the bad programming and error reporting of software. I spent several years in the Windows engineering department of a company trying to teach the inhouse developers the error of their ways! I'd have trouble classifying it as an OS issue, though.

I have to be honest, I'm still trying to ascertain the differences between Windows and Linux with regards to User/system(Kernel) separation. You want to expand on that?

Finally, I did not want to suggest that the Linux crowd is ignorant. I maintain a fairly large pool of Linux servers and find them stable and really good at the tasks I assign them. As do I find the Windows servers...

by tony hopkinson

code, can't fix MS's though and they can't be bothered.
As for the no GUI, the overhead is in ten fact that it's closely coupled with the OS.

The Linux way is to separate the the user insterfaces from the code that performs the actions. This is the same as the split that should exist between a windows service and it's service control application window.

by wdewey

Netware and Linux allow you to start the GUI from the command prompt. This gives the capability and ease of use without even the minimal overhead.

Bill Dewey

by xrayecho

"I have to be honest, I'm still trying to ascertain the differences between Windows and Linux with regards to User/system(Kernel) separation. You want to expand on that?"

I could never do a better job of that than the folks over at radsoft.net.
http://www.radsoft.net/resources/rants/20040731,00.html
This is admittedly a rant by some one who hates MS, but buried in the bitterness and ire are some very key concepts.

Among them are:

Give each user their own 'Program Files' area. Only system modules should be global. Add-on or third party software should never enter a system area.

Do not allow use of system modules by other than a superuser or administrator.

Do not allow directory modifications to system areas. This means files in these areas may not be modified or deleted, nor can they be renamed, nor can new files be added.

Do not allow dynamic privilege escalation through code. Allow privilege escalation only through file permissions and regulated authentication.

Make sure no files on the system are writable by everybody.

It goes on, but if you read the entire article you will know more about security, and why windows will never have it, than 90% of the MCSE's who infest the IT environment.

by mtg42

In the late 90s, (when my tech stocks were worth something) I considered getting a new Toyota Land Cruiser. When I talked to people who owned one, the biggest problem with the Land Cruiser was that you had to get it from a Toyota dealer. I'll paraphrase that thought, and say one of the biggest issues with Windows is that you tie yourself (and your future) to Microsoft. That may be an acceptable risk for a home user, but I think it's not wise for a business.

by jaqui

during install it installs all sorts of stuff, most of which I've never had any use for.
( like the online services that was absolutely required by the 9x series )

why is netmeeting and outlook express and windows messenger required to be installed?
why, if you uninstall them, can you not remove the directories from the program files tree?

why can I not have a console ONLY interface? I hate having to loose 20% of system resources to a gui.

why will windows not start firewall, av, adware scanners, until AFTER the user logs in?

why, when the stated intention of the version called nt ( which includes 2k and xp ) was interoperability with other os, including reading other file systems, does the os still lack the ability to recognise any non ms file system?
( despite ms claims that win nt would do so? )

by tomsal

Part of what I meant with trimming the fat...

You know how much of a performance kick our systems would get if there was a "console" only mode? I'd say probably even 25% gain wouldn't be unrealistic to expect.

Excellent point about how the av/spam scanners don't start until AFTER you are logged in.

Finally yep -- I want Firefox not IE -- don't even install it. I never use messenger...E-V-E-R so why do I have to have it? Same thing for Outlook express.

by oz_media

I have NEVER used Messenger in my life. Never wanted to, never needed to, never have.

I have NEVER evem USED Outlook Express (other than troubleshooting someone else's system), never intentionally installed it, never configured it, never used it mself, never will.

But I have paid for it several times and I have been forced to fix it several times all the same.

by peter_es_uk

The real delight of any *nix is literally everything is a small add-on to the underlying operating system. You can start a server or a workstation in a kernel of your own choice (and design and compilation if that's what turns you on) and start and stop a gui of your own choice whenever you want.

IMHO a fantastic productivity boost is the ability to switch between different desktops, terminals and kernels - I miss that a lot when I'm mucking about with Windows.

But Linux still doesn't have the level of driver support of Windows - I still use Windows 2000 for support of my Casio exilim digital cam!

by tomsal

I don't know about everyone else but one constant thing I can't stand is the bloat of Windows.

Maybe my 3 ghz machine at home would be even faster if Windows wasn't so damn bloaty. I think they could code much more efficiently and streamline some things -- making apps load faster, windows open/close faster, etc. (heck make the OS itself load faster).

Btw, save your "its your computer not the OS" arguments -- I'm talking on more computers than just mine at home. And varying specs on each box. I'm no apple lover myself -- but I gotta tell you my buddy's Tiger OS seems a helluva lot faster than XP with opening apps and just general "gui fluidity". (yes I just made that term up).

It would be nice if security was for real on a Windows OS as well, instead of the joke it is right now with Microsoft.

A more efficient file system would be a plus as well and one that didn't take 9283 hours to index a stinking 200 gb drive.

Better memory management...granted XP has come a LONG way from 3.1 in this area, but still it could be improved - this would help increase the OS's overall stability for general use.

Oh yeah and one more thing, Microsoft --- the next time you make a pitch for an OS at the "professional world" -- in fact even putting the word "professional" in a product's title ...can you please take out all the cartoony/kiddie features and animations please?

Thank you!

by firstpeter

I would throw my hat in the ring on the file system. I was SO looking forward to WinFS in Longhorn/Vista/Name-Du-Jour, but alas - my dreams were dashed.

I'd also echo the bloat. Understanding that a large portion of that bloat is related to trying to be backwards compatible...stop trying to give me compatibility back to 3.1. Or at least give me the option to have a "scaled down" version that's more efficient without the ability to use old 98 apps. (and I do understand the implications of that request, but heck - I thought we were dreaming here...)

by bfilmfan

If they took out support for anything but AD-aware clients, half the world would break that is running these old home-grown DOS , Windows 9x and NT applications.

Frankly, I think Microsoft should take the stand that they won't support this older technology and move forward with new operating systems.

Companies could see if it would run on a Novell, Linux or Unix box or whatever they could cobble together. And the argument that there are other versions is not part of the challenge. You have to make DoodleDOS9XAccounting 2X run on those systems as the companies don't want to spend any money to upgrade. I think a lot of the Linux folks wouldn't want this challenge at all and would wisely use the MS line, "It doesn't work on the new platform anymore..."

And has anyone noticed that Microsoft hasn't (as of yet) challenged any companies pushing the (free) Linux as violating "free-trade" as they don't charge for the software or licenses?
Anyone happen to remember that was exactly what got Microsoft in trouble? I am rather suprised their lawyers haven't flooded the FTC with complaints about using their own schemes against them.

What does Microsoft do better than ANY other company in the world? Marketing. They have convinced the majority of the people in the world that they sell the best software. And as long as most people believe that, all the other operating systems will be a percentage of the market.

by csappenfield

isn't what does Linux do that Windows doesn't, but rather, what does Windows do that an OS shouldn't? Windows is more like a suite of applications than an OS. In order to make things "easy" for people to use, Microsoft has made Windows far more complex than an OS should be, and that's why it has more security issues than Linux, and that's why it's not as stable as Linux. What Microsoft needs to do is hire some real engineers (not software "engineers") to dismantle that Rube Goldberg contraption, and decide what belongs in the OS, and what belongs in an application.
And when the do, they'll just rebuild Unix.

by firstpeter

Especially with the push to use virtual technologies. I run a full network on my development desktop - Windows 98 on one VM, 2000 on another, and XP on a third, all routed to a Win2K3 server.

If the real issue is backwards compatibility purchase a virtual machine license for each PC/server that needs it there you go. MS could make their licensing a little easier to deal with, too...

by bfilmfan

Open Enterprise Server (OES) does not support NetWare 3.1X.

Want to take a guess at how many Novell 3.1X installations are still lurking around out there?

Tons I can tell ya.

Because there is no support for IPX or IPX compatilibty mode (SCMD) on Linux, the OES Linux servers cannot communicate with any of the NetWare 4 servers.

That could cause a LARGE issue in Linux-driven shops that just happen to have a Novell server lying about.

My point was that a huge amount of the bloat in Windows is from supporting anient technologies. No other vendor in the world supports 15 year-old technology, but if Microsoft doesn't do it, then everyone is screaming.

by pgm554

I love VMware,but M$ has got to look at what VMware can do to a Windows activation scheme.

Suppose you create an XP orW2K3 machine,because the machine is virtualized,you can clone it after registration and move it to any other machine and not have to worry about the HW activation popping up because it is on a different piece of hardware.

Because all of the HW is virtualized ,the HW activation is essentially defeated and M$ can't do a thing about it.

And with ESX,it really takes care of all the M$ actvation garbage.

by doproiu9

I myself have wondered about the unnecessary overhead of a GUI. When I first moved into the Windows environment it was my first complaint, in fact.

Since then I've discovered that the overhead seems to be minimal (especially when no one is logged on) and the ease of building GUI apps makes it worthwhile, in my opinion, as does the simplified administration.

I agree with the bad programming and error reporting of software. I spent several years in the Windows engineering department of a company trying to teach the inhouse developers the error of their ways! I'd have trouble classifying it as an OS issue, though.

I have to be honest, I'm still trying to ascertain the differences between Windows and Linux with regards to User/system(Kernel) separation. You want to expand on that?

Bills,
http://www.my-credit-directory.co.uk/

by jaqui

the cpu has rings where different functions are supposed to go through.

ring 0: kernel
ring 1: system services
ring 2: ( can't remember right now )
ring 3: user space

windows treats all 4 as one ring.
linux uses all 4 as they were intended.
that's where windows really breaks the security rule

it's in the kernel firmware that user apps get restricted / are subject to authorisation when starting an app.

windows bypasses this.
( not even the little issue of 90% of windows machines are running as admin all the time, with unlimited / unrestricted access included in the security of windows design flaw )

by mike

I think that if the server had a console only version, then we would have admin tools, using gui's that ran on other conputers, like your laptop. This way you would have access to admin the box from somewhere else, and be able to use the nice gui from your os. Having the OS run the gui on each of my 20+ servers, is a total waste of time. Mostly i only use RDC to connect to the box, when i cant do something using MMC.

If there was a non-gui version, maybe the mmc woudl be better, and have more snap-ins.

by oz_media

Wow, nobody I deal with woul dget away with it. I upgrade clients or won't bother dealing with them to begin with.

Novell has SO MUCH MORE to offer since the 3.11 days. My god, it's barely the same NOS. I assume that these installations would not be for client server issues though, perhaps just some backend stuff or otherwise in very outdated businesses?

by ungle

Not quite sure about the refernece to the split between the Windows Services and the control window application.

The service control manager is not a windowed application - there's no link to and user interface. However, ther is a MMC object that can TALK to the service control manager to report the status of the services.

Can you expand on your meaning here?

by tony hopkinson

I was referring to. Service control manager or any other service does not have to carry the overhead of a UI, nor is it in anyway concerned with how the UI is implemented, all it has to do is make correctky formatted commands to the service. A lot of 'nix applications are written like this, which is why you can have a commandline of graphical UI or any other sort you can think up with the same program.

by beilstwh

One of the biggest differences is that I has a linux oracle database server which ran with NO problems or stability issues for 2 years and a windows oracle server that got slower and slower and more unstable if it wasn't rebooted at least once a month.

by angelohl

I've been a WindBlow$ fan for a long time...but now that I'm a freakin network guru, I use it only for games :o) ...lol.
Seriously though, windblow$ took after the Mac and made it easy for anyone to use a pc (and get one in every home), so nowadays it requires very little skill to use. Now, I'm pushing all my clients to goto Linux (RedHat is my favorite), simply becuase MS has forgotten about us, the people who got them/it where they/it is today - and their customer service sucks the big kahona, if it's broke, it's a buzzword - "it's an Undocumented feature", and we've constantly been pushed to learn new OS's and get certifications only to have the ball dropped quite a few times that it "will no longer be supported".... Anyway, on the linux side, there are far too many tools and software packages that get the job done "for free" that you'd spend an arm and a leg for on the M$ side of the house... Oh, did I mention security??!! Linux is secure right out of the box - and M$, well, security is an after-thought....and, do things stay fixed in the M$ world? NO... Well, i'm sure there are pro's and cons for both (but significantly fewer on the Linux side - and probably only the lack of cots software available for it) but, I'm pushing Linux folks... Shhhhh, don't tell M$, or I could be stripped of my MCSE credentials....oops.

by mcollins1

I think the whole problem with switching from Windows to Linux (As I myself have done on my home machine), is that it is not compatible with the Windows file system (Without installing an additional application). I think the problem with the whole idea of this is that, like ti or not, the majority of the world's computers are running Windows. For users to switch across there has to be a level of compatibility, otherwise people will simply give up trying and stick with Microsoft.
From a personal perspective, i honestly feel that for the average home user, Windows is ideal. User's tend toi be brought up using Windows environments, and generally the same will be said for anyone learning to use an os.
I feel that Linux will always be seen as "Techy" and "complicated" because it is something very different.
While I'm with the arguements on command line vs. gui, the average user is going to want to see pretty pictures,a dn click on buttons, rather than learn a new language to be able to control their machine.
In my experience, Windows and Linux servers are both about as reliable as eachother, but I will agree that Windows has a lot of unavoidable Bloatware.
Macintosh are making their machines more compatible with Windows, and I honestly feel that Linux will go down the same route eventually...
It's all a personal choice at the end of the day! Anything to add, anyone?

by jimbaber

we, as IT people keep looking at this from an "us" perspective all the time. WE are not the point. WE are a necessary evil in most cases. Our companies can't function without us, but rarely do we produce the product or services that our company sells. The people that are important are the end users of our systems, and to them, windows is familiar and easier than anything else to use. That's what they want. security holes, bloaty gui, etc., etc., that's OUR problem guys, not theirs.

by kevinf

I take issue with this comment. "What does Microsoft do better than ANY other company in the world? Marketing. They have convinced the majority of the people in the world that they sell the best software. And as long as most people believe that, all the other operating systems will be a percentage of the market."

More like they have crammed some flawed system down everyone's throat and the vast majority of people or not smart enough to figure out how to say "hell on this, we'll use something else."

by azariatech

Glass Half Full / Glass Half Empty

Whichever perspective you choose, it's still the same glass with the same water.

by johnaaaaaa16

I guess it is true, people love to bash the guy on top. Isn't what's important the fact that most people use Windows so most companies use Windows so most people use Windows?

Nobody is being forced here. Each person is making a conscious decision. You think companies choose Windows because the executives are stupid?

I've been an IT consultant for 10 years and from my experience, if you can making a compelling argument for a change in technology, you can get your way at just about any company. Everyone is looking for ways to save money. If you can show a company how they can save a big chunk of money every year on software licenses by using Linux, present that. They'll listen. Just be prepared to answer some serious questions. If you respond with "Well, you'd show how smart you are by choosing something other than Microsoft" you'd be laughed out of the office.

Back to the original post, what are the real points? Some extra GUI overhead? The fact that Windows doesn't give me access to the source code? I've yet to meet an IT exec who wants to build their own flavor of an operating system.

Compelling business arguments. That's all they ask for.

by jimbaber

i am not exactly a member of the microsoft minions, but when the 9x kernel hit with win 95, and the NT kernel hit in earnest with nt4, i was there on the IT lines then. And it wasn't a matter of craming anything down anyones throat. MS did a good job of selling the public an operating system with a user-friendly gui (xwindows, etc., was still just a dream), and the public, not being IT guys, fell in love with an OS they could actually use without calling us every ten seconds. So give MS their due, they didn't cram anything down anyone's throat. The majority of people may not be particularly smart on their ability to use an OS, but they are spending the money, and it's theirs to spend. They chose to spend it on an OS they could use.

by bhunsinger

which was the other os available, Users did not have to pay more for the hardware because it was owned by the same people selling the hardware. After being locked in to Big Blue. ( knew a law office that had spent $8000 to buy his leased wordprocessor from IBM 2 years before I spent $500 to buy a used sanyo with word star) They were far more interested in the competion for hardware, not software.

by lstnthwoods

I've come to view Windows in a new light since my induction into the world of macintosh. I was a Windows user for several years and found it especially useful back when I could barely type my name into the computer because it took care of everything for me and helped me learn what I needed to know to function in the world of computers. Now that I've learned enough to take off my training wheels and run another machine with OSX I have found that the Microsoft is fine to play with on the internet and for some applications whereas macintosh is more for the people that can't afford to be down and mess with the messy reinstalls and formats.

by Former member

Their marketing campaigns are quite unimpressive. Most of the time, they do a lousy job of touting their best features. What they are good at is change and simplification. It is EASY to configure Networking in WinXP and Server 2k3. Why? because they have removed many of the options that the 'average' user doesn't care about. Originaly MS didn't think much of the internet, saw it as a fad, the world said otherwaise, and MS adapted to it. IE became the browser of choice.

by michael.ramirez

Let us look at the OS itself. Let?s not forget that it is the progeny of UNIX?which is mature and robust.

Consider ?|? which provides a means to redirect the result of one command into a second. Secondly, your scripting options. (C, Korn and Bourne) Finally look at the various tools to choose from. While perl is now available on windows, what about various tools and commands such as awk, cut, find, etc?

by wdewey

There are some ports of these tools, but I agree that the basic functionality isn't there.

Bill Dewey

by whitesanjuro

certain *weird* problems and features can only be solved/added if you have access to the source code of the kernel.

by t313c0mun1s7

I frequently need SUDO. It seems I frequently run into situations where standard users are not able to run applications without admin access. Power User gives more access than I wish to allow and I don't want to provide a password to a privileged account. This is exactly what SUDO is for and I have not been able to find a Windows equivalent. Not even a third party one.

by fafafooey

IMHO, the things Unix/Linux do better are:

setuid - allow privileged process to impersonate another user. Windows cannot do this without supplying that user's plain text password

chroot - restrict file accesses to a subdirectory

by wdewey

I had to give admin rights to a user to get Office 2003 to do it's little setup when a user first logs in. Maybe I set things up wrong, but it seems kind of hokey to require rights at that level just to set up a new user profile.

Bill Dewey

by Former member

It really should be eaiser to do a controlled privilege elevation. Hacking the registry is a cumbersome way to accomplish this. If you are in a W2ks domain it is much easier, but still...

I'd like to see an easier way to create "service accounts" which aren't allowed to log in to the system. linux seem to make this easier.

I still find linux holds a better set of tools for text manipulation (regex, grep,etc...).

It also seems to have a more scala ble memory architecture. (I have frequently blown up excel, access with data imports from linux. Too bad their is no easy gui-app for DB building in Linux, so I didn't have to try to port to acess)...

by wdewey

I would have to try and port Access as well. I just finished a comment about that earlier.

Bill Dewey

by pivert

My company has a select agreement for ms-licensing. No problem with that but I just can't buy an ibm, hp,... pc with no os-installed when I replace an old system. So every time I read an article on how many new licenses they have sold I'm thinking "yeah right".

I also agree on the non-gui part. Our main db runs on an as/400. just start-up and forget about it. When I have to do an upgrade or so, along with the cd's comes a checklist and step-by-step scenario (if x then go to step y else follow these instructions...). No "install and hope all goes well'" scenario there.

I do notice that many advantages (transactions, multiple (redundant) processors, ht,...) these machines have/had are showing up on other platforms (often at a lower price :-) )

I think competition is a good thing but I fear it's limited to pointing out what x can and what y can't instead of looking for new technologies. The only company that is doing that is ibm, and they are bad in marketing their often brilliant ideas.

by cyberjunkie21

MS obviously isn't the only one with the unneeded apps tied to installation. When I've done clean installs with RedHat the same thing happens. You always do have the option after, of removing most of those troublesome (annoying) apps.

by lord deonast

I like NDS / eDirectory as well. It is technically still superior to AD and still scales larger than AD. Although in recent years AD has been catching up. The problem with eDirectory is lack of third party development these days, AD has that and also the problem that windows desktops management essentially pushes AD into more and more companies, so less people support alternatives which is sad.

eDirectory is also pretty much platform
independant these days, runs on linux, solaris, and windows - I like that.

Too bad, our New network manager has pushed AD and win2003 out every where now, Novell systems and NDS are being displaced.
Would have been nice if our company didn't just take the Network manager's word for every thing and acutally weighted up the pros and cons of alternatives.

by cyberjunkie21

That's interesting, because it's the same thing at my job, just reversed. My main net admin is stuck back in NDS glory days. There's never even a discussion of making things AD. What he says goes, bottom line.

by lord deonast

I'm a linux/ novell fan, but I'd just be happy to have the options on the table and the best fit/ features / price evaluation win.

The problem is when soneone backs something to the hilt, like linux only, windows only, then their credablity goes on the line - there can never ever be a problem with their platform (strategy of choice).

I see this with my network manager, when there is a problem caused by AD or Windows, directly or indirectly he will go to great lengths to put the blame else where, it is his reputation on the line, he is implementing it. This is a sad state of affairs from whatever side of the fence you happen to be on.

Better if there was no fence, just herd the sheep where ever they need to be.

by rick.leonard

First, if you've ever managed distributed environments with over 5000 users you'd understand NDS's full-capability over AD. There's no comparison.

NDS is a true directory that stores essentially all the data on all the apps for every server, so everything can be managed from a single tool. Which Active Directory tab do you use to manage DHCP? DNS? Exchange (Server, not the client options)? IIS? Can you manage both the user objects and the complete server file structure from AD?

The answer to all the above is no, and for NDS the answer is you use ConsoleOne. So I have a single source of management for >95% of my activities, and I can manage my Novell, Windows and Linux boxes from the same tool, which runs on my desktop. Using that tool I can reserve a DHCP address for a particular user, or workstation. I can create a new security group, create a new folder, assign the group to the folder, assign users to the folder, and modify the login script for just that group to add a new map..again in one tool. Imagine doing FULL email server management in the same tool you use to add/remove users.

I was at Novell's Corporate Sales/Training center in Seattle in 1994 when they explained the transition to NDS from Bindery. That Novell 4.0 implementation of NDS was about feature for feature with AD today. By 4.11 in '95 it was beyond what they're talking about in "Vista"...and this was over 10 years ago.

When everything, and I mean just about everything, that makes your servers run is in a single DS tool (no registry, no separate databases, no .ini files), when every service you install is managed from that same tool, when you can control all of that from your desktop across multiple platforms at a nearly infinite number of locations, THEN AD is equal to NDS...as NDS is now. Once MS catches up in 5-6 years, how much further ahead will NDS be?

That said, I'm transitioning my last Novell box to Win2k3 and completing the move to a homogeneous, windows-only network. It's not like I'm a Novell booster, but I've worked with both in large environments and small, and I know which I'd rather use. Now, only if they hadn't lost the battle...maybe my corporate overlords would be less windows-centric.

by madcow9597

I noticed you said when AD can have all the tools in one it would equal NDS. The MMC does do that. Also It's custamizable. Is ConsoleOne? You can build your own console to control everythning you want in one console! It's called MMC, just add the snap-ins. Well, thought I would mention you left that out.

by rick.leonard

MMC is merely a framework to manage muliples "apps" where ConsoleOne is the app that gives a full-view of the directory. If you've ever used both you'll see the difference between say managing DHCP in the directory and managing a DHCP add-on application in the same window. It's a subtle difference, but the more I used AD in things like Unified Messaging and distributed environments, the more I wanted a TRUE directory and an application to manage it..

by rashid breedy

You can manage DNS, DHCP, USERS, etc with AD! Just use de MMC tool and arrange all the the consoles in one place!! Try it, is simple!

by rockinra

I just had to say something :)
I remember those Novell days. I used to love Novell too. But I also remember how slow Console One was. Then what about when it decides to crash? Who cares if everything is in one program. If it takes forever to load or uses up all the resources then it is counter productive in my eyes. For example, if I want to quickly reset someone's password why should I have to load the whole network just to do that.
I guess I am just a happy convert. For me life is much, much better since we went to AD. I can do what I need to do much quicker. And most of all, the programs don't crash!
If that isn't enough said... When we switched to AD from Novell our helpdesk call volume dropped to about half as many calls as we had before.

by larry.winfrey

"The fact that windows users accept as a fact of life that they have to reformat and reinstall everything once a year astonishes me."

I have had the same windows installation running for 3 years now. No reinstall, no format...I have even upgraded hardware around the OS a couple of times. All it takes is some occasional house cleaning (removing files and programs that I no longer use) and I get great performance again. This is the situation on my office pc, home pc, my laptop and my wife's laptop, I have not had to format and reinstall a single time. Things have just worked.
Your statement is not accuate, in fact it is a fallacy. I am a contract IT guy for several companies, there are only a handful of the corporate computers that I touch that have had to have a format and reinstall, and those were because the user went to some pretty nasty places and got some pretty nasty bugs that gummed up the computer, and cleaning would have taken longer than rebuilding.

As far as Windows being the most insecure...I agree with the user who stated that if Linux, or Mac, or anything else were the top dog in market share, you would see these same security complaints raised against them. The black hats are going to go after what ever will get the biggest reaction. Which do you think will make the news - knocking out 1000 linux boxes or 100,000 windows boxes? I think you know the answer to that.

by cyberjunkie21

I agree 100%. I do like Windows, but understand that *nix and Novell (cough, cough * sorry caught some flem) have their places. Back in the day I was much looking forward to the MS empire finally taking over, but there's no sense in something like that.

by gareth.rowlands1

I've not had to reinstall my OS at work since NT came out (nor at home since XP SP1 came out). I really don't believe I'm exceptional.

As for uninstalls, you're right, MacOS was traditionally much better than Windows. But Windows is getting better - dramatically so since Windows Installer and Fusion came along.

by cmo

What Windows offers which Linux does not is a single name and operating platform.

It is missing security and I hope this will be rectified in Windows Vista. There needs to be more interoperability with Linux filesystems within Windows so you can work both ways securely on a dual installed machine.

I think though based on some comments here though Linux will not dominate the desktop market until there is a compatibility layer for Windows and a single or better bigger marketed Linux for the desktop.

There is one Windows, there are hundreds of Linux distros, what one does average Joe buy/download for his home machine?? There are several UI to choose from, why use KDE or Gnome, etc?

Where do applications install to? For example Firefox update needed, does it install to where the previous version was.....no...it defaults to your shell/home area. Windows offers home users and less familiar users ways to just get on and work with their machine and install applications and updates without having to be an expert. I know this is flawed in many areas but not everyone can control a GUI interface let alone be left with a command line interface.

The successful Linux desktop will be one that offers less choice to the average user and installs like Windows with a configured interface, modular application installation and updating, etc. Until Linux can install and run what most people run i.e. games, educational software for the kids and such like then it will not penetrate the home market.

Linux is great but I think in offering too much choice and applications it makes it harder to decide where to go and what to use......I guess the marketing works its a no brainer to go buy Microsoft Office to run on your Microsoft Windows machine, etc....what do you use on Linux, Openoffice, KOffice.....the list goes on.....no unification, no path to follow means the average user will go with what fits and whats known to work....Microsoft......

by wdewey

I would more say no user has a choice. I have tried to install stuff to a different location, or change default settings and end up reinstalling the application with default settings because it doesn't work right.

Have you ever tried runing Office 2003 on Windows 98, or ME? "I bought a new machine and now all my old apps (which I was perfectly happy with) don't run, or they installed, but now my computer keeps rebooting it's self every 30 to 40 minutes."

There are a number of different versions of windows and there are more comming (XP 64, Media Edition, Home, Pro all versions of XP). They don't all work or run things the same.

If linux was preinstalled on a desktop the way windows is then the home user almost wouldn't know the difference (Office software is a different matter, and I use MS because I haven't found a different Suite that works better). The average home user doesn't really make a choice about buying Windows, it's made for them by the vendor that sold them their computer.

As for installing applications, many commercial vendors make great installers for Linux that make all those decisions for you.

Just my 2 cents.

Bill Dewey

by mikeb_11

If you're looking for the "easy, newbie freindly" operating system that is Linux based, then go to WalMart and pickup a cheap machine with Linspire installed. It does exactly what you say Linux doesn't do. You can also purchase Linspire directly from their site, if you have a machine that you would like to try it on.

You're right in that there is way too many choices for the average user, but there are distros that eliminate the confussion and others that are built for the average user to enjoy right from the start. Knoppix comes to mind as a solution that the average user doesn't have to do a thing with except hit the Enter key at boot.

As far as the question, someone else has already mentioned one of my pet peeves with Windows. The inability to gain adminstrator rights temporarily on a users machine is a pain in the butt. I would love to have a sudo/su clone for Windows. A second pet peeve is the requirement to "reboot" for almost every security update, settings change, new install (this one is getting better). The only updates that should require a full reboot are those that directly change the kernel. All others should be a service/process restart.

by wdewey

Viruses and trojans can overwrite DLL's in memory, why can't Windows (MS came up with new memory protections to keep this from happening, and I believe it was released with XP SP2. Correct me if I am wrong)?

Bill Dewey

by bhunsinger

Windows 98 and Millenium < ME especially, needed to do that IF you install and uninstall lots of programs. On the other han, I have been running 98SE for 5 years on my home machine and it has never needed reinstalled.
The wipe and reinstall is usually needed now when someone does not safeguard against a virus and/or spyware, These trash the system and it is quicker to backup and reinstall than track down every bit of garbage.
W2000 and Wxp are more stable but you have the same issue with the operator.

by gareth.rowlands1

That's not something that's happening to my production boxes (running IIS and SQL Server). Our Oracle boxes are pretty unstable though.

That said, many Windows boxes are rebooted every month or so for security patches.

by darwin1

The lack of difference is only a result of NDS being licensed to Microsoft and renamed as AD. Just as NT is Netware 2.11 (reverse engineered with a GUI interface) I guess it was only coincidence that NT came out about 3 months after Novell stopped supporting 2.11

by bamford

As an ex-Microsoft employee who is also very familiar with Unix, I feel confident in saying that MS has never understood good OS design principles --- the kind that are so prevalent in Unix. Principles like: everything is a stream of bytes. Write small programs that do one thing well, and provide powerrful mechanisms for compounding programs.

There's a scientist's rule of rule of thumb: two years in the laboratory can save you two weeks in the library. Networking -- including TCP/IP --- was pretty well understood when Brian Valentine reinvented the wheel in the form of NETBEUI --- know known as Windows Networking, and the source of endless pain. In Unix, when you write a program, you decide it's essential function, and implement it so that it can combine that function with other programs --- getting a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts. When Windows programmers do ANYTHING, they almost always start with the GUI --- which is why it has taken Microsoft 30 yearrs to realize that Open Document formats are a good thing --- an idea first expressed in Unix. The short answer: Windows is an OS built by amatuers with noi regard for quality or elegance --- just feture sets and release dates.

by jackuvalltrades

Bamford, you cut right to the heart of the matter. Microsoft has done an admirable job of creating a generic, fairly well-integrated OS and app servers for profit (which is what makes the world turn), but their major malfunction has always been re-invention and stupefyingly unnecessary complexity.
We, like many of you, use a variety of OS' to accomplish our goals, including *nix variants and Windows. None of them are perfect but they are all capable of fulfilling the jobs we require. IMHO, the major downfall of Windows is the "everything-but-kitchen-sink"approach with the GUI being interlocked with the kernel. The beauty of *nix is it's modularity, which increases not only security and stability, but greatly simplifies the life of Joe Administrator.

In sum, *nix is great, although I would not personally use some open-source variants to run mission-critical apps. Windows is useful to build a relatively stable and easy to use network for the masses.

Love 'em (and hate 'em) both .

by Former member

You can't do EVERYTHING in console one. I still have to use NWADMIN32 for a few things. And No Imanager has been added to the mix, to replace Console one, but it still doesn't do everythingeither, so you still have to go back to console one.

by wdewey

The one thing that I have hear about that is a positive for AD is that when you create a policy you have a choice to not enable an individual policy. In NDS once you choose a policy block then all the policies in that block either have to be on or off with no option to be disabled.

Bill Dewey

by bhunsinger

I know 2 businesses in to industries, that have been stuck in Dos hell. On is a srap company that uses Shared Logic the option for a Windows based version came in last year. They run their entire business off of it
My brother has a laundry, with 5 licenses he bought for a dos program that included windows based upgrade 'soon'. he is still waiting 4 years later.
These are early adopters, they grasped the useful ness of the system, it was a small niche market and they plunked down big bucks ( for them) to implement it. And is still does the job.
That's the face of people you want to dump with your statement

by wdewey

3rd party app stability seems to be an issue with windows. From what I have seen MS doesn't play well with others and to me that is a major downfall.

Bill Dewey

by just a guy from spain

Hello, folks. Not an important issue. But this is something wich happened to me some time ago.

I had to write a little "c shell" script in Linux to perform the following task:
1) Look for files in the "temp" folder older than one week.
2) Send one email (and only one) to each owner of those files, alerting them about their files being wiped out next week.
3) Delete files older than two weeks.

Could this be worked out in Windows ???
(Answers like "write a C program" are not valid!!!)

by wdewey

VB Script or Perl will do this fairly easily. VB Script has many API's that tie into the system file structure easily.

Bill Dewey

by lord deonast

Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't 3.1 still in the days of bindery, before the NDS came out with the Netware 4.

I'd be draging them kicking and screaming into something a little more relevant these days. There would have to be one damn good reason for being on that. You certainly won't get support from novell for anything Pre Netware 5 these days.

by eric.p

Most of the "bloat" in Windows is due to the extensive Plug 'n Play system. And, in contrast to your opinion, marketing only plays a small part of why Windows is by far the most-used OS in the world. After all, one could argue that Apple has had far better marketing campaigns. As a developer who has developed for MS, Apple and Unix platforms, I can tell you that developing for Windows is much easier and more cost-effective than for competing platforms. I believe this is a major reason why there is so much more software available for Windows, and this is the real reason the OS is far more popular - there is so much more software available to run on it. Where Microsoft excels is in providing a very rich and relatively easy-to-use development platform which is far more attractive to software developers. Apple has perhaps leap-frogged Microsoft in recently adopting Unix as the foundation for its OS, but it's just way too late. If Apple or Linux ever succeed in overcoming Microsoft's huge market lead, it will be a very long and difficult road.

by wdewey

It may be that I don't want to pay for the tools or that I learned on MS, but I find myself going back to windows because I can easily make an Access DB dump something into a MS Word document and print it. Call it bloat ware or what ever, but it's quick and easy and I don't have time for much else. Does open office have a graphical form designer that I can dump some code into and create a mail merge type of template? I would really like to do things like this without having to spend a great deal of time learning a whole new system. I am not talking about a programming language since I know Linux runs C (and many others), but windows has API's for all it office software and documentation available at the click of a button on the syntaxes of said API's. I think the F1 key is my most used key while programming. You could say the reason I develop (as minor as it is) on Windows is because of the F1 key.

Bill Dewey

by mark.paris

The biggest problem with Windows (Server or desktop) is 24/7/365-type reliability. It's simply not there; even Microsoft admits it. Anything -ux runs fine in this regard. Running machinery that MUST be always up and can't stand an indiscriminate reboot because it's "stuck running" or "won't respond" or "won't Emergency Stop" (which endangers personnel) because Windows froze is simply unacceptable. Period. Windows is a toy, and I don't expect 'Vista' to be any different, because Microsoft just doesn't get it.

I have taken PCs that were considered "unreliable junk" and turned them into handsome machines that run 24/7 by simply installing Red Hat and redundant SCSI drives. It takes megadollar additions and a live person who constantly monitors the OS to do this with any Windows OS: unless it's Win NT, it simply can't be done with current Microsoft products. NT Server can at least hand off the tasks to another NT box while it's dying, so the other one can hand it back after a reboot. I've never been able to accomplish this with Win2k servers.

by jrod86

Finally someone that makes sense. We can complain all we want because WE don't like something, but let me tell you something...Joe Snuffy out selling your product doesn't want to take the time to learn how to do things all over again. He doesn't want a different icon (a little dinosaur?) that will get him to the internet, he likes his blue E.

I think someone else mentioned that if everything ran like Linux...we'd all be out of a job (either that or Linux would suck as bad as Windows).

I've been fortunate enough to have been on the receiving end of horrible costomer service often enough that I know I need my customers pc's to work, and work well. If that means I have to put up with Windows errors that aren't easily decipherable, I don't care. My customers are happy, I haven't imaged there PC's in a LONG time, services can be turned off, almost all the complaints I've read through can be overcome in windows (minus the user/kernel separation). Think about your customers...I don't like MS, but I use it at work and at home. I take the time to tweak it a little so that it appears programs open faster. My customers are happy, they don't want to learn a new OS, and Joe Snuffy can be happy too.

by Member 28898618

Microsoft has already preempted the idea of the utility OS. Why? Because if you really understood the Microsoft family of products you would immediately see that they all play together, that is, the sum of the parts is far greater than any individual piece. Windows OS supports Sharepoint, and commerce servers, IIS, ASP and even Frontpage fill in web pieces as extensions of Windows server. The development languages and tools work best with other microsoft tools, and especially running under Windows. Taken together, Unix is a joke. The open sourcers still try to fight back offering desktop, and other me-too tools, but its a vanity effort. Microsoft controls all apects of the entire offering, and continue to push ahead offering the next generations FIRST. Client windows, with Exchange, and Microsoft web are the most cohesive way to get the business done. IF you want to tinker, and hack, then using Unix in bits and pieces may give you a tiny orgasm for a second, but it wont make the babies in the long run.

by metaballo

What do you call your 'OPINION.' Not noise? The truth (as you see it)? Does that mean we should roll over and let MS rule the world? Windows is an integrated app (written in C) that makes it hard, no, discourages innovation in the name of profit. Yes, business is for profit; Point for you. The sexual comment is arrogant, hypocritical, and unnecessary mister red Porche with the teeny weeny. You can masturbate in the back room with Bill, I'll be doin it with my girlfriend!

by metaballo

I'm only a weekend techie, tho I'm working on a 4 yr. + degree in softwate engineering. I have both Windows and Mac machines, which I scrounged or built, so no big $$$. I also use multiple op sys's on my Windows XP Pro box. For internet and stuff, I just switch to Linux, for games back to XP, or whatever, and the Mac for multimedia. I don't bash systems, I find solutions. The main diff I see tween XP & Linux is ease of use since 95% of the pop is ~newbie. Linux is from/for techs @ this time. Remeber DOS? Now it's XP. Once Linux evolves, it will have to go thru growth stages, just like Windows! Linux's BIG adv is FREE - Everyone likes free! Since all else will be locked down to thwart piracy, while corp spying will inc... All who can need to sit down and write stuff for Linux, so it can compete with Windows! You know, fancy widgets, game support, or just better emulation for Intel based apps! :p

by mswanberg

The reason that reinstalls become favorable is that applications don't uninstall themselves all that nicely sometimes. They leave crap hanging around.

But think about most Linux apps. They will frequently sprinkle config files into different locations. Simply dropping the binary's folder into the trash doesn't fully clean up behind the app.

Of course, conf files only take disk space and don't affect performance. But that's part of the basic flaw that is the Registry in Windows.

As well, Windows tries to provide so much to applications, that they all get their hooks into the OS. I disagree with this as well. Linux seems to have that set up much better. But, OTOH, the Windows way reduces a lot of redundant code.

It's the age-old dilemma. If 30 programs use the same subprogram, then updating the subprogram updates it for all of them. But you run the risk of breaking a bunch of them. The alternative is to have the subprogram be unique for each app. Then you have to upgrade it 30 times. It's catch-22.

The analogy here is that since Windows apps use the OS a lot more, yes, they can get kludgy. But they will work together better. The Linux way seems to be more like the old DOS days where each program was an island. Getting WordPerfect talking with dBase talking with Lotus 1-2-3 was a nightmare.

-Mike

by grant22

Yes, I know that MS claims that it is there in NT and its successors, but evidence from a user perspective is contrary. My favorite example: While waiting for a database query to return in one application (TOAD) I am unable to open an unrelated text file in a simple text editor (TextPad,) however, when the query returns, everything I clicked while I was waiting for it (opening the text file, switching active windows, etc.) happens, in the order I clicked it, in a flurry. ANy time every other application can be made to wait for one application, and it is not a resource conflict (what conflict can there be between waiting for a query from Oracle and switching already open windows) this seems to say that pre-emptive multi-tasking is either missing or it is a broken implementation.

by ke_xtian

1. Installing software without the ridiculous Windows Registry. Talk about a farce. The Registry is possibly the biggest joke in the entire computer industry.
2. Installing software that does not share DLLs with any other software. That is a tremendous weakness in Windows. I know MS has built in some safeguards to keep this from being a problem, but the safeguards are not foolproof.
3. Scalability. Windows is more scalable than ever, but still lags far, far behind the Unix world in scalability. Yeah, I know that benchmarks exist that show SQL Server getting into Oracle territory, but read the fine print on those. MS cobbed together a huge scaled-out DB to get those numbers. That is not something you would want to try yourself unless you were desperate to justify your decision to go with MS and had the budget to do it.

I would agree with the idea of "favorites for particular tasks", except I would modify it to say Windows for desktops and Unix/Linux for everything else. The choice between Unix and Linux would be based on a large number of factors. As Linux matures and grows in acceptance by industry, the number of factors will shrink.

Using Unix/Linux for servers is much more desirable for so many reasons. I cannot list them all here, and others have done a good job of it already. For me, though, one of the most important reasons is scalability. The boxes that Windows runs on just do not have the guts to scale up. That is a real issue, no matter how loud the MS bigots yell. Bill Gates himself has admitted that scalability is a problem. I love this quote from him:"We don't scale up. We scale out."

Scale-out sounds good unless you have tried it. On my job I am saddled with 5 scaled-out DBs. We have 5 DB instances (each one running in active-passive clusters) doing the work of one Oracle DB instance running on a reasonably small Sun box. For redundancy the Oracle DB would run in a cluster also, but it would be an active-active cluster.

MS bigots will read this but not understand it because they don't want to. I sound like a Unix bigot, but I am not. I have tons of experience on both sides, so my opinions are informed by facts, not by claims. Bigots are so prejudiced against the other side that they don't even listen to facts.

by Member 22744991

Just one example of where Linux is more usable and configurable. Why would one want to do this?
-Custom application
-Improved performance
-Internet hardening
-etc