Thorsten Kampe wrote: > * sturlamolden (Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:44:22 -0700 (PDT)) >> On 11 Jul, 14:39, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: >> > The Unix model is: a collection of general-purpose, customisable >> > tools, with clear standard interfaces that work together well, and >> > are easily replaceable without losing the benefit of all the others. >> >> This is opposed to the "Windows model" of a one-click installer for a >> monolithic application. Many Windows users get extremely frustrated >> when they have to use more than one tool. > > *sigh* There is no Windows nor Unix "model". There is only you-get-what- > you-pay-for. > > On Windows, you're a customer and the developer wants to make using his > application as convenient as possible for you, the customer.
That's an astonishing statement. Today, I started to update a commercial, proprietary Windows application, Quickbooks. I didn't actually get around to running the installer application yet, on account of the installer having trouble if your data is on a network share. (Apparently the developers of Quickbooks never considered that when you have multiple users connected to the same database at once, at least one of them must be accessing it over the network.) But in preparation for the process, I took note of the information needed to make QB run. I don't have the list in front of me, but there were something like 6 or 8 keys needed to make the software work: Customer account number Licence key Upgrade key Validation code etc. (I don't remember the full list. I try not to bring that part of my work home :) Or consider the Windows licence key, product activation code, etc. If "as convenient as possible" was their aim (as opposed to "making a profit from licencing"), then you wouldn't need all that. Why on earth should I have to install a "Amazon MP3 Downloader" app to purchase mp3s? Or the iTunes app? The internet and web browsers excel at making it easy to download files. Rather than taking advantage of that convenience, commercial vendors put barriers in the way and try to carve out little walled gardens. Did they not learn anything from AOL? Where is the Windows equivalent of yum or apt-get? Why isn't there a central repository of independent and third party Windows software? It seems clear to me that it is the major open source communities that aim for convenience, at the cost of the opportunity to sell licences. In fairness though, open source developers' idea of "convenient" is not always the same as mine. > On Unix you don't pay and the developer couldn't care less if his > application works together with application b or how much it takes you > to actually get this damn thing running. That might have been true, oh, 20 years ago, but today, that's far less of a rule. Linux distros make interoperability far simpler. Some level of savvy is needed, but it is remarkable how much Linux software Just Works. In my experience, two categories of Linux software are generally hard to deal with: one-man projects (usually stuck on version 0.2b for the last seven years), and big, popular projects that have been taken over by developers from the Windows world (I'm looking at you, Firefox). YMMV. > And as soon as developers start developing for Unix customers (say > Komodo, for instance), they start following the "Windows model" - as you > call it. Surely that's because Komodo started off as a Windows application before being ported to Unix? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
