On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 03:22:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My main point is that this is not proprietary Unix where cost
> virtually ensures only relatively big organizations (the needs of
> smalleer ones could be handled by cheaper systems) use it and thus you
> can design basing on the paradigm the system adminstrator is a
> dedicated one.
>
> Since Linux is cheaper it can go where Unix can't go and constraints
> in smaller organizations are different.
$0.02 here. First, I'm currently a consultant--over 20 years in
the field-- and have also worked as VP of application and software
development at a couple of companies. I've been working machines from
embedded systems up through mainframes; written kernel code for Unix 3.0
and up; and have diddled CP/M, DOS, and Windows since their inception.
I've developed--a lot!--on a great variety of platforms and environments,
and have directed development.
I have a few opinions.
Operating Systems aren't simple or easy to feed. Maybe someday, when
different paradigms are adopted, and software development as practiced
by virtually all development groups has evolved from semi-art to science;
but not yet. Not today.
Microsoft has done us all a great disservice by trying to convey the
impression that it's just a matter of a GUI interface and pre-packaged
configuration. And the amazing thing about it is that they've been
able to sell the Emperor's Clothes. People continually ask why Unix,
or Linux, isn't as easy to take care of as Windows 95/98, or NT.
Yet the fact is that Microsoft has promulgated, as has been noted
elsewhere in this list, the operating system management strategy of
"Reboot. Reinstall the application. Reinstall the operating system."
Furthermore, they don't TELL you what security and operating decisions
they've made FOR you; and don't, generally, allow even knowledgable
administrators to change those decisions.
Moreover, I'm amazed that when something cryptic comes out of Windows, it's
just accepted as being part of Microsoft; but if something cryptic comes out
of Unix or Linux, it's a sign that the system isn't user friendly. I bow to
Redmond's PR ability.
> About the hiring of a consultant:
>
> 1) What if the nearest one is at 60 miles in bad roads?
How valuable is what you're considering hiring them for? I've travelled more
than 60 miles. In bad weather on bad roads.
> 2) What if the user's job could require intervention at 9 pm? This is
> charged extras.
Yeah? Like it's not intruding on someone's life?
> 3) Why the user should pay for what is objectively a design blunder (ie
> designing without paying attention to his constraints)?
And you don't, every time Windows does a BSOD? A great number of people
paid a LOT for Microsoft's design blunders in E-mail security, and continue
to do so. It's a pity, but the press to get either commercial or GPL software
in the hands of users is such that inadequately reviewed and tested software
gets shipped. At least the GPL crowd does rapid fixes.
> 4) Which car would you buy? The one where replacing a punctured tire or
> filling the gas tank requires you pay a trained garagist with special tools
> or the one you can do these things yourself?
But that's not the available choice anywhere in the world. To carry on your
analogy, you can buy a car that includes all the shop manuals and tools to
tell you how to replace the tire/fill the tank yourself; AND you can go to
a trained mechanic if you choose not to learn how to do it. OR you can buy
a car that requires you to replace it (reinstall) when something goes wrong,
with no option of being able to fix it yourself.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
