[plug] Book of "facts" re Linux

[Craig Ringer]

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 10:26, Brock Woolf wrote:

> I totally agree with you, I am not on Microsoft's side at all, I was
> just pointing out the good effect of competition. But Microsoft's
> problem is that they can not rewrite the code "from the ground up"

Nor can anybody else. Look at Plan9 and BeOS - where are they? They're
not widely used, because they don't retain compatibility with existing
apps. Linux, while written from scratch, is based on a fairly ancient
set of documented APIs, making it possible for a new codebase to be
(somewhat) compatible with existing software. MS lacks that option, as
there are no published specs and the APIs have simply evolved. It
doesn't help that they're often documented wrong and that people rely on
bugs in them as features (ask the WINE folks).

Even if they did a scratch re-write, MS would need to retain support for
at least the full range of win32 APIs (not just the NT ones), and
probably win16 as well. I guess they could make the older APIs available
via an optional compatibility layer (think WINE-on-windows - that vague
concept). Come to think of it, I believe that's what they're currently
doing with Win64 - Win32 and older needs the WoW (windows-on-windows)
layer to run.

I suspect they can make considerable improvements without a scratch
re-write, simply by cleaning up the API. They may be doing this with
win64. 

> IT's funny cause Windows is called Windows, but it should be called DOS.

I don't think that's accurate. That applied somewhat to win311, but not
much after that. Win9x used a real kernel and had an entirely different
set of APIs etc to DOS, though it was loaded from DOS. That doesn't mean
the kernel was good ;-). 

With the NT family, calling them DOS just doesn't make sense. They have
a dos-vaguely-compatible layer, but that's about it AFAIK.

> Remember people Microsoft are very good at Marketing.

No arguments there.

> I mean we don't
> run around with our "XFree86" Boxes and talk about what version of Xfree
> do you have, why? cause Xfree is the desktop, just as "Windows" is.

Umm... XFree86 is a graphics server really, not a desktop. Unless you
like twm. XFree86 is an important component of an X-based desktop (oddly
enough) but far from the only or most important one.

Also, yes, people very often do run around taking about what version of
XFree86 they use, and what version of their desktop / window manager
like KDE/GNOME/XFCE/IceWM etc, too.

> So
> Microsoft should still be calling their software DOS, cause thats what
> it is. With a shiny Windows wrapper to cover all the rusty, glitchy ends
> of an archaic 20 year old DOS with 10,million patches.

While there's a lot of gross legacy stuff in there to handle ancient
apps, and no doubt a lot of ancient and crufty code, I don't think it's
been accurate to call windows a "wrapper" since 311, maybe 9x.

> The reason why I think Linux is faster than Windows is because there is
> no bloatware.

*lol*

Install Win2k and a full system with GNOME 2.4 etc, compare memory, disk
and CPU use,  then tell me that again. Sorry - unless you're comparing
apples to oranges (winXP vs linux console only system, for example),
linux doesn't do so great in this.

> And the reason it is more reliable is because when there is a patch or
> drivers, whatever. You rebuild the entire kernel.

woo. We all love telling new users to rebuild kernels, don't we. It's
the greatest thing ever. Really.

Yeah.

There are serious issues with versioning in Windows (a service pack can
unwittingly roll back a securit fix, etc), but I don't think that the
mainstream Linux "download and install the whole package and often
packages that depend on it again to fix a one-liner bug" is all that
great either.

Normally I'd be ignoring this thread, but I think there's an important
point to be made. If you feel the need to advocate Linux, doing it in an
accurate way based on real information is the way to do it. Telling
people it'll solve all their problems, while spreading inaccurate
information about the competition, is in fact a lot like what a certain
company out of Redmond has been doing for some time. Look how it's
helped them.

I periodically run into people who have been told by the local techie
that "linux will solve your problems". They've had the tech install it,
and surprise surprise, they're finding it a little hard to get Photoshop
working. Linux was a BAD choice for them at that point.

The Linux/OSS community often gets a rather harmful image of being a
pack of raving fanatics, perhaps largely due to a loud minority. Getting
rid of said image would, I suspect, be very helpful in the long term. To
do that, we need to be realistic and reasonable.

Craig Ringer