And Because I'll Be at a Linux Expo in Ten Days...

[howardtayler]

So.. I just confessed to replacing XP with a drive-scrubbing clean install of Windows 7. Why didn't I move to Linux instead?

Three things, really:

1) Text boxes in Microsoft Word 2003: These things have defined my process for creating scripts, and are now so integral that I can't imagine life without them. I tried Open Office, and the boxes didn't

Comments

the standard mistake

[gh4acws]

is that people assume one is interested in what operating system one uses.
Computerprogramms are tools.
They should enable us to do what our real work is.
If on a different OS there are better tools, enabling us to earn with less work, we switch. ( maybe )

Possibly one could talk you into using Macs. Design and graphics have traditionally been strong points of the Mac.

[alexis_thenull]

The three major PC operating systems are so SIMILAR right now that they can be used interchangeably for a lot of things, with not one being dramatically better than the others for general usage. That did not use to be the case, but it is now.

I'm a mostly Linux programmer, working at a mostly Apple shop, using mostly Windows on my work laptop. I can name quite a few strengths and weaknesses on all sides, but none that matter for you. For many purposes Windows is just great right now, and you don't need to defend yourself for your choice.

[alexis_thenull]

You're right, I should've mentioned that. I'm kind of an OS internals nerd so I do know how much they differ, but functionally from a personal computing perspective we have a pretty homogeneous OS world.

And thank you for a polite and insightful reply, with no reheated half-understood arguments.

[korgmeister]

Perhaps this means that desktop computing is finally maturing, in that there is now a sort of coherent shared notion of how computers should act.

I mean, you can get in a Ford and then get in a Toyota and then get in a Purgeot and then get in a Hyundai and driving them isn't terribly different.

I look forward to the day when a similar statement can be said about computers.

Naturally....

[bitobear]

Each OS has its purpose and audience. I would never suggest anybody cold-turkey over to another system no matter what their demands. No operating environment is panacea, and even if it were there are always a couple of real-world things dragging you to ignoble compromise

Re: Naturally....

[howardtayler]

Telling someone whose mother was killed by a drunk driver that "doing X is like driving drunk" is abject asshattery.

#ignore

Re: Naturally....

[unix_jedi]

Other than his badly picked analogy (and one I was unware of, I don't know if was), the rest of his comment is worth reading

Re: Naturally....

[howardtayler]

I call bullshit on the lock-in. Seriously, is that the best argument you can come up with?

I've never had trouble opening a document and not then been able to solve the problem with a quick Google search and a free download.

Microsoft understands this, and they know that lock-in is not a strategy for success. The free market will always, always, ALWAYS drive for free movement of user-generated content. Lock-in, like the more egregious forms of DRM, will always, always, ALWAYS end up being unlocked.

This is why I love the Open Source movement. But again, I don't need to use Open Office or Linux for these things to happen. Market forces are already at work ensuring that the computing environment continues to offer future portability.

[johnridley]

I have used Linux in my work environment, for servers, since the days of installing Slackware 0.x from a stack of floppies. I've tried moving myself to move to Linux at home about 5 times now, each time using Linux exclusively for at least a month. I've always moved back to Windows. In the end it comes down to the fact that there's really nothing that Linux does that I can't do in Windows (though in many cases it's not as easy under Windows, but it is possible) but there are always things that I simply can't do under Linux. I always have one piece of hardware or another that there just aren't drivers for, or there's some software that either just doesn't exist under Linux, or the Linux equivalent is a barely-started project that either has almost no features, the features require reading 30 pages of doc to find a command line switch that is equivalent of a checkbox in Windows, or there's some major feature missing

[unixronin]

Interestingly, I have almost the opposite experience. Everything important that I need to do, I can do as easily or more easily on a Unix platform, without the risk of Windows blue-screening on me in the middle of something crucial. In this house, Windows has become exclusively GameOS. All the real work happens on platforms I can trust.

[johnridley]

I haven't had a Windows crash in close to 6 years now. The machine at work commonly has uptimes in the range of 100 days. It used to be longer but they force me to install updates that require reboots sometimes now.
I've had Linux boxes go south on me in the past too. These days pretty much no modern OS in my experience bluescreens unless there's a hardware fault or someone has allowed some piece of junkware to have rights it shouldn't. This is more common on Windows boxes that are used by kids and for gaming, but it's not necessarily the fault of the OS - I think if you let the kind of software in to your Linux box with the kind of admin rights that are granted to some of the crud installed on a Windows box, the Linux box would probably be pretty unstable too.

[theswede]

The difference is, on Windows that kind of crud installs itself with a click - and not even that sometimes. On a UNIX-y system you'll have to pretty much be a guru to ever get it installed.

The platforms are designed from completely different mindsets, and that is the main difference. It takes a skilled hacker to break a typical UNIX box. It takes a website to break a typical Windows box. And that is the fault of the OS.

[theswede]

I feel you're overstating your case when you say you don't *want* to use open source software. Your examples are cases where you *need* features or functionality not present in open source equivalents, or where your present skill set doesn't translate. From what I read, you're saying "I use what works for me, and right now open source software doesn't", not "I just don't want to use open source software". If I am wrong, and it is quite possible I am, it would be interesting to hear your specific points against open source software in general.

[howardtayler]

Let me rephrase: I will concede that it is possible for my processes to be reforged around open source software, but I would rather spend my time and energy on something productive. Switching to Linux or to a Mac, for that matter -- the same argument may apply for scripting, I haven't tried it -- would be a waste of time, and I'm paid quite well for the time I spend writing and illustrating.

I'm not paid at all for dicking around with computers.

So, "I don't want to use Open Source software" translates into "I want to be paid for a larger percentage of the time I use."

[theswede]

You make your point well, and I agree with you. The problem I have is more with the ambiguity of the English language, where a simple quote from you could be used to make it seem like you're against open source on some form of principle when I suspect that is not the case. Since you carry some prominence (whether you wish to or not) I just wanted to highlight that. I'm not at all saying you're being deceptive or anything. Language, however, is.

[howardtayler]

Oh yeah, language totally bites. If our vulgar (in the classical sense) tongues had checksums we'd all be much better off.

This is why rephrasing is so useful, and why the works of Isaiah and the other Hebrew prophet-poets are so beautiful: sometimes when you say the same thing twice, and say it in two different ways, you create meaning that could not have been created in a single statement.