h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6745749.stm

'MacFormat editor Graham Barlow believes the need for iPhone applications was the driving force for the shift to Windows but thinks any market share Apple can grab from Microsoft along the way will be a bonus, not just for the firm, but for its hardcore base of fans.

"I don't see it as a betrayal of all things Mac. Windows users are desperate for Apple to provide some decent software," he said. '

Er...no, sorry. I sit down at my new Vista PC and the last thing I think is 'I wish I was using a Mac'. Virtually *all* the software on a Pc is 'decent'. Most of it is actually rather good. If it weren't, people would stop using PC's and start using Macs. And they don't, on the whole, because Macs are overpriced 'glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults', as Charlie Brooker says.

The underlying truth is that most people couldn't give a sick dog's dump about who provides their operating system. They use what they're comfortable with. As an analogy, virtually all computer keyboards use the antiquated QWERTY layout, instead of the much better Dvorak or Maltron ones, but people use the former because they are able to use any keyboard anywhere. Same with operating systems.

Surprisingly as a Linux user I agree with most of what you say.
Do I think that Unix like operating systems (and that includes Mac OS X) are inherently better than windows - yes
Do I think that open source development is a better model than closed source for mass operating systems - yes
Do I think that Windows is crap - no


I do think the fact the computers can be sold as "Internet Ready" without a decent firewall and anti-virus is criminal - but I put the blame firmly on the vendors for this, it is not the fault of Microsoft.

I also regret the fact that so many computer industry "professionals" have only received Microsoft training which leads them to just look for the Microsoft solution instead of the best solution. An example of this is the office where I do my car insewerance. The guys who run the main computer at head office are broad minded enough to know Unix and have a Unix based system which the local offices log into using ssh (encrypted telnet) - now the guys responsible for the equipment out in the field are obviously from the Microsoft school as the local office I use has just had a nice new load Dells running Vista install which are used to run ssh sessions, not the best or cheapest solution. A diskless thin client with network booting would of most likely provide a cheaper solution with far lower support issues.

It should be a case of horses for courses on a fair playing field but at the moment I feel this is not the case. Sometimes Microsoft is the best solution just as sometimes Macs or commercial Unix variants are best and of course open source has it's place as well. For most domestic users at the moment Windows is a good choice because of its shear ubiquity and as friendly as some Linux distributions are becoming they have a big challenge to overcome the advantages that ubiquity brings.

Interesting arguments. I think I'll elaborate upon some of your points;
* Do I think that Unix like operating systems (and that includes Mac OS X) are inherently better than windows.

Well,it depends what you mean. Many people will claim Unix is an inherently more secure system than Windows. This is simply not true: Unix was designed to be lightweight - not Multics, in fact. Windows NT on the other hand was designed to be very secure,. The problem is it that it's been vandalised in the aim of making it more user-friendly. People run Windows with administrator permissions as a matter of course: UAC in Vista goes a fair way to addressing this issue.

* Do I think that open source development is a better model than closed source for mass operating systems

I'm coming around to this viewpoint, after having to battle wqith closed API's and bloody awful documentation for MSHTML's editor. Open up the code and you can see what it's intended to do and, if you don't like what it does, change it.

* Do I think that Windows is crap
No, not really. It's to Linux what VMS is to Unix. They do different things. Like you said, it's a case of horse for courses. I cut my IT teeth on Unix. In fact, I ended up pioneering an X-Windows based environment for document preparation at the Uni where I wrote up my Ph.D. It worked very nicely, thank you very much.

But I hear so many sweeping pronouncements in this area based purely upon opinion and not experience. An acquaintance of mine was at the pub and when we started talking about various technologies, the .NET Framework came up. He started slagging it off. Of course, after minimal probing it transpired he hadn't actually *used* it for any programming. I could treat the arguments of the Linux fans with more respect if they didn't lead with their chin so often, and if they actually had a foot in both camps. "What do they know of England, who only England know?"

"People run Windows with administrator permissions as a matter of course: UAC in Vista goes a fair way to addressing this issue"
I've yet to try Vista but the big problem as I see it is the lack of a security culture among the Windows user (and to an extent developer) base, the blame for this I feel has to fall firmly on Microsoft and dates way back to the days of DOS. The first time they tries to put any sort of security in was XP with there User/Administrator accounts but this failed miserably as every time I come across XP it is being run in Administrator mode because half the installed programs don't work in User mode - and how many 'XP Home' boxes out there have the "Admin" superuser set to the default password (you only see this user if you boot into safe mode)? I imagine most domestic users are totally unaware of this superuser
For me Unix like operating systems are inherently better because they are designed to be secure from the ground up, plus I don't trust any operating system that tries as hard as windows does to hide the command line


Bring back Tops-20 is wot I sez
TWENEX Rules

... and the charge of "leading with their chin" while true of Linux fans could (IMHO) also be laid at the feet of both Microsoft and Mac advocates

Agreed.

I don't advocate any solution without examining the problem properly beforehand. This is why I think people who put Windows PC's in schools without first looking at the cost implications are not doing their job properly.

*nods*

"For me Unix like operating systems are inherently better because they are designed to be secure from the ground up"

It's interesting, because Windows NT is also designed to be secure from the ground up. This very good article describes how it all went wrong:

http://www.itwriting.co.uk/winvandals.php

The article just seems to reinforces the point I made near the start of post 4 about windows developers

But both Windows and Unix are potentially secure systems, if used properly. Windows NT is certainly no less secure than Unix, probaly more so. When I was at university, the uni had a Vax and several Unix boxes. I asked why they were concentrating upon Unix instead of Vaxes, and I was told that the reason was very simple: you get more bangs for your buck because VMS has a LOT of security code built into it that really slows down the OS, and Unix doesn't. Universities in the late 80's, not being able to afford very quick boxes, plumped for Unix because they didn't need C2 certified security.

Now, Windows NT is supposed to be the next generation of VMS (W,N,T= V+1, M+1, S+1) and incoporates all of the VMS security concepts, extending the ACL approach to virtually everything, including registry keys and DCOM component methods. So I don't buy into this argument that Unix is more secure than Windows. It isn't.

Wrong and Right (usual proviso about vista applies). Windows could of been as secure as Unix type systems, the tools are there, but the tools were introduced far to late by the time the NT framework hit the mass, mass market (with XP) both users and developers had got into bad habits and I'm afraid as I indicated in post 4 I blame Microsoft for this missed opportunity as they did not take the necessary steps to force the adoption of the security system on both developers and users - they even went as far as to hide the Admin SuperSuper user on the Home edition, it only showing up on the graphical login screen when in safe mode. The Fact is I could not run XP with type of application I would want using the full security model envisioned by the original NT developers. Design is more than just the code that goes into making an operating system. As I indicated earlier I do not think that Windows is a bad system, just that it is not always the right system.

I think we're both in agreement, really. There's not much point in putting security doors on a house if you habitually leave the back window open.

Like I said, I really quite like Unix, although I don't have a Linux box at home. I did rebuild an old PC of mine as a Linux machine once, and I noticed several interesting features. One was that it was not straightforward to recover from a power failure. The other was that even when offered for free, nobody would take it off me.

One version of Unix I really wish had taken off as a serious competitor to Windows is NeXTStep. The reason for this is simple: it's very much easier to develop on NeXTStep. When Wordperfect were still a going concern I remember reading that when they were developing their first Windows version, they had ten-odd developers working eighteen months. They had 2 developers working for a year on NeXTStep.

http://www.gnustep.org/

The single word that goes through my mind, when I look at a website like that, is "why?" I have no doubt that if NeXTstep had been a success and their brand of Unix had displaced Windows we would all be running much better written and less expensive software, but it didn't. Even among OS zealots this looks to be an issue of marginal interest at best.

So why not stop wasting all the brainpower and the huge amount of effort that goes into creating this kind of software and actually put it to use producing something that people might actually want to use? How about, say, everyone getting together and fixing the long-standing bugs in OpenOffice, and bolstering its functionality so it offers a free alternative to MS Office that can actually match its power? Instead, they choose to pratt about creating the OS equivalent of an 'alternative reality' fantasy world in which Big Bad King Bill never has and never will hold sway. It's all a bit pitiable, really.

I don't know, I agree it is of perhaps of marginal interest but you know each to their own, nobody is paying these guys and if they want to play in a world of what might of been why not?

(incidentally, the gunstep mail.app is very nice )

It all seems a pretty pointless waste of time to me. Still, I suppose it keeps them off the streets. At least they're not writing bloody viruses.