The UNIX Haters Handbook 1

I found this gem while doing some unrelated research. It ought to spice up the endless "My OS is better" debates.

http://www.simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf

Our grievance is not just against Unix itself, but against the cult of Unix zealots who defend and nurture it. They take the heat, disease, and pestilence as givens, and, as ancient shamans did, display their wounds, some self-inflicted, as proof of their power and wizardry. We aim, through bluntness and humor, to show them that they pray to a tin god, and that science, not religion, is the path to useful and friendly technology.

Computer science would have progressed much further and faster if all of the time and effort that has been spent maintaining and nurturing Unix had been spent on a sounder operating system. We hope that one day Unix will be relinquished to the history books and museums of computer science as an interesting, albeit costly, footnote.

[purple]Jeff
It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day

 

[bytehd]

Dont get me wrong.
Linux/Unix/DOS/Netware/Insert OS was around WAY before
gates bought someone else's effort and repackaged it.
Anyone older than 25 grew up on a command line.

So yes, if you only know how to work a mouse, it will be harder. Linux wont get any desktop traction inthe performance arena until the GUI goes native. The GUI should not be an app like spell check..


George Walkey
Senior Geek in charge

http://www.insyncva.com

 

[Kozusnik]

The whole idea that Linux admins cost more is not true in my area. I work for a hospital which uses mostly windows (client), OS/400, AIX, and VMS. When I started, I was mainly the HL7 Systems Analyst. Since then, I've become the main OS/400, AIX, and VMS support also. My pay has increased due to that. Within the past two years, I've put 6 Linux servers in place for web server and to replace our interface engines. My pay has not increased for that.
I use Linux at home 99% of the time. I despise Windows and the bugs that come with it. That's why I chose Linux. It makes more sense to me. Since I use Linux, my expertise is the same as a Windows admin.
I realize that Win admins are a dime a dozen and Linux admins are harder to find, but the action of supporting each OS is the same so neither has the upper hand in the salary war.
My point is that my pay would be the same as the win admins if I didn't support 4 other OS's.

BTW...the 1st Linux box in place for production was put in on Dec. 8, 2003 and has not been shut down since. I've never seen that with any other OS in my environment.

Mark

 

[Kozusnik]

How about this...
Windows won't be a server until it can run without the RAM sucking GUI.

With Linux you can choose to start GUI or not based on the init level. init5 is GUI. init3 is no gui. Once my Linux servers are configured, they go to init3 allowing the OS more RAM is needed. Windows still keeps the GUI memory resident even when you don't need it. WHY???

Mark

 

[Glenn9999]

Anyone older than 25 grew up on a command line."

I agree there. My first OS and programming arena was DOS. I had some adventures in OS/2 land too with only slight problems (namely multi-tasking anything communication related since IBM did a horrible job there).

"So yes, if you only know how to work a mouse, it will be harder. Linux wont get any desktop traction inthe performance arena until the GUI goes native. The GUI should not be an app like spell check.."

I fully agree. Most won't consider anything without a GUI. But I would go further and say a "standardized native GUI". That's part of the Linux problem. There's too many distributions. Of course it could be argued that 2 is too many distributions, but I won't go there.

The GUI/distro problem comes home to roost in that a lot of Linux apps will only work properly on certain distributions.
Case in point: Between Slackware and Mandrake Linux, I don't think I've ever been able to get a fully working copy of Netscape going.

Like I said, I shouldn't need to spend a boatload of time to get a server going. While manual reading is fine, you never know what you'll get (again a folly of OSS). You might get accurate stuff one time, inaccurate stuff another time, a treatise on the virtues of the author's girlfriend (or crush, or favorite movie star, you get it - useless garbage) the next time when you start looking at MAN pages. Then in design, I had to learn enough script programming (!) to get by in setting up the network card with the ISP.

Frankly put, Linux has a long ways to go before it's going to be treated seriously beyond the places that have used it as service servers.

 

[Kozusnik]

Glenn,
I must disagree. Anyone who has set up Windows knows how long it takes. 30 min - 1 hour. Then you need drivers for every piece of hardware you use. (if you have them) 30 minutes. If not, 2 hours. At best it takes 1 hour to set up Windows from scratch. Then what do you have? An OS you can get on line and spend 3 hours downloading updates for bugs. 17 reboots later, you're ready to spend the next 4 hours installing your client apps (i.e. M$ Office, some DVD sw, cd/dvd burining sw, etc.)

With Linux (I'll use Mandrake for example). I spend less than 2 hours total installing, connecting, updating, and configuring. This gets me to the same point I spent 8 hours on for Windows and did not cost me a penny for licensing. Granted, I won't be able to use every piece of hardware, but I can't blame the OS for that. The hardware vendors don't want to program drivers for Linux. Most are now releasing their source code so we can build our own drivers.

I don't believe that Linux has a long way to go. I believe that if pc manufacturers would show the consumer that Linux is not so different and doesn't cost $199 just for the OS. There might be a swing. Hell, Walmart sells a pc with Xandros on it for < $200. My 7 year old has one.

People had to learn Windows when they first started, some have been willing to leave the comfort of the reboot-repair environment in hopes of things better. I've found it. More will follow.

As far as configuring a server, most people won't ever need to. Leave that to the server admins. I mean, how many Nimda infected IIS servers do we need?

Funny story...I run a LAMP server for our intranet. Our Windows admins are looking to install Nagios (OSS) on it to monitor their Win 2x servers and switches. See they're switching too - and they like Windows.

It may not be for every desktop...but it will forever be on mine!

Mark

 

[Glenn9999]

Anyone who has set up Windows knows how long it takes. 30 min - 1 hour."

What you posted is not really the case if one plans. Of course, I could top your story with the horrible nightmares that represent what Linux is. And I'll just mention one. Two days to set up a dial-up connection. More of that script programming nightmare.

When all the other hidden costs are added in, Linux is by and far the most expensive OS to run as it stands. By far. Linux falls way short because I value my time a whole lot more. I'd rather be using my computer and not tinkering with it all the time to get it to work.

TINSTAAFLL! Linux is by and far NOT free.

But I do hope someone decides to get it right with Linux someday.

 

[Kozusnik]

I'm sorry to hear about the toil you endured setting up a dial-up connection. I've never had that problem. I believe I started with Mandrake 6.1 or 6.2. I simply used the gui tools to set up the connection. Now I'm on cable!!! DHCP on ethX is turned on by default.

I am interested in the hidden costs you spoke of. I download the isos, burn to cd (minimal expense), and install on almost any hardware. I have OpenOffice, FireFox, Kontact (or Evolution), K3B, Media Players out the wazoo, apache, mysql, php, perl, sendmail, postfix, etc. What have I paid for? The download time and cds. (p.s. I do support Linux monitarily, but that's by choice.) I spent the same amount of time learning M$ guis as I have with Linux.

Maybe you're talking about wineX ($15), or VMWare($400+ which isn't necessary for me). I'm curious, what are the hidden costs?

Regards,
Mark

 

[kHz]

Oh for crying out loud. I had to reload XP on my work laptop and it probably took me 3 hours because I had to keep update... reboot... update... reboot...

That is utterly ridiculous.

My stance is there are two operating systems for the next 10 or 20 years - Unix and Windows. For the simple reason of research, development, and adoption by business and consumers. Linux was released in the early 90s and it is only in the past couple of years that it has become more "mainstream." If a new OS was released today, then developers would have to create applications for the OS, but only after business or consumers decided they wanted and needed it. It has taken a dozen years for that to happen with Linux and it still isn't widely used. For that reason, I only see Unix and Windows as the dominant operating systems for the next couple of decades. Unless there is some monumental technological breakthrough in hardware that needs a particular new OS developed for the hardware.

 

[BobRodes]

<A horrible system, except that all the other commercial offerings are even worse.

Reminds me of Winston Churchill's statement:
Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[grande]

What are all these bugs everyone talks about? I know 98 and ME had (huge) problems, but I've never had to restart my XP when I didn't want to.

Also, most drivers are included with XP. I didn't need to download anything to get my printer, scanner, fax machine, or modem up and running.

I will admit, the Service Packs take awhile to download, but they're fixing problems. You can't tell me that Linux (or any of its cousins) was 100% perfect on the first release.

And kHz, I'm interested to know why you didn't include Mac OS as a viable competitor for the future. I know a lot more Mac users than Linux users.

PS - We should all just go back to using Windows 3.1

-------------------------
Just call me Captain Awesome.

 

[kHz]

MAC = BSD

 

[Sympology]

Arrrrgggghhhhh..

Betamax vs VHS
Spectrum vs C64
Atari vs Amiga
Ford vs VW
blah blah blah.

This is so childish. Grow up!

If you like Unix, use it, if you don't, don't!
If you like Windows use it, if you don't, don't!

Every o/s has it's pro's and cons, it's up to you to decide for yourself what you prefer. There is no such thing as the "best" operating system as "best" is such a subjective word. One may decide "best" is ease of use, whilst may say "best" is the most secure and a third may say "best" is the most supported platform.

Stu..



Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[grande]

Betamax.
C64.
Atari.
VW.

(Just thought I'd pipe in again)

-------------------------
Just call me Captain Awesome.