Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] BETT comments - lets be fair!
From: Mark Evans
To: Adrian Wells Cc: suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] BETT comments - lets be fair! Date: 18 January 2001 07:32 [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
I'd like to take issue if I may, let's be fair!
good enough to share a corner with SuSE so I suppose we can say they support the concept! So where was Applix even if it does only seem to spell in Ameriglish; the only Corel Office was for 'doze, virtually nothing was web-based and many stands said, "the government don't specify it and none of the schools are asking for it."
That's the commercial world for you only supplying what people ask for! :-)
Or maybe people only ask for something they know a supplier supplys, or suppliers only keep records of equiries of things they supply.
Often a lot of the Windows stuff is a pig to deploy on networks too. i.e. you get told things to the effect of "we don't know what needs changing in C:\WINDOWS to get the program to work, but it's *easy* to just run the install program on every machine". Yep! you just run setup and off it goes. sometimes you need to restart
computer afterwards. Too easy by far. I suppose that you could write a batch file, as I did on our Novell server, and low, every machine that needed
program to be loaded got it, I only had to switch it on. Wow, that was hard!
So how do you get a batch file to supply the user input which SETUP.EXE is now sat there waiting for? The basic assumption of Windows setup programs is that someone, who knows what they are doing, is sat in front of the machine...
(Let alone such stupidity as programs which need write access to files to be able to open them.) That IS silly! :-)
It's a consequence of software producers only testing their software on stand alone machines. Remember that with commercial software, especially where there is some kind of "captive market", quality control isn't high on the list of priorities.
(IME with the latter catagory often the software vendor dosn't have much of a clue about how Windows works in the first place.) Don't know what IME means but... I bet your wife makes sure that you have a nice crisp white shirt ready to
I'm not married, so your bigoted analogy breaks anyway.
wear every morning and yet has no idea how the washing machine works, what chemicals are in the soap or what that triangle sign in the collar of
shirt really means. The workings SHOULD be transparent, that's
Hi mark, My reply was to the questions, not you, please don't be offended, but your probably right about me being a bigot. I'm sure that the NME would agree with you! And I think that I agree with most of what you have now said. But a few of points. 1) Sorry that you don't support Charset iso-8859-1 (why not, your using LINUX aren't you? So tweak it!) (Charsets are never an issue on my crappy old 98m/c here) - I have never had Netscape on the LINUX box display anything big enough to read at less than a foot from the screen! - how DO you do that? 2) An observation, it's always the beleaguered that whine. Windows users don't harp on about other OS, but everyone has a pop at windows. You have to admit that most PC users on the planet use windows and whether they are sheep or flies has no bearing, the machines work for them, so there MUST be something to be leant here, sticking your head in the sand or pointing out the bad things doesn't help. - or maybe it could, see below. 3) I'm not a great fan of windows per sa 4) I think that the ratio of administrators to users is in the users favour. 5) Yes windows is a waste of time as a workstation, especially in a school. 6) Pressing return during an installation is hardly taxing on the grey matter, even if you have to run around fifty machines once in a blue moon, but in any case many set-up script files can be modified - if your very keen. Sometimes I give the user choices when installing my software, sometimes I force the issue. It installs either way, no need to find who complied the OS etc. it just works. 7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either! So, lets have a list on a postcard of 5 things in LINUX that sucks and 5 things in other OS that are groovy, put them all together and improve LINUX even more and make it a real rival for those other OS out there. I'll try to start it off (in no particular order.) LINUX Bad bits. 1) Hard to find installed apps. (what does "Find Apps" do anyway?) 2) messy config. files. 3) Installing Apps - what a palaver! 4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ). 5) Too many unnecessary user settings - Most things don't work because you forgot to set xyz or point this at that - that's why I have a computer, to do the bits that I shouldn't have to worry about. - This really should be catered for by the person writing the software, not the installer! Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill. 2) MAC, Win etc. app installation. 3) Initial support for new technology by industry. 4) Ease of installing out of the box. 5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general. PS I thought MACs were the way to go when I had a classic II, but they have stagnated. Modern MACs are just fast, coloured classics in see-through boxes. At least Windows machines have evolved. ---------- the the the progress.
A better analogy would be a car (or for that matter washing machine) manufacture who didn't supply service manuals.
So, how about making a point of enquiring loudly if the stands are supporting open-source (they often haven't got a clue!) when some piece of useful software catches your eye? Becta was encouraging in their support for multi-platform approaches but Capita (SIMS/EMS) 1) didn't know what I was talking about and then 2) when someone did they don't expect to make any changes.
That's interesting. When did you ask them this? Since I spoke to them of Thursday complaining about their effectivly forcing the use of Windows NT for the next version of SIMS. The idea that the "S in "SQL" is "standard" appears to be beyond people... (Managed to get them to admit that their being a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" might render them less that impartial.) They also ACTUALLY force one to use NT for mentor3 and capita are very
keen
on Fox Pro and have no idea what SQL is 'cus they don't use it! Also (by the way), Capita will not support 98 workstations but do support 95! even though they're more stable, and tell customers all sorts of scare stories (we've never had any probs.)
okay that's enough ranting, off to hear my boy read now.
Oh, sorry, there was a point, LINUX and windows ARE different, but as far as non technical users are concerned, LINUX has miles to go before it is easy to use, it's moving fast, but still has a way to go.
So far as *SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS* are concerned (which is what the original post was about) Windows has light years to go before it is as simple and straightforward as Linux.
Even the oft repeated claim about Windows being easier to use, is suspect. Since Windows allows (even expects) non technical users to perform system administration tasks. (As well as doing a great many things which baffle the same people who which it is supposedly "easy to use". e.g. forgetting about network printers at random, remembering old passwords afther they have been changed, spewing up CPU registers in hex, etc.) Whilst Windows might be a good choice for the average, end user administered, "home" machine. Put it on a network with a system administrator and it becomes less than ideal. Indeed abilities such as the easy end user install of software then become a liability.
-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
Okay, so lets have a fresh viewpoint here. Having read Mark and Adrian's last comments, here's my two penneth. Mark's analogy of a car/washing machine doesn't work. The comments were based on the app developers not knowing how Windows worked. Transposing that to the dish washer or car, that would mean that you expect a field service engineer/mechanic to be able to fix faults without the appropriate manuals - not a good idea. Windows 98 is not more stable than Windows 95 in a large number of situations, and can be less so. Linux and Windows are different, but I think the real differences are not as important as the perceived ones. People's idea of Linux needs to be changed more than Linux itself. Yes, there are problems with Linux, and yes the administrator type setup has been targetted more than the end user - but this is changing all the time. Windows (and Mac's for that matter) have had the benefit of a commercial development - which means that the initial design, while not being a good one, was specified in great detail, thus all developers started on the same playing field. This was not the case with Linux, which still has litterally hundreds of different flavours. With developments such as the Standard Filesystem Specification, and the addoption now of many distributions to use the RPM packaging system, this situation will improve. Regarding installing the OS, as most people will agree, doing a Windows install you DO have to sit in front of the machine nearly all the time - although as with me, I do almost all installations on a workbench and thus can oversee a number of installs at once. Unfortunately, Linux is also moving in that direction, although to save grace here, some installations now let you save your settings and then use them to run future installs automatically. Regarding installing Apps, Linux is definitely in front here, as many (most?) app installations require no interaction at all, and can usually now be retrieved/viewed/installed etc. from a single place such as gnorpm or kpackage. One final note - I will agree that Linux has not yet got there when you look at a system to stick in front of a total non-techie (although it's getting there), but Windows has NEVER been in that position. In my opinion, no computer system out there has got to the washing machine standard yet. When you can get it out of the box, plug it in, and wash your clothes in it, then I'll be happy. On Thursday 18 January 2001 10:06, adrian.wells wrote:
Hi mark,
My reply was to the questions, not you, please don't be offended, but your probably right about me being a bigot. I'm sure that the NME would agree with you! And I think that I agree with most of what you have now said.
But a few of points. 1) Sorry that you don't support Charset iso-8859-1 (why not, your using LINUX aren't you? So tweak it!) (Charsets are never an issue on my crappy old 98m/c here) - I have never had Netscape on the LINUX box display anything big enough to read at less than a foot from the screen! - how DO you do that? 2) An observation, it's always the beleaguered that whine. Windows users don't harp on about other OS, but everyone has a pop at windows. You have to admit that most PC users on the planet use windows and whether they are sheep or flies has no bearing, the machines work for them, so there MUST be something to be leant here, sticking your head in the sand or pointing out the bad things doesn't help. - or maybe it could, see below. 3) I'm not a great fan of windows per sa 4) I think that the ratio of administrators to users is in the users favour. 5) Yes windows is a waste of time as a workstation, especially in a school. 6) Pressing return during an installation is hardly taxing on the grey matter, even if you have to run around fifty machines once in a blue moon, but in any case many set-up script files can be modified - if your very keen. Sometimes I give the user choices when installing my software, sometimes I force the issue. It installs either way, no need to find who complied the OS etc. it just works. 7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either!
So, lets have a list on a postcard of 5 things in LINUX that sucks and 5 things in other OS that are groovy, put them all together and improve LINUX even more and make it a real rival for those other OS out there.
I'll try to start it off (in no particular order.) LINUX Bad bits. 1) Hard to find installed apps. (what does "Find Apps" do anyway?) 2) messy config. files. 3) Installing Apps - what a palaver! 4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ). 5) Too many unnecessary user settings - Most things don't work because you forgot to set xyz or point this at that - that's why I have a computer, to do the bits that I shouldn't have to worry about. - This really should be catered for by the person writing the software, not the installer!
Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill. 2) MAC, Win etc. app installation. 3) Initial support for new technology by industry. 4) Ease of installing out of the box. 5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general.
PS I thought MACs were the way to go when I had a classic II, but they have stagnated. Modern MACs are just fast, coloured classics in see-through boxes. At least Windows machines have evolved.
----------
From: Mark Evans
To: Adrian Wells Cc: suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] BETT comments - lets be fair! Date: 18 January 2001 07:32 [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
I'd like to take issue if I may, let's be fair!
good enough to share a corner with SuSE so I suppose we can say they support the concept! So where was Applix even if it does only seem to spell in Ameriglish; the only Corel Office was for 'doze, virtually nothing was web-based and many stands said, "the government don't specify it and none of the schools are asking for it."
That's the commercial world for you only supplying what people ask for! : :-) : Or maybe people only ask for something they know a supplier supplys, or suppliers only keep records of equiries of things they supply.
Often a lot of the Windows stuff is a pig to deploy on networks too. i.e. you get told things to the effect of "we don't know what needs changing in C:\WINDOWS to get the program to work, but it's *easy* to just run the install program on every machine".
Yep! you just run setup and off it goes. sometimes you need to restart
the
computer afterwards. Too easy by far. I suppose that you could write a
batch
file, as I did on our Novell server, and low, every machine that needed
the
program to be loaded got it, I only had to switch it on. Wow, that was
hard!
So how do you get a batch file to supply the user input which SETUP.EXE is now sat there waiting for? The basic assumption of Windows setup programs is that someone, who knows what they are doing, is sat in front of the machine...
(Let alone such stupidity as programs which need write access to files to be able to open them.)
That IS silly! :-)
It's a consequence of software producers only testing their software on stand alone machines. Remember that with commercial software,
especially
where there is some kind of "captive market", quality control isn't high on the list of priorities.
(IME with the latter catagory often the software vendor dosn't have much of a clue about how Windows works in the first place.)
Don't know what IME means but... I bet your wife makes sure that you have a nice crisp white shirt ready
to
I'm not married, so your bigoted analogy breaks anyway.
wear every morning and yet has no idea how the washing machine works,
what
chemicals are in the soap or what that triangle sign in the collar of
the
shirt really means. The workings SHOULD be transparent, that's
progress.
A better analogy would be a car (or for that matter washing machine) manufacture who didn't supply service manuals.
So, how about making a point of enquiring loudly if the stands are supporting open-source (they often haven't got a clue!) when some piece of useful software catches your eye? Becta was encouraging in their support for multi-platform approaches but Capita (SIMS/EMS) 1) didn't know what I was talking about and then 2) when someone did they don't expect to make any changes.
That's interesting. When did you ask them this? Since I spoke to them of Thursday complaining about their effectivly forcing the use of Windows NT for the next version of SIMS. The idea that the "S in "SQL" is "standard" appears to be beyond people... (Managed to get them to admit that their being a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" might render them less that impartial.)
They also ACTUALLY force one to use NT for mentor3 and capita are very
keen
on Fox Pro and have no idea what SQL is 'cus they don't use it! Also (by the way), Capita will not support 98 workstations but do
support
95! even though they're more stable, and tell customers all sorts of
scare
stories (we've never had any probs.)
okay that's enough ranting, off to hear my boy read now.
Oh, sorry, there was a point, LINUX and windows ARE different, but as
far as
non technical users are concerned, LINUX has miles to go before it is
easy
to use, it's moving fast, but still has a way to go.
So far as *SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS* are concerned (which is what the
original
post was about) Windows has light years to go before it is as simple and straightforward as Linux.
Even the oft repeated claim about Windows being easier to use, is
suspect.
Since Windows allows (even expects) non technical users to perform system administration tasks. (As well as doing a great many things which baffle the same people who which it is supposedly "easy to use". e.g. forgetting about network printers at random, remembering old passwords afther they have been changed, spewing up CPU registers in hex, etc.) Whilst Windows might be a good choice for the average, end user
administered,
"home" machine. Put it on a network with a system administrator and it becomes less than ideal. Indeed abilities such as the easy end user
install
of software then become a liability.
-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
Okay, so lets have a fresh viewpoint here. Having read Mark and Adrian's last comments, here's my two penneth.
Mark's analogy of a car/washing machine doesn't work. The comments were based on the app developers not knowing how Windows worked. Transposing that to the dish washer or car, that would mean that you expect a field service engineer/mechanic to be able to fix faults without the appropriate manuals - not a good idea.
Rather I was thinking more of the manufacture refusing to admit that a service manual could possibly exist, plus insisting on treating the FSE/mechanic as an end user.
Windows 98 is not more stable than Windows 95 in a large number of situations, and can be less so.
Some systems will be more stable with Win95, some will be more stable with Win98. But the only way of working this out is by trial and error (remembering that there are at least 4 different versions of Win95 and 2 of 98.)
Linux and Windows are different, but I think the real differences are not as important as the perceived ones. People's idea of Linux needs to be changed more than Linux itself.
Yes, there are problems with Linux, and yes the administrator type setup has been targetted more than the end user - but this is changing all the time.
You need to be very careful about targeting seting up at a technically ignorant end user. "Wizards" and the like are all very nice, but when they fail (because of something the "wizard" writer didn't think could happen) the user is likely to not have any idea what is happening (or what to do next.)
Windows (and Mac's for that matter) have had the benefit of a commercial development - which means that the initial design, while not being a good one, was specified in great detail, thus all developers started on the same playing field. This was not the case with Linux,
At least in theory, I'm not convinced things actually work this way in practice.
which still has litterally hundreds of different flavours.
Depending on how you look at this it is either a plus or a minus. You could interpret this as meaning that there is less work to get something set up they way you, your school or your business needs it. Since you can start with something reasonably close.
With developments such as the Standard Filesystem Specification, and the addoption now of many distributions to use the RPM packaging system, this situation will improve.
Regarding installing the OS, as most people will agree, doing a Windows install you DO have to sit in front of the machine nearly all the time - although as with me, I do almost all installations on a workbench and thus can oversee a number of installs at once. Unfortunately, Linux is also moving in that direction, although to save grace here, some installations now let you save your settings and then use them to run future installs automatically.
Rather some *distributions* are moving this way. Not all are, even then it's far easier to clone a Linux workstation than with Windows. (Since you can just copy the files, even over a network.)
Regarding installing Apps, Linux is definitely in front here, as many (most?) app installations require no interaction at all, and can usually now be retrieved/viewed/installed etc. from a single place such as gnorpm or kpackage.
Are there any Windows installers which don't need buttons "clicking"? The whole Windows Paradigm appears based around someone using a WIMP GUI. The concept of an unattended install appears basically alien to Windows. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:06:19AM -0000, adrian.wells wrote:
<snip>
But a few of points. 1) Sorry that you don't support Charset iso-8859-1 (why not, your using LINUX aren't you? So tweak it!) (Charsets are never an issue on my crappy old 98m/c here) - I have never had Netscape on the LINUX box display anything big enough to read at less than a foot from the screen! - how DO you do that?
Go to preferences and change your default font, or even better IMHO dump Netscape and use Mozilla.
2) An observation, it's always the beleaguered that whine. Windows users don't harp on about other OS, but everyone has a pop at windows. You have to admit that most PC users on the planet use windows and whether they are sheep or flies has no bearing, the machines work for them, so there MUST be something to be leant here, sticking your head in the sand or pointing out the bad things doesn't help. - or maybe it could, see below.
Windows users don't whine because they're generally unaware that they have a choice & therefore unaware that there might be something better. You seem to have forgotten throughout this thread that PCs usually come pre-installed with a Windows OS and apps pre-loaded, this makes a big difference in the usabilty stakes.
3) I'm not a great fan of windows per sa 4) I think that the ratio of administrators to users is in the users favour. 5) Yes windows is a waste of time as a workstation, especially in a school.
You say above that for users '[Windows] ...machines work for them,..'. But you now contradict yourself by saying that its NBG as a workstation. What exactly is it good at?
6) Pressing return during an installation is hardly taxing on the grey matter, even if you have to run around fifty machines once in a blue moon, but in any case many set-up script files can be modified - if your very keen. Sometimes I give the user choices when installing my software, sometimes I force the issue. It installs either way, no need to find who complied the OS etc. it just works.
Your ability to modify the setup is hampered by by your wonderful `transparent'[sic] OS. Windows does not lend itself to scripting and configuration through the registry is an undocumented nightmare.
7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either!
Why not?
So, lets have a list on a postcard of 5 things in LINUX that sucks and 5 things in other OS that are groovy, put them all together and improve LINUX even more and make it a real rival for those other OS out there.
I'll try to start it off (in no particular order.) LINUX Bad bits. 1) Hard to find installed apps. (what does "Find Apps" do anyway?)
Nonsense. What about `apropos'? And the equivalent command on a Windows machine is?
2) messy config. files.
Compare with Windows. All config files are generally in /etc, all user settings are in rc files in their home directories. Windows config files? Scattered to hell and west throughout the directory structure without any rhyme nor reason.
3) Installing Apps - what a palaver!
rpm -Uvh ... Palaver? I think not.
4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ).
The pros of flexibility far outweighs the cons. How fractured are the different flavours of Windows? Can I run the same app across different Windows platforms? Often no. Yet I can compile and run apps on any linux box and often other unices too.
5) Too many unnecessary user settings - Most things don't work because you forgot to set xyz or point this at that - that's why I have a computer, to do the bits that I shouldn't have to worry about. - This really should be catered for by the person writing the software, not the installer!
It seems to me that you actually don't want a general purpose computer at all. You want the function and flexibility of a general purpose computer but you don't want any of the attendant hassles that anything more than an appliance with limited function and flexibility brings.
Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill.
Gone the way of the dodo. Your `transparent' OS isn't actually transparent at all. The system is undocumented even for developers, and it's impossible to buy any good documentation for the system. I had to buy the MS press `Windows NT Resource Kit' (at considerable expense) as most of the utilities needed for the OS didn't ship with the OS itself; this book is 1300 pages of unadulterated bilge who's only useful function is that of a doorstop. IME, the combination of howtos, package documentation, manpages, websites, newsgroups and source code make even the most intractable linux problem fixable.
2) MAC, Win etc. app installation.
See 3 above.
3) Initial support for new technology by industry.
NT doesn't support plug & play nor power management yet they still sell this OS, the replacement Win2000 hardly supports any software or hardware.
4) Ease of installing out of the box.
Have you ever tried installing Linux on a completely clean hard drive? Have you ever tried installing Windows on anything other than bog standard hardware? I've done both and there is little in it when it comes to installation, but if you come up against a problem with Windows then it can be very difficult to fix indeed.
5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general.
Mac maybe but Windows no. Business users are rapidly finding Microsoft out. You can only sell duff software to businesses so many times. If they were truly happy then they wouldn't be looking for alternatives as evidenced by this mailing list itself. Home users perceive that they have no choice, Macs are prohibitively expensive and don't run as much software, and Microsoft have illegally leveraged their monopoly in order to kill any competing products.
PS I thought MACs were the way to go when I had a classic II, but they have stagnated. Modern MACs are just fast, coloured classics in see-through boxes. At least Windows machines have evolved.
The only way that Windows has evolved is through `embrace & extend' and even then it's hardly changed. Apple's OSX on the other hand looks like a genuinely innovative attempt to harness the power of a unix with ease of use. 5 things in Linux that sucks as compared to Windows: 1. Abysmal support for viruses. 2. Abysmal support for lame scripting languages with holes you can drive a truck through (VB) 3. No defragging tools. 4. Abysmal support for MS proprietry stuff - ActiveX, ASP, .doc ad nauseum. 5. Complicated documentation that is tiresome to read - Windows just throws away the docs and when the OS goes belly up you don't have to bother reading it - hurrah! Adrian your arguments are both tired and lame. Nobody is saying that linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread but to compare it with Windows, spouting a lot of MS market-speak...`innovative', `easy to use' suggests you've been reading a bit too much of that company's propaganda. Windows is difficult to support, expensive and as acknowledged by yourself, useless within a multi-user environment. I don't know what dictionary you've been reading but that isn't my definition of `innovative'. -- Frank *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* | Boroughbridge | Tel: 01423 323019 | PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 | *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:06:19AM -0000, adrian.wells wrote:
<snip>
But a few of points. 1) Sorry that you don't support Charset iso-8859-1 (why not, your using LINUX aren't you? So tweak it!) (Charsets are never an issue on my crappy old 98m/c here) - I have never had Netscape on the LINUX box display anything big enough to read at less than a foot from the screen! - how DO you do that?
Go to preferences and change your default font, or even better IMHO dump Netscape and use Mozilla.
Or another alternative browser...
2) An observation, it's always the beleaguered that whine. Windows users don't harp on about other OS, but everyone has a pop at windows. You have to admit that most PC users on the planet use windows and whether they are sheep or flies has no bearing, the machines work for them, so there MUST be something to be leant here, sticking your head in the sand or pointing out the bad things doesn't help. - or maybe it could, see below.
Windows users don't whine because they're generally unaware that they
Except that they do whine, but their whines tend to be of the form "computers are NBG". Becuase they don't recognise the distinction between hardware and software, so to them it's all "computer".
have a choice & therefore unaware that there might be something better. You seem to have forgotten throughout this thread that PCs usually come pre-installed with a Windows OS and apps pre-loaded, this makes a big difference in the usabilty stakes.
Rather in familiarity stakes. Issues of usability are a different kettle of fish. If Windows were as easy as is sometimes claimed the number of people unable to use it would be zero.
3) I'm not a great fan of windows per sa 4) I think that the ratio of administrators to users is in the users favour. 5) Yes windows is a waste of time as a workstation, especially in a school.
You say above that for users '[Windows] ...machines work for them,..'. But you now contradict yourself by saying that its NBG as a workstation. What exactly is it good at?
If it's not much good as a workstation then, with the exception of the tiniest schools, its rather off topic in the first place... The actual "target" of Win95, win98 & WinME appears to be a standalone end user administered system.
6) Pressing return during an installation is hardly taxing on the grey matter, even if you have to run around fifty machines once in a blue moon, but in any case many set-up script files can be modified - if your very keen. Sometimes I give the user choices when installing my software, sometimes I force the issue. It installs either way, no need to find who complied the OS etc. it just works.
Your ability to modify the setup is hampered by by your wonderful `transparent'[sic] OS. Windows does not lend itself to scripting and configuration through the registry is an undocumented nightmare.
Let alone such "half bakedness" such as regedit being unable to delete a registry key when running as a batch file. As for "set-up script files can be modified" you *first* need to get hold of the documentation. (Which was the point I made several days ago. If everything came directly from Microsoft then it just might be possible assuming you have a large amount of money and can wade throug piles of irrelevent information.)
7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either!
Why not?
So, lets have a list on a postcard of 5 things in LINUX that sucks and 5 things in other OS that are groovy, put them all together and improve LINUX even more and make it a real rival for those other OS out there.
I'll try to start it off (in no particular order.) LINUX Bad bits. 1) Hard to find installed apps. (what does "Find Apps" do anyway?)
Nonsense. What about `apropos'? And the equivalent command on a Windows machine is?
You can trivially end up with hard to find apps with Windows. Anyway if the *user* has to go looking for apps in the first place then that's more a system administration than an OS issue.
2) messy config. files.
Compare with Windows. All config files are generally in /etc, all user settings are in rc files in their home directories. Windows config files? Scattered to hell and west throughout the directory structure without any rhyme nor reason.
Also Windows sticks lots of it's config in binary files without providing the tools to manage them. i.e. how do you alter USER.DAT files which are part of a profile? (Hyperthetical senario, new app will crash unless it has certain registry keys in the User branch. The supplier does not see fit to provide a .REG or .ADM file, let alone list the relevent keys. Thus even using either a login script or poledit you are still SOL.)
3) Installing Apps - what a palaver!
rpm -Uvh ... Palaver? I think not.
Shouldn't this be under the "Why Windows sucks" heading? Maybe rewritten as "Installing apps, on anything except a standalone machine, use by one person only - what an absolute palaver"
4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ).
The pros of flexibility far outweighs the cons. How fractured are the different flavours of Windows? Can I run the same app across different Windows platforms? Often no. Yet I can compile and run apps on any
Too many people forget that even out of the box there are several versions of each, supposedly homogeneous, version of Windows. Which can be incompatable. Let alone that since Windows apps will quite happily overwrite parts of the system you soon don't have a clue what is actually running.
linux box and often other unices too.
But "compiling is too hard for the end user", never mind that its a job for the system admin. This still must count against :)
5) Too many unnecessary user settings - Most things don't work because you forgot to set xyz or point this at that - that's why I have a computer, to do the bits that I shouldn't have to worry about. - This really should be catered for by the person writing the software, not the installer!
It seems to me that you actually don't want a general purpose computer at all. You want the function and flexibility of a general purpose
Sounds like another issue which is more appropriate to Windows. (e.g. app won't run because this or that registry key dosn't exist, goes and sulks because that DLL is a more recent version.)
computer but you don't want any of the attendant hassles that anything more than an appliance with limited function and flexibility brings.
Anyway the choice is between a) having applications which don't fit many people's needs. Because the assumptions the author had to make only hold in a few situations. b) Have thousands of versions of an application, since one might be correct for you c) Have applications which can be customised.
Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill.
Gone the way of the dodo. Your `transparent' OS isn't actually transparent at all. The system is undocumented even for developers, and it's impossible to buy any good documentation for the system. I had to buy the MS press `Windows NT Resource Kit' (at considerable expense) as most of the utilities needed for the OS didn't ship with the OS itself; this book is 1300 pages of unadulterated bilge who's only useful function is that of a doorstop.
There probably is useful information in there, just a matter of being able to find it without inducing "brain shutdown"...
IME, the combination of howtos, package documentation, manpages, websites, newsgroups and source code make even the most intractable linux problem fixable.
But you first have to know the basics. System administration isn't a job for "non techie" end users, any more than fixing the same people's car, TV, washing machine, etc. No-one in their right mind would expect everyone to service their own car or make it difficult to get car service manuals. Why is expecting the end user to fix their own computer suddenly a good idea?
2) MAC, Win etc. app installation.
See 3 above.
3) Initial support for new technology by industry.
NT doesn't support plug & play nor power management yet they still sell this OS, the replacement Win2000 hardly supports any software or hardware.
It's more that hardware manufactures choose to provide Windows drivers by default...
4) Ease of installing out of the box.
Have you ever tried installing Linux on a completely clean hard drive?
How about installing Windows on a completly clean HDD. When you get it preinstalled someone else has sorted out the problems. You don't know if it took them hours, days or weeks. (Having done it once an OEM will typically perform some sort of disk "cloning" on identical machines...)
Have you ever tried installing Windows on anything other than bog standard hardware? I've done both and there is little in it when it comes to installation, but if you come up against a problem with Windows then it can be very difficult to fix indeed.
An example would be Win95 and fast AMD chips. With the bugfix being a program which runs under Windows. ("Chicken and egg" is the obvious description.
5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general.
Mac maybe but Windows no. Business users are rapidly finding Microsoft out. You can only sell duff software to businesses so many times. If they were truly happy then they wouldn't be looking for alternatives as evidenced by this mailing list itself.
Or if they can't find alternatives the users just resign themselves to having to use a poor tool.
Home users perceive that they have no choice, Macs are prohibitively expensive and don't run as much software, and Microsoft have illegally leveraged their monopoly in order to kill any competing products.
Though they'd prefer people to think they are being persecuted for being "sucessful". Of course, at least short term, a company who breaks the law will do better compared with those who play by the rules...
PS I thought MACs were the way to go when I had a classic II, but they have stagnated. Modern MACs are just fast, coloured classics in see-through boxes. At least Windows machines have evolved.
The only way that Windows has evolved is through `embrace & extend'
As well as copying other operating systems.
and even then it's hardly changed. Apple's OSX on the other hand looks like a genuinely innovative attempt to harness the power of a unix with ease of use.
5 things in Linux that sucks as compared to Windows:
1. Abysmal support for viruses.
2. Abysmal support for lame scripting languages with holes you can drive a truck through (VB)
Lol as if supporting these is a good idea in the first place.
3. No defragging tools.
Actually there are, just that end users are not let near them and they are probably redundant anyway.
4. Abysmal support for MS proprietry stuff - ActiveX, ASP, .doc ad nauseum.
Since MS likes to change these frequently even Windows can have problems with support here :)
5. Complicated documentation that is tiresome to read - Windows just throws away the docs and when the OS goes belly up you don't have to bother reading it - hurrah!
Not having any docs it's impossible for the sysadmin (however skilled he or she is) to try and stop it going belly up in the first place. They might not get much thanks for that, but it's better than having users yelling at them...
Adrian your arguments are both tired and lame. Nobody is saying that linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread but to compare it with Windows, spouting a lot of MS market-speak...`innovative', `easy to use' suggests you've been reading a bit too much of that company's propaganda.
Be nice if they put a fraction of the effort currently expended on propaganda on the provision of useful documentation.
Windows is difficult to support, expensive and as acknowledged by yourself, useless within a multi-user environment. I don't know what
At least part of the reason is that it's a single user platform, with multiuser support appearing to be bolted on as an after though. If you have a multi-user, multi-machine setup then "multi" includes the number "one". Programs written with multi user assumptions will work fine if there is only one user, those written with single user assumptions (especially if they include being able to write to any file) can easily run into problems when they are needed to be used "multi-user" or "multi-computer". -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 08:29:07AM +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
<snip>
Gone the way of the dodo. Your `transparent' OS isn't actually transparent at all. The system is undocumented even for developers, and it's impossible to buy any good documentation for the system. I had to buy the MS press `Windows NT Resource Kit' (at considerable expense) as most of the utilities needed for the OS didn't ship with the OS itself; this book is 1300 pages of unadulterated bilge who's only useful function is that of a doorstop.
There probably is useful information in there, just a matter of being able to find it without inducing "brain shutdown"...
I swear that there is so little of any practical use that it beggars belief. Remember that this is a book that cost over 60 quid. There's any amount of garbage about using fancy widgets for monitoring CPU usage and disk i/o but there's nothing about what to do if either hits the roof. Useful stuff about how to add users or kill runaway processes? Nothing. The book's the most shameful excuse for a technical book that I've ever read and perfectly mirrors their software in it's usefulness. I hate to bash on about the paucity of their documentation but it's a fundamental failing of their operating systems. I'd rather have a poor OS well documented than a good OS poorly documented; in their case you get neither, you get a poor OS poorly documented which is why people who are going to use their computers in any kind of professional capacity should avoid them like the plague irrespective of any perceived benefits of their software. -- Frank *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* | Boroughbridge | Tel: 01423 323019 | PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 | *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
I hate to bash on about the paucity of their documentation but it's a fundamental failing of their operating systems. I'd rather have a poor OS well documented than a good OS poorly documented; in their case you
IMHO a good OS with poor documentation is a contradiction in terms... -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
This has been an interesting debate (?). I finally can't resist joining in with a few thoughts. I will start by admitting my personal bias - I am pro Open Source and anti-MS in general. I use Linux as my main OS both at work and at home, but I have to support WinXX for all my colleagues and 250 schools I work with. This debate has been about benefits for users and administrators/support staff. I think we need to think beyond 'one size fits all'. The users come in several types (in no particular order): 1) those who use a PC as a tool and which doesn't change from day to day; as long as it goes on working and does the job they don't care how it works. They would probably prefer that no new software was installed unless their job changes radically. 2) those like me who find the process of getting something working and knowing how it works more interesting than actually doing anything with a working PC - in my case my home PC keeps changing as I try various distros and ways of installing; I stick with one until it is working perfectly and then it is time to start a new partition. 3) 'home' users who use their PC's for a bit of all sorts but mostly for games and/or internet. They will probably want to keep trying new software from the latest 3D game to the web development software demo from a magazine cover CD. They will often be looking for hardware upgrades too. 4) education users (schools/colleges etc) where the PC will be shared between many users and must keep the various users separate and stop any one user from messing up the system for the others. In general the software required will be standard and required not to change for a period of time (usually an academic year but this could vary) Ideally there should be a wide range of to suit a range of educational objectives. 5) a set of users not usually catered for in school where the user can discover how to install, mess up and fix software - including the OS. This is a very important educational process but normally we are trying to suppress that sort of experimentation in school networks. 6) network administrators and support staff - they want an OS and software they can install once when the new machine arrives and not need to touch again until the hardware breaks or goes obsolete. My opinion of the right software for each of these: 1) Once they have been shown how to use it these users won't care and either Win or Lin will do, Win is more standard (so far) but Lin is more reliable. 2) People like me will never be satisfied, but at least Linux has brought back some of the fun from before PC's took over. 3) While winXX is everywhere and all the games are written for it first, ordinary home users will mostly need win. Most of the comments in this debate about Windows and ease of use were IMO aimed at this class of user 4) There have been a lot of attempts to make WinXX suit this sort of user, but they are fighting an uphill struggle ;-) A multi-user task really needs a multi-user OS. Some schools have moved to NT workstation on that principle (but then how much software is really written for Win9X) My opinion is that this is where a quality thin client setup would be appropriate. 5) these can and should be allowed a mixture. Of course they do not officially exist as a valid class of user in most schools. 6) From a support viewpoint all I can saw is that Win9X means trouble. Now you can all shout at me and tell where I am wrong. I will admit that I have over-simplified the situation a bit. ____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________
On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:03, Giles Nunn wrote: [snip]
Now you can all shout at me and tell where I am wrong. I will admit that I have over-simplified the situation a bit.
I think you have actually hit the nail right on the head, and stated it well. I also think that now is a good time to let this thread die and let us get back to supporting Linux in schools.
____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________
-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
This has been an interesting debate (?). I finally can't resist joining in with a few thoughts.
I will start by admitting my personal bias - I am pro Open Source and anti-MS in general. I use Linux as my main OS both at work and at home, but I have to support WinXX for all my colleagues and 250 schools I work with.
This debate has been about benefits for users and administrators/support staff. I think we need to think beyond 'one size fits all'. The users come in several types (in no particular order):
1) those who use a PC as a tool and which doesn't change from day to day; as long as it goes on working and does the job they don't care how it works. They would probably prefer that no new software was installed unless their job changes radically.
Also in addition having a machine which is hard to break and where they don't have to perform system administration tasks.
2) those like me who find the process of getting something working and knowing how it works more interesting than actually doing anything with a working PC - in my case my home PC keeps changing as I try various distros and ways of installing; I stick with one until it is working perfectly and then it is time to start a new partition.
3) 'home' users who use their PC's for a bit of all sorts but mostly for games and/or internet. They will probably want to keep trying new software from the latest 3D game to the web development software demo from a magazine cover CD. They will often be looking for hardware upgrades too.
4) education users (schools/colleges etc) where the PC will be shared between many users and must keep the various users separate and stop any one user from messing up the system for the others. In general the software required will be standard and required not to change for a period of time (usually an academic year but this could vary) Ideally there should be a wide range of to suit a range of educational objectives.
Effectivly this is a variation on catagory one. With the addition that multiuser support is needed. Which may or may not be needed with the catagory one situation.
5) a set of users not usually catered for in school where the user can discover how to install, mess up and fix software - including the OS. This is a very important educational process but normally we are trying to suppress that sort of experimentation in school networks.
But this would have to be on specific machines intended for that purpose. An analogy is that whilst they may do practical electronics as a technology subject letting the children pull apart any piece of electronic equiptment around the school is certainly not on.
6) network administrators and support staff - they want an OS and software they can install once when the new machine arrives and not need to touch again until the hardware breaks or goes obsolete.
Also which is hard for the user to break, either acidentaly or maliciously.
My opinion of the right software for each of these:
1) Once they have been shown how to use it these users won't care and either Win or Lin will do, Win is more standard (so far) but Lin is more reliable.
2) People like me will never be satisfied, but at least Linux has brought back some of the fun from before PC's took over.
3) While winXX is everywhere and all the games are written for it first, ordinary home users will mostly need win. Most of the comments in this debate about Windows and ease of use were IMO aimed at this class of user
Which is probably the class of user for which WinXX is most optimal.
4) There have been a lot of attempts to make WinXX suit this sort of user, but they are fighting an uphill struggle ;-) A multi-user task really needs a multi-user OS. Some schools have moved to NT workstation on that principle (but then how much software is really written for Win9X) My
Thus you can easily end up paying NT prices for something which operates as WinXX. So as to get the applications to work.
opinion is that this is where a quality thin client setup would be appropriate.
5) these can and should be allowed a mixture. Of course they do not officially exist as a valid class of user in most schools.
6) From a support viewpoint all I can saw is that Win9X means trouble.
As well as a lot of wasted time and furstration... -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
participants (5)
-
adrian.wells
-
Frank Shute
-
Gary Stainburn
-
Giles Nunn
-
Mark Evans