Re: I was just wondering



Joe Richards [MVP] wrote:

> Hold on now. You are confussing many issues. The first
> is "fragmentation". Is there fragmentation between
> Windows 200 and Windows 2003? Sure. However,
> because you know Windows 2000 it does not take you
> long to adjust to Windows 2003. It is no different
> in Linux.

I disagree on this being the same. Look at most apps out there and you
will find that you have to either find the correct version for the dist
of linux or BSD you are running or you to "tweak" the app to work with
your dist.


Well, as someone who runs a linux server farm and installs/maintains
numerous apps, I say BS!!!! You have far more problems with Windows
and "DLL Hell"...Funny how you seem to "forget" to talk about that....

On a side note, the real difference between the binaries here is not the
binary. It is the way it is installed! It is really funny how you Windows
guys have all the preconceptions about what Linux is but, you really don;t
have a clue. I would kindly suggest that you learn Linux, as well as you
know Windows, then come back and we can have a truly intelligent
conversation. In fact, I challenge you....

If anything, Windows is getting considerably better in this
space as you used to have a huge delta between apps for the DOS based
versions (Win9x) and the NT based versions. Yes there are still
differences in versions but ditto in all of the OSes. If this weren't
the case you wouldn't be advancing. What I am specifically talking about
isn't version fragmentation but distribution fragmentation. When I can
go to say www.ethereal.com and download THE Linux version or THE BSD
version then the fragmentation has gone away. Right now I look and I see
o Red Hat / Fedora
o Debian
o Gentoo
o Mandriva
o PLD
o ROCK
o Slackware
o SUSE


Your first problem is you do not seem to realize that BSD is NOT Linux. They
are both UNIX but ALL linuxes run a common kernel where BSD does not.
Second, you don't realize that the binaries *will* run on each. The only
real differences is that different Linuxes have different installation
programs, hence the listing of multiple Linux Distros.

Third what you view as a weakness I view as a strength. If you want an a
portable version of Linux (troubleshooting etc) go with knoppix. If you
want a distribution that focuses on the corporate environment, go with Red
Hat or SUSE, if you want....well, you get the idea.


And that isn't even encompassing all of the dists out there. There is a
lot of fragmentation in the Linux dev and platform world and while it is
getting better, there really are still too many flavors to be useful for
the home market.


Not at all. You are missing the point that what you call "fragmentation" I
call more choices.


Contrariwise, there is one Windows download. There is one Mac download.
There are three BSD downloads.


Who says one shoe size fits all anyway?


How about KDE, how many different dists are there separate downloads
for? Like 8 or so? Gnome, who knows...


Again, you ignore my previous comment. So I will restate. You claim that
having choices is a bad thing. I say it is not. I like choices. I just
bought a new car last week. According to you, we should all drive the same
car. I say no. I spent the time to find the car that fits me the best.
Again, choices are good. Get what fits your needs.

Second, as a KDE user as well as a Debian Linux, Red Hat Linux and FreeBSD
user trust me when I say this, KDE runs the same on all. In fact, while
using KDE on any of these it is virtually impossible to detect *WHICH*
Operating System is running underneath. Why? Because KDE runs the same on
all. What does that mean? It means that as a user, if you learn KDE's
environment, you can *USE* *ALL* *LINUXes*!!!. So again, your argument
of "fragmentation hurts the user" argument fails...yet again.





The point is, consumers have to keep OS version and distribution
straight in their head when looking for something. With Windows, it is
simply version. This is trivial for most users who would even say hang
out in the newsgroups, but for the vast majority of folks, it is beyond
what they care about.


Let's talk about "DLL HELL" that has plagued the Windows World for a decade.
I believe users just want something that works, is easy to maintain and is
secure. Not something that says "Nope you can't install this application
because it needs this version of this DLL and you can't upgrade because
this other App needs the current version" What the hell is that all about?
Anyone ever heard of a Linker? Why is it that in any other operating
system, besides Windows, this is never a problem. Why is it that it IS ONLY
a problem for Windows???

Trying to fix DLL versions (mismatches) is by far more frustrating and
difficult for a user than remembering what the name of their OS is....



> A window manager, simply put, is a layer that sits on top
> of the OS (really

Yep I know what a Windows manager is. You could modify your manager,
known as the shell on MSFT Windows based OSes since about 3.1 days if I
recall correctly.


Nope. Not the same. I am not talking about *modifying* a shell. I am talking
about running a totally different window manager (different APIs, different
libraries).....not the same.








--
Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
www.joeware.net


---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---

http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm


imhotep wrote:
Robert Moir wrote:

Joe Richards [MVP] wrote:

.