While I was at Microsoft’s Professional Developers Conference last month, I finished Merrill R. Chapman’s book In Search of Stupidity. In the book, from the perspective of an insider, he lays out the mistakes other companies have made to contribute inadvertently to the dominance of Microsoft. While our views differ as to how significant some blunders were in certain cases, in general Chapman does a good job documenting why many of these companies failed and why Microsoft succeeded.
You haven't used all of these operating systems. You've looked for faults with them in the writings of other people. You then selectively put your representation of these faults into a pile and passed judgement on the work of a lot of people dedicated to making something better. Maybe you just had a bad day and your usually constructive intentions went awry. It happens to everyone.
With all due respect: You sound like a typical windowz user that has never used other operating systems and has obvious slanted opinions that are based on ignorance. Linux, MAC osX, (UNIX) whether you like it or not is here to stay and flourish regardless of your opinion. I suggest you do further research and you'll find growing support on a global scale for Linux. As a matter of fact Sun Microsystems has just announced a Common desktop environment that is based on JAVA and Linux that works on existing systems as well as at an enterprise level. This should open the doors for more development of Linux/JAVA based programs. Sun happens to be the largest contributor of open source programs in the world. Please see link for further information http://www.sun.com/2003-0930/feature/ This may help you in obtaining factual information instead of biased opinionated remarks. As a matter of fact a multi-year deal has just been reached with China to provide this desktop environmet to the Government of China. here is further info on the system itself. http://wwws.sun.com/software/learnabout/javasystem/index.html It's scary to think that people like you propagate further misinformation to your readers just because you don't do your homework. LINUX/JAVA is here to Stay BABY. Embrace it, aknowledge it, respect it. Stop kissing up to Microsoft and it's sloppy code. Windowz has had it's day, it's time for an operating system that all can use and and contribute to. GLOBALLY. 69,000 bugs on windowz systems in one year alone. Dude state the facts. regards Hunabku
Rob Enderle claims that neither Apple's prestigious Mac OS X nor the impressive Linux OS are "necessarily better" than Windows. I would have to disagree vehemently. . Reason? Viruses and other security exploits. While Linux and Mac OS X are not immune to viruses or exploits, the number of exploits affecting OS X and Linux pale in comparison to Windows exploits. Viruses don't seem as frequent on Linux distros either. The big difference here regarding viruses is with Mac OS X. While Windows is plagued with over 60,000 viruses there is not one virus that affects Mac OS X. This is remarkable given that Mac OS X is over three years old and has somewhere between 10 and 20 million current users (this number is growing rapidly). . Another point to consider regarding *Nix (Linux, *BSD, OS X, AIX, HPUX, Solaris, etc.) is that even if a user gets a virus the entire system is not compromised. The way Unix operates, each user has his/her own separate user directory. If a particular user gets a virus of some sort, no other user is affected, nor is the system compromised. Contrast this to Windows where a virus can and will infect the entire system, including other users's files. . So while Windows XP might have made the experience of using a Wintel box much nicer and more elegant, it is still a cesspool of problems with regard to security and viruses. For that reason alone I could not use any Microsoft product (Outlook and IE are also both plagued with security problems). . Lastly, Microsoft has repeatedly stolen other people's ideas and intellectual property (or when they can't steal it, they just buy the company outright). They have also strong-armed the competition and OEM companies like Dell, HP, Compaq. For this they were found guilty of breaking Federal Anti-Trust laws and convicted on the charges of being a monopoly. This, coupled with their other problems, are why I switched from being a Windows user (of over a decade, mind you) to being a *BSD (FreeBSD), Linux and Mac OS X user. I'll never support or give another dime to Microsoft due to their lax security stance, and their business ethics and I encourage others to do the same.
Your contention that essentially all software / OS's have the same amount of bugs is something I here often from Microsoft users. Well, It's not true for development or using Apples OSX. Apple's Advantage: - Not at war , or lying about OSSoftware. - Rich java Development env. - Great IApp's / Great Apps: Including MS Office. - No virii. - Much better security NOW. - Great Airport: Router and Firewall, enabled with all services off by default. Also, you can make the name of your network invisible + password protect your network + plus encrypt your transmissions. The best thing, for me, is not needing MS Development tools and languages. Lets's see, MS dropped support for C++ MFC, Java and VB6. If your multiMillionDollar invenstment in a business solution was in one of these technologies, then YOU have a Needless Zero ROI converting to .NET. Java has the additional benefit of being 300% more reliable. The only thing that surpasses Sun's quality is IBM's mainframe Cobol environment. ( IBM's C++ software projects don't match Java's Quality, IMHO. ) I've done the same type of work in Java and MS tech, I've once run into a serious bug in Java, In VB it's a weekly occurance. My Question is if MS hires the best then why this junk? - 80-120 hours per week isn't good for code quality - rushed deadlines - take the easy way out, instead of the long ard way to get it right. Tip's for Microsoft: - review all code that goes into the os and .net - all code must run thru a debugger - All IF's must have an ELSE - all software must be tested Until I see that happen, I'll stick with Sun / Apple and Java.
Rob, . I think the word you're really looking for is "trade-off." As in the phrase, "...should consider the trade-offs." . At this point all of the major operating systems - Linux, MacIntosh, and Windows - are able to function at the enterprise level, and each brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages. I'm not sure the issue of support is worth considering - it's possible to find excellent (or terrible) support for all of these operating systems. . As I see it, it goes like this: . Windows. There are three disadvantages to this operating system. 1.) Windows is (relatively) unstable. 2.), Windows is massively insecure. 3.) Windows costs more than it's worth. ($299 for XP when I just downloaded an enterprise grade Linux with a couple hundred useful desktop and server applications for free? C'mon Bill, get real..) . At the same time, Windows has two major advantages. 1.) Windows is very common, and everyone knows how to use it. 2.) There are more desktop enterprise level applications available for Windows than for any other system. The difference between what's available for the Windows desktop vs. what's available for anyone else is so large it should probably count as two advantages. . MacIntosh. This system has two major disadvantages. 1.) The hard and software both cost too much. (Psst!! Steve, I can download BSD for nothing and get most of the advantages of a Mac while paying for PC hardware.) 2.) There aren't nearly enough enterprise level DESKTOP applications available. . MacIntosh computers, however, have five advantages. 1.) Stability. 2.) Ease of use. 3.) All the server-level applications that run on BSD are available. 4.) Much of the code is open and can be inspected for security issues or rewritten to provide extra functionality. 5.) OS-10 runs on BSD Unix, which makes porting an application from Unix or Linux comparatively easy. For example, the newest version of Open-Office is available for free download for MacIntosh. (I suppose one could argue that the availability of good free software makes the MacIntosh superior to Windows from a cost standpoint, but since I'm unwilling to make the initial high investment, I haven't experimented with the trade off.) . Linux: The disadvantages of Linux are as follows. 1.) Less enterprise-level applications on the desktop than either Mac or Windows. 2.) People trained on DOS/Windows systems require retraining before using Linux, even in GUI mode. 3.) The desktop. In this case, I'm not referring to availability of applications or their quality. (The selection is good, though not on the scale of what is available for Windows or Mac, and the quality of most open-source applications is high.) The first Linux GUI problem here is entirely human... The average menu system in a Linux GUI is so crowded with stuff - some important, some not - that it's almost impossible for a beginner to sort it out. At this point the killer application for Linux would be a desktop configuration tool that carefully quizzed users on their needs and abilities, then configured the menu system. Also, the "clipboard" on Linux is problematic and the X-Windows system doesn't handle fonts very well. It's possible to install them, but it's a major pain. The various GUI problems, taken in total should probably count as two disadvantages. . Linux, however, has five advantages. 1.) Stability. 2.) Cost (It's hard to beat free.) 3.) An immense number of time tested server-level applications - essentially all the usual Unix stuff. 4.) Completely open code all the way from the kernel to the desktop. 5.) A gigantic number of development tools come free with every major distribution. . On a personal level, if money was no object, I'd definitely go with the MacIntosh, but since my wallet lives in the real world, I use Linux for my day-to-day work and boot my wife's Windows box when I need to do something that requires fonts or desktop publishing. . On an enterprise level, I'd be inclined to use Linux for the servers, for any application development done in house, and for anyone who didn't need a special application which was only available in Windows. (Clerical staff, for example, don't need a six-hundred dollar office suite, and Open Office will read and write MS office file formats.) I'd make Macs available to anyone who needed to do creative stuff on a day-to-day basis, and reserve Windows boxes for those who need to use special tools that don't run on Linux. . Alex
With this type of logic there are no differences between any companies. Your comments are like saying there is no difference between CLI and GUI because you can issue commands in ether. The fact that all OS's ship with bugs does not mean there is no difference between them. Also statements like: >>Panther, the file finder still performs horribly. >>there are bugs in the new version of QuickTime, >>flaws in the security-patch methodology >>a general feeling that a new operating system that is mostly bug fixes Jade the truth to say the least. Define "performs horribly" I looked through the support area and could find no evidence of a systemic performance problem and saw a large number of raves about performance with panther. The "bug" in the java implementation of quicktime was had already been patched and the security-patch method was an issue 2 year ago. As for the "general feeling" people had, it sure does not show from the tech press. Most of these are raving about the value of this upgrade. The only thing I have seen questioning it has been statements about how great Jaguar already was so why upgrade. Is there a difference in the number of bugs and viruses on different platforms? YES! OS X and Linux both shine when compared to Windows in this regard. Neither of these OS's have any major virus problems (where there are new strains every day on windows) and have far fewer security problems than their windows counter parts. As for your over all assessment of "trying to make it work" with your current vendor, I think that is fine but you are not looking at the other side which is "are people using more expensive inferior products because it is safe". Every problem needs to be evaluated individually. OS X's licensing agreements are very favorable compared to Windows and it's tools are great. The G5's are proving out to be some of the most cost effective CPU's around so turn the argument around. Don't you think people should look at the best tool for the next 2-4 years when buying servers? Even if that might force the individual to learn a new OS? Can Apple, Linux and Windows live happily together? Diversity has it's benefits. It is not a goal in and of it's self but if you can get it with out much "cost" it is worth while and healthy. The computing world is a better place because of both Apple and linux. Without them, Microsoft would not be nearly the company it is today, or the company it may become tomorrow.
True, don't jump in the deep end. However, you've yet again written a mostly unbalenced article here. You critisized Apple and linux but not really microsoft. You just seemed to apologise for them. Take your own advise when it comes to these Linux zealots you seem to hate so much and give them a bit of that understanding you apparently have for everyone else. I'm sure they wouldn't mind a bit of constructive criticism aslong as you apply it to all platforms in your article. Apple is plagued with problems at the moment. Linux has a way to go before it's acceptable in the desktop environment but Windows is also riddled with major problems I hope to see fixed or at least improved in Longhorn. If you write unbalanced, biased and fairly arrogant articles, you're just asking for retaliation. Like your favored platform, you've got some work to do.
Loading ...
Apple, Linux and Microsoft: Losing the Religion
Posted by: Rob Enderle November 10, 2003 08:18 AMWhile I was at Microsoft’s Professional Developers Conference last month, I finished Merrill R. Chapman’s book In Search of Stupidity. In the book, from the perspective of an insider, he lays out the mistakes other companies have made to contribute inadvertently to the dominance of Microsoft. While our views differ as to how significant some blunders were in certain cases, in general Chapman does a good job documenting why many of these companies failed and why Microsoft succeeded.
You sound like a typical windowz user that has never used other operating systems and has obvious slanted opinions that are based on ignorance.
Linux, MAC osX, (UNIX) whether you like it or not is here to stay and flourish regardless of your opinion. I suggest you do further research and you'll find growing support on a global scale for Linux. As a matter of fact Sun Microsystems has just announced a Common desktop environment that is based on JAVA and Linux that works on existing systems as well as at an enterprise level.
This should open the doors for more development of Linux/JAVA based programs. Sun happens to be the largest contributor of open source programs in the world.
Please see link for further information http://www.sun.com/2003-0930/feature/
This may help you in obtaining factual information instead of biased opinionated remarks.
As a matter of fact a multi-year deal has just been reached with China to provide this desktop environmet to the Government of China. here is further info on the system itself.
http://wwws.sun.com/software/learnabout/javasystem/index.html
It's scary to think that people like you propagate further misinformation to your readers just because you don't do your homework.
LINUX/JAVA is here to Stay BABY. Embrace it, aknowledge it, respect it. Stop kissing up to Microsoft and it's sloppy code.
Windowz has had it's day, it's time for an operating system that all can use and and contribute to. GLOBALLY.
69,000 bugs on windowz systems in one year alone. Dude state the facts.
regards
Hunabku
.
Reason? Viruses and other security exploits. While Linux and Mac OS X are not immune to viruses or exploits, the number of exploits affecting OS X and Linux pale in comparison to Windows exploits. Viruses don't seem as frequent on Linux distros either. The big difference here regarding viruses is with Mac OS X. While Windows is plagued with over 60,000 viruses there is not one virus that affects Mac OS X. This is remarkable given that Mac OS X is over three years old and has somewhere between 10 and 20 million current users (this number is growing rapidly).
.
Another point to consider regarding *Nix (Linux, *BSD, OS X, AIX, HPUX, Solaris, etc.) is that even if a user gets a virus the entire system is not compromised. The way Unix operates, each user has his/her own separate user directory. If a particular user gets a virus of some sort, no other user is affected, nor is the system compromised. Contrast this to Windows where a virus can and will infect the entire system, including other users's files.
.
So while Windows XP might have made the experience of using a Wintel box much nicer and more elegant, it is still a cesspool of problems with regard to security and viruses. For that reason alone I could not use any Microsoft product (Outlook and IE are also both plagued with security problems).
.
Lastly, Microsoft has repeatedly stolen other people's ideas and intellectual property (or when they can't steal it, they just buy the company outright). They have also strong-armed the competition and OEM companies like Dell, HP, Compaq. For this they were found guilty of breaking Federal Anti-Trust laws and convicted on the charges of being a monopoly. This, coupled with their other problems, are why I switched from being a Windows user (of over a decade, mind you) to being a *BSD (FreeBSD), Linux and Mac OS X user. I'll never support or give another dime to Microsoft due to their lax security stance, and their business ethics and I encourage others to do the same.
Well, It's not true for development or using Apples OSX.
Apple's Advantage:
- Not at war , or lying about OSSoftware.
- Rich java Development env.
- Great IApp's / Great Apps: Including MS Office.
- No virii.
- Much better security NOW.
- Great Airport: Router and Firewall, enabled with all services off by default.
Also, you can make the name of your network invisible + password protect your network + plus encrypt your transmissions.
The best thing, for me, is not needing MS Development tools and languages.
Lets's see, MS dropped support for C++ MFC, Java and VB6. If your multiMillionDollar invenstment in a business solution was in one of these technologies, then YOU have a Needless Zero ROI converting to .NET.
Java has the additional benefit of being 300% more reliable. The only thing that surpasses Sun's quality is IBM's mainframe Cobol environment. ( IBM's C++ software projects don't match Java's Quality, IMHO. )
I've done the same type of work in Java and MS tech, I've once run into a serious bug in Java,
In VB it's a weekly occurance.
My Question is if MS hires the best then why this junk?
- 80-120 hours per week isn't good for code quality
- rushed deadlines
- take the easy way out, instead of the long ard way to get it right.
Tip's for Microsoft:
- review all code that goes into the os and .net
- all code must run thru a debugger
- All IF's must have an ELSE
- all software must be tested
Until I see that happen, I'll stick with Sun / Apple and Java.
.
I think the word you're really looking for is "trade-off." As in the phrase, "...should consider the trade-offs."
.
At this point all of the major operating systems - Linux, MacIntosh, and Windows - are able to function at the enterprise level, and each brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages. I'm not sure the issue of support is worth considering - it's possible to find excellent (or terrible) support for all of these operating systems.
.
As I see it, it goes like this:
.
Windows. There are three disadvantages to this operating system. 1.) Windows is (relatively) unstable. 2.), Windows is massively insecure. 3.) Windows costs more than it's worth. ($299 for XP when I just downloaded an enterprise grade Linux with a couple hundred useful desktop and server applications for free? C'mon Bill, get real..)
.
At the same time, Windows has two major advantages. 1.) Windows is very common, and everyone knows how to use it. 2.) There are more desktop enterprise level applications available for Windows than for any other system. The difference between what's available for the Windows desktop vs. what's available for anyone else is so large it should probably count as two advantages.
.
MacIntosh. This system has two major disadvantages. 1.) The hard and software both cost too much. (Psst!! Steve, I can download BSD for nothing and get most of the advantages of a Mac while paying for PC hardware.) 2.) There aren't nearly enough enterprise level DESKTOP applications available.
.
MacIntosh computers, however, have five advantages. 1.) Stability. 2.) Ease of use. 3.) All the server-level applications that run on BSD are available. 4.) Much of the code is open and can be inspected for security issues or rewritten to provide extra functionality. 5.) OS-10 runs on BSD Unix, which makes porting an application from Unix or Linux comparatively easy. For example, the newest version of Open-Office is available for free download for MacIntosh. (I suppose one could argue that the availability of good free software makes the MacIntosh superior to Windows from a cost standpoint, but since I'm unwilling to make the initial high investment, I haven't experimented with the trade off.)
.
Linux: The disadvantages of Linux are as follows. 1.) Less enterprise-level applications on the desktop than either Mac or Windows. 2.) People trained on DOS/Windows systems require retraining before using Linux, even in GUI mode. 3.) The desktop. In this case, I'm not referring to availability of applications or their quality. (The selection is good, though not on the scale of what is available for Windows or Mac, and the quality of most open-source applications is high.) The first Linux GUI problem here is entirely human... The average menu system in a Linux GUI is so crowded with stuff - some important, some not - that it's almost impossible for a beginner to sort it out. At this point the killer application for Linux would be a desktop configuration tool that carefully quizzed users on their needs and abilities, then configured the menu system. Also, the "clipboard" on Linux is problematic and the X-Windows system doesn't handle fonts very well. It's possible to install them, but it's a major pain. The various GUI problems, taken in total should probably count as two disadvantages.
.
Linux, however, has five advantages. 1.) Stability. 2.) Cost (It's hard to beat free.) 3.) An immense number of time tested server-level applications - essentially all the usual Unix stuff. 4.) Completely open code all the way from the kernel to the desktop. 5.) A gigantic number of development tools come free with every major distribution.
.
On a personal level, if money was no object, I'd definitely go with the MacIntosh, but since my wallet lives in the real world, I use Linux for my day-to-day work and boot my wife's Windows box when I need to do something that requires fonts or desktop publishing.
.
On an enterprise level, I'd be inclined to use Linux for the servers, for any application development done in house, and for anyone who didn't need a special application which was only available in Windows. (Clerical staff, for example, don't need a six-hundred dollar office suite, and Open Office will read and write MS office file formats.) I'd make Macs available to anyone who needed to do creative stuff on a day-to-day basis, and reserve Windows boxes for those who need to use special tools that don't run on Linux.
.
Alex
The fact that all OS's ship with bugs does not mean there is no difference between them. Also statements like:
>>Panther, the file finder still performs horribly.
>>there are bugs in the new version of QuickTime,
>>flaws in the security-patch methodology
>>a general feeling that a new operating system that is mostly bug fixes
Jade the truth to say the least. Define "performs horribly" I looked through the support area and could find no evidence of a systemic performance problem and saw a large number of raves about performance with panther.
The "bug" in the java implementation of quicktime was had already been patched and the security-patch method was an issue 2 year ago.
As for the "general feeling" people had, it sure does not show from the tech press. Most of these are raving about the value of this upgrade. The only thing I have seen questioning it has been statements about how great Jaguar already was so why upgrade.
Is there a difference in the number of bugs and viruses on different platforms? YES!
OS X and Linux both shine when compared to Windows in this regard. Neither of these OS's have any major virus problems (where there are new strains every day on windows) and have far fewer security problems than their windows counter parts.
As for your over all assessment of "trying to make it work" with your current vendor, I think that is fine but you are not looking at the other side which is "are people using more expensive inferior products because it is safe". Every problem needs to be evaluated individually. OS X's licensing agreements are very favorable compared to Windows and it's tools are great. The G5's are proving out to be some of the most cost effective CPU's around so turn the argument around.
Don't you think people should look at the best tool for the next 2-4 years when buying servers? Even if that might force the individual to learn a new OS? Can Apple, Linux and Windows live happily together?
Diversity has it's benefits. It is not a goal in and of it's self but if you can get it with out much "cost" it is worth while and healthy. The computing world is a better place because of both Apple and linux. Without them, Microsoft would not be nearly the company it is today, or the company it may become tomorrow.
If you write unbalanced, biased and fairly arrogant articles, you're just asking for retaliation. Like your favored platform, you've got some work to do.