101–110 of 146 posts
This could block Linux from booting, but realistically speaking, does anyone believe that will happen? It seems very, very unlikely to me that you won't be able to disable signing restrictions at the firmware level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the Windows 8 Logo Program , which is basically that sticker on a new PC that says it is certified to run Windows 8.
Am I the only person that would pay extra for a computer without all those fucking stickers on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to defend Windows here, because it certainly has its flaws, but you're so deluded it's not even funny any more. You seem to like 'openness' so much, but the concept of 'open mind' seems to be completely lost on you. "There fore all means of getting things done on a windows machine for a developer have to go somehow through a set GUI's to get work done programatically." This alone is enough to discard anything you…
Here's the thing about the registry: with a bunch of config files in /etc, I already have many, many tools for managing them because they're just text files like every other text file. With the Windows registry, if I want version control or something like that, I have to invent the tools myself. This is a waste of my time unless I am in the business of selling products for Windows. UNIX is about being generic. Yes, i…
Secondly, it's only true in the most simple cases that you can edit config files easily. First, all config formats are different - from the bizarre (Sendmail) to fairly sensible (Apache), but each one requires separate tools/scripts. Secondly, most of them are quite hard to automate - for example most config formats ignore white space, but writing a robust 'parser' in bash/sed/awk is a major pita and something you can never quite get right. (this is what I alluded to in my previous post). I don't see how you can say 'I already have most of the tools' - you need to learn the syntax and then write a complete program to parse the files. For example, you need somewhat of a state machine to parse/edit Apache VirtualHost directives. You need to write a complete editor from scratch each time.
I'm not sure what you mean with the last line. Just as with a properly set up make environment, you can compile a whole Visual Studio project with a single command from the command line. There is no way to do a bunch of things 'automatically' on Linux either (compile, run test, deploy, whatever), you still need to code them into your makefiles/deployment scripts.
(I've written software on and admin'ed Linux for coming on 15 years and I've written Windows software for over 10 - I have quite a bit of experience with both. They both have good and bad sides, and I run my personal servers on Linux myself. That said, the arguments used here against Windows are plain false and reek of Slashdot-style fanboyism).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody uses Windows as a server OS, This is the problem with getting tech news only from HN.
Yes. At my last job, they had 200+ servers, all Windows. When I tried to bring up Linux as an option, they sort of winced and said "Linux... ehhh... it's hard to get Linux doing what you want."
I'd say the company you work for has a humongous and probably incurable HR problem. If this is the kind of IT folks they hire, my best advice would be to run away and stay as far from it as possible.
You can also write a very fun book with the stories you probably witness. I'd buy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasons: -------- 1. Windows was never originally designed to work as a Server side operating system at the first place. They started to drive it on the server side when they first discovered the Internet had a huge commercial potential to sell machines on the backend. There fore all means of getting things done on a windows machine for a developer have to go somehow through a set GUI's to get work done programatical…
Foreword: I've been using various flavors of Linux for a good chunk of the last decade (since 2001) and totally ignored Windows until last year, so I am no Windows fanboy. 2. This may be true for the good old cmd.exe but.. have you tried PowerShell? I've been playing with PowerShell 2 on Windows 7 and found that it leaves little to be desired. It is self-documenting (a-la Emacs). It can be extended using .NET. You ca…
You know there is a fallacy there, don't you? It's perfectly possible to ignore something for decades and still fall in love with it later. I've seen lots of Windows and Linux fanboys fall for OSX and become very annoying in the process.
I can believe you are no Windows fanboy without you presenting credentials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that doesn't work, the need for booting non-standard Windows images will save us. I've never worked for any company that ran a stock Windows install -- everyone rolls their own. If new machines won't boot this image, guess what, that new machine is bought from some vendor that doesn't do this to them. That's not how this works. It doesn't expect that the entire OS install is signed. It expects that the kernel is…
Where do you see the requirement that the kernel has to be signed? I only see them mentioning the boot loader, which should be something entirely different (both on Windows and Linux, as far as I'm aware. I admit that my knowledge about the Windows boot process is incomplete). If I'm correct (?) your whole reply to that point was a bit over the top, especially the 'tell me where you work so that I can ignore you' par…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that doesn't work, the need for booting non-standard Windows images will save us. I've never worked for any company that ran a stock Windows install -- everyone rolls their own. If new machines won't boot this image, guess what, that new machine is bought from some vendor that doesn't do this to them. That's not how this works. It doesn't expect that the entire OS install is signed. It expects that the kernel is…
> Microsoft's server product(along with its related tools and products) is massively successful. The Internet darlings may not run Windows Server, but many, many companies do. Yes, and Linux as a server is massively successful. And the internet darlings are one of the biggest customers. If a machine can't boot linux because of the signed kernel requirements enforced at the firmware, those internet darlings would move…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think makes it inferior and mediocre?
Reasons: -------- 1. Windows was never originally designed to work as a Server side operating system at the first place. They started to drive it on the server side when they first discovered the Internet had a huge commercial potential to sell machines on the backend. There fore all means of getting things done on a windows machine for a developer have to go somehow through a set GUI's to get work done programatical…
That's not exactly correct. Windows NT was designed to compete against Unix in the desktop workstation and non-dedicated server market. It was designed by a team formed mostly by DEC alumni. I call it "the bastard child of VMS" for a reason.
> 8. Unix is open source, its freely available.
Linux and BSD are, but OSX and Solaris are only partially open source and AIX and HP-UX are very proprietary.
> 10. Lack of multiuser login,
I believe Windows servers can currently host more than one user session. I used this with NT TSE and I don't think this feature was removed since the late 90's (when I used it). It may be some idiotic license restriction.
> 11. GUI overhead
Windows' GUI is rather primitive. I can't imagine the resources it consumes are relevant these days. I have seen more sophisticated stuff on Symbian phones.