OT -- RE: [Asterisk-Users] Linux and Windows

[Jay Milk]

Maybe we could keep the religious Windows vs. Linux discussions out of
here?  I think they're hardly productive, nor do they make people who
argue for one or the other look very intelligent...

The question was asked whether Asterisk runs on Windows.  Answer: Yes it
does, but only to a limited degree.

I still want to respond to various points that Benjamin brought up,
because I appreciate the knowledge and insight shown in many of his
posts... With the exception of the windows vs. linux discussion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists 
> [mailto:benjk.on.asterisk.ml at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:06 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Linux and Windows
> 
> The trouble is innertia. Most Windoze folks are so much into 
> their Windoze routine, they won't even use a Linux or BSD box 

Not true.  The problem is the learning curve presented by a completely
new operating system.  Windows is easy to install, configure and very
intuitive to maintain.  This user-friendliness is bought at a cost.
Yes, you can lock up a linux box tighter than you ever could a windows
box... But you have to know what you're doing.  The average
non-professional user will prefer a pretty GUI and a few clicks to make
their box "mostly secure" over hours of googling for appropriate
information and config files to bomb-proof their linux box... And this
is *after* you figured out the search terms.

> if you install it for them. I have got a friend in the UK who 
> is always complaining about his Windoze box being down and 
> having to rebuild it from scratch because of viruses, DLL 

It's not that they won't.  It's that they can't.  I think I had an
advantage coming to Linux from my Windows world, because when I started
with PCs, there was no Windows.  I used to optimize my config.sys and
autoexec.bat files, controlling every byte of the precious "lower 640k"
to maximize my DOS performance.  And going to linux STILL was difficult.


> The next time he had a story to tell what a horrible 
> experience he just had rebuilding his Windoze PC again 

I do want to remark that your friend must be doing something wrong with
his Windows machines:  I have eight machines ('98, 2xXP, 1xXP Pro,
2xWin2K Server, 2xWin2K Workstation) at my home office, and in the last
five years only had to reload *one* machine (due to a harddrive failure,
no less).  I use them hard and often, for programming, hardware
prototyping, home automation.... and to telnet into my three Linux
boxes.  If you have a decent firewall and excellent virus protection,
you really can't hurt them.

Now if you are upgrade crazy, you'll run into some issues... But then, I
had to recompile a linux kernel in order to enable support for a certain
network card as well.  THAT stuff happens everywhere.

> works properly, you enjoy this Windoze disaster too much. But 
> you don't have my sympathy anymore."

If he can't keep a Windows machine running without constant need for
rebuilding, maybe you shouldn't try to push him into Linux... He'd be in
WAY over his head.
 
> I think this is symptomatic for most Windoze lusers.

That statement is offensive.  Consider that most professional windows
USERs are driven by *need*, not by preference.  Consider that most
personal windows users are driven by market dominance -- you actually
have to *look* for a non-Windows computer if you want to buy one.

Calling one group "lusers" is out of line and insulting, and rather
reminiscent of the Amiga vs. Atari debate that raged in Europe a decade
ago.

Someone here brought up a car-analogy.  Consider windows a
top-of-the-line luxury sedan and linux a bare-bones SUV.  Both will
essentially do the same job, getting you from point A to point B, but if
you're willing to put in the effort, your SUV will do more for you and
be tougher.  You can retrofit your SUV with a fancy stereo and a
navigation system, if you're willing to do the wiring.  Your luxury
sedan will already have these options ready (and EASY) to use.

And for what it's worth, I'm sick of people arguing how linux is free
because it's open source, and Windows is oh-so-expensive.  Be fair and
FACTOR IN YOUR TIME.  I can set up a windows file-server from scratch in
a couple of hours, and get all the permissions right -- yes, it's
windows, but it works.  I'm *still* looking for useful Samba
documentation to share the files on my * box without allowing access for
everyone.  If you go back to cars, it's the same as some yokel putting
in $2,000 in parts into the SUV and getting all excited about beating
the sedan on 0-60 acceleration... Never mind that he spend the better
part of three months putting those parts in and tuning his upgraded
engine.  Some people are drivers, others are mechanics.

Rather than proclaiming Linux and Windows "camps", can't we just agree
that there are different indications for choosing different OSs, and one
size does not fit all.  For telephony, firewall and web-applications, I
use my linux boxes.  For file-serving, programming and various other
task, I use my Windows boxes.  Linux is best at certain things, Windows
is best at others.