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

[Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:32:03 -0600, Jay Milk <jay at skimmilk.net> wrote:
> 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...

Go back and read the entire thread and you will find that this was
about Astwind, that I said Astwind was a good thing because it lowers
the entry barrier to people wanting to do Asterisk but having fear of
Linux.

I still stand by that.

In other discussions before I was amongst those who identified Astwind
as a tool to run Asterisk on a notebook as a SIP/IAX gateway for a SIP
softphone on the same notebook. A use of Asterisk that I promote and
even set up a Wiki page for (search for "localhost gateway").


> posts... With the exception of the windows vs. linux discussion.

To me, the platform discussion is *not* about Windoze versus Linux at
all. To me the discussion is about commoditised operating systems
versus Windoze. I don't care what operating system is used, as long as
it recognises the fact that operating systems have become commodities
and the commodity standard is Unix, whichever flavour thereof. I am
even prepared to make allowances for non-Unix legacy systems, that
live out the remainder of their lives in niche areas, but that would
be systems like VMS, MPE and OS/400 or TPF because none of them are
being abused to hold an entire industry hostage.

Trying to withstand the trend of commoditisation is a folly thing to
do. As an interesting read on this subject, I'd recommend the history
of rubber, in particular the attempts to stop caoutchouc seeds from
leaving Brazil in order to monopolise rubber. It couldn't succeed
forever. Even under the threat of capital punishment, the seeds did
get smuggled out of Brazil and rubber became a commodity. Later still,
synthetic rubber was invented and rubber still remains a commodity.


> Windows is easy to install, configure and very
> intuitive to maintain.  This user-friendliness is bought at a cost.

You can have the same or even better user-friendliness on Unix. Look
at those Mac rebranded NeXT stations and servers. That's Unix, too. It
also is a good example for the commoditisation I spoke about. Mankind
has bigger problems than getting bogged down in countless silly IT
issues that waste an incredible amount of time and money for the sake
of a monopoly.
 
> Calling one group "lusers" is out of line and insulting,

It's an old MIT tradition. You will find this to be present in many
Unix commands, even making it into recent arrivals such as SSH where
the username is specified with a switch -l

What do you think -l stands for? it's -l as in luser.

If you don't believe me, read it up somewhere. It might well be in the
jargon file.

> 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.

I did not make any such statement, nor did I even argue *Linux* versus
Windoze as mentioned above. Linux is just one of multiple choices of
Unix systems. I personally am not even all that fond of Linux. As an
old DEC/VAX head, I prefer BSD over Linux.

However, as far as the cost of running Windoze is concerned, even The
Economist newspaper openly states for quite a number of years now that
it is an open secret in accountant and investor circles that Windoze
PCs are far more expensive than the mainframes they replaced, even
though the whole point of replacement was the promised lower TCO in
the first place. If a paper with the authority of The Economist
doesn't even make an attempt to present a counter argument, we can be
pretty certain that indeed, the proliferation of Windoze PCs in
businesses was financially a folly.

> Rather than proclaiming Linux and Windows "camps",

Well, you know by now that I don't.

> that there are different indications for choosing different OSs, and one
> size does not fit all.

Precisely my point. And the choices are the commodity systems with
names ending in X and derivatives thereof. Windoze is an abnomaly,
it's raison d'etre is to keep an illegal monopoly in place.


In any event, this whole discussion is far too US centric. European
governments are moving off Windoze and far more important, what is
going to be the world's number one economic powerhouse in the not so
distant future, China, has already decided decisively against Windoze.
I wonder what will happen to the 1-million-fruit-flies argument when 1
billion Chinese and potentially another 1 billion Indians are using
Linux or other open source Unix variants but not Windoze. Are we going
to hear the patriot gospel then? Like "I use Windoze because after
all, um, it's about Western civilisation and christianity and
capitalism versus oriental barabarism, islam/atheism and communism,
right?!". Oh boy, I am soooo not looking forward to that one.

rgds
benjk

-- 
Sunrise Telephone Systems, 9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya,
Tokyo, Japan.

NB: Spam filters in place. Messages unrelated to the * mailing lists
may get trashed.