[Asterisk-Users] Linux and Windows: A Ramble About Open Source

[Jayson Vantuyl]

I don't know why I bother feeding the trolls (either of them), but I do
think this conversation does actually have something to contribute to
the list.  I think they are angry for a really important and relevant
reason.

Thus we begin the long and winding trek from off-topic to on-topic:

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:17:53AM -0600, Jay Milk wrote:
> Possibly.  But it doesn't matter how much knowledge or insight someone
> has, when, with a few targeted words, he insults 1/3 of the mailing list
> by implying that they're lazy gamers who never work.  I was dealing with
> such a person a few months ago -- brilliant programmer, but a complete
> primadonna.  While he made great progress on the work assigned him, he
> disrupted the team and undermined our process.  Took me two sr.
> programmers to replace him, but the productivity went through the roof
> once he was permanently reassigned to "anywhere-but-here".
In all seriousness, a group of five people who can't take criticism will
be much more productive if someone who is critical is removed.  Not to
say that everyone should tolerate abuse, but the above is a non-example
and, quite often, step one in management delusion.  If you have to
explain why you replaced a capable employee with two less capable ones,
I think you miss the point.  Decisions like the above are at the heart
of why your jobs will be outsourced to India--because people there know
it's more important how capable you are (per $) and people there can
take criticism because it can be better for the company.

Any true prima donna simply needs to be bested by those two Sr.
Programmer and, if they're really a prima donna, they'll leave on their
own.  I have personally been responsible for not less than two prima
donna's quitting our company.  I also so have some co-workers that can
be sarcastic, but always have something very valuable to contribute to
the team.  This is the same reason that OSS mailing lists can be
inhospitable, yet OSS projects can crank out some really good software.
Case and point:  Alan Cox.  Read the archives.

> > People are still reading this thread because beneath the 
> > smoke there is 
> > some technical content worth reading.
> I haven't seen much technical content here lately.  Mostly insults.
> [lots of other relevant messages]
CDMA cell-modems aside, I think there's something being missed here
about why people choose Windows versus Linux.  Perceived control.
People very often believe that they simply have more control over
Windows than Linux.  There's a lot that Windows does that they can't
control, but it's not obvious to them.

The same can be seen with, for example, Microsoft Excel usage in the
office versus Microsoft Access.  There are tons of Excel features for
querying data from a spreadsheet that are basically database
functionality grafted on.  Probably 70% (complete guess here) of Excel
spreadsheets would be better crafted in an Access DB with a few reports
and forms.  They're easier to enter, they're easier to maintain, they're
easier to generate reports on.  However, they have strong structure.

Excel does not.  As such, users often feel more control over Excel and
will defer to it time and time again despite having to spend 80% of
their time in data clean up, formula management, and layout troubles.

The same comes for administration types.  At the end of the day, they're
more likely to be able to add a user to an Active Directory--and feel
confident about it--than they are about adding a user to a network of
Linux machines.  The list of things THEY can do with it is larger.
Their understanding of it's administration--even if superficial--is
greater.  This is the game that Novell won against LanMan.  Microsoft
learned it.  Anyone that thinks the Novell TUI network administration
tools did not heavily galvanize Microsoft toward their management
interfaces probably isn't paying enough attention.

That said, right now, businesses are very much in a corner with
telephony.  Telephony systems are untouchable beasts that "just work"
with no interaction.  Bosses are patently convinced of their inability
to do the smallest configurations and modifications of a modern PBX.

Asterisk can pull the same marketing win here that Microsoft did with
Windows.

The above is not an argument against Linux.  Hell, I have code in the
kernel (toot toot, see drivers/scsi/qlogicisp.c).  I am not an impartial
party.  But like the troll claimed he was doing, I'm trying to be
realistic about why MS has market dominance on the desktop, and why MP3s
beat WAVs despite lower quality--perception is key.  It probably should
be the first rule of marketing.

A few products have shown me that you can have BOTH!  You can have
perceived control and actual control.  Linux is going in the right
direction because it provides powerful control with a incongruent
interface (ditto for Asterisk).  That *IS* an absolute prerequisite to
having a powerful control with a good interface.  MS still doesn't get
that.  Apple (oddly) seems to.  Novell does (more or less).  It's up to
us to stay ahead.

As for Asterisk on Windows, not until stability is acheived.  Say what
you want about XP, I have Asterisk on machines that have been running
for at least a year (excepting security updates).  I'll even commit the
cardinal sin and consider uptime lost due to security updates as
acceptable (even though bosses may not).  Linux machines, years.
Running mail, running web, running databases.  Like a rock.  I support
2003 (and regrettably XP and 2000 machines) running MSSQL, IIS, and
Exchange.  None of them has lasted for more then two months.  They are
WORSHIPPED by at least two MCSE's too.  That said, two months versus two
years may not represent some applications.  It may also not be worth
having the most talent support staff for some businesses.

Don't dislike what he says because you've compromised for Windows'
stability and comfort levels.  Don't write him off.  There is an
important grain of truth.  Our industry is less than fifty years old.
The technology is NOT mature.  There are NO mature programs.  They may
be more mature than other programs, but they are nowhere near as mature
as modern knowledge of, say, masonry, structural engineering, civil
engineering, city planning, et cetera.

As such, you can use Windows because it works well enough.  Or you can
push the state of the art so that, someday, software will be mature.
Unless you can get hired by Microsoft, you're unlikely to be able to
help do that to Windows (keep submitting those bug reports and hope).
With Asterisk and Linux, you can do more than watch things move forward
(if that's where they're going).

That's why he uses Linux, and that's why you use Windows.  That's also
why Asterisk is being developed.

Don't mistake my criticism for insults.  If you do, I'll just work for
someone who wants groundbreaking development done, I'll work for someone
who will pay me to make a powerful interface, or I'll ignore you on a
mailing list.  Because I'm generous with my source, you'll still benefit
without having to pay through the nose.

There is nothing wrong with using Windows because it works any more than
it's wrong to live a tenament that occasionally falls down.  No one
decries (or should decry) the ancient Roman peasants that lived in
collapsing apartment buildings for holding back the development of the
world of Architecture.  It's just that, sometimes the Architects at the
time would get frustrated with them for not insisting on better quality
housing development when the peasants really just wanted a roof over
their heads.

Things will work out.  For the better, I hope.

-- 
This message may be reprinted in its entireity without written
permission.  For all other printings, please submit me a proof and I may
approve of it.
(C)4-Nov-2004, Jayson Vantuyl