Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board

switch to *nix - not why you think

Nothing to do with Windows stability or reliability or Microsoft in any way.  I want to switch to get away from the dullard users and admins.  I believe a system that is harder to use will have smarter people running it.

Am I wrong

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

I see you don't frequent Slashdot.

Troy King
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

I've been to /.  I don't mean linux necessarily.  I dislike a lot of the zealots.  I guess I meant more the people in datacenters as opposed to their parents basement.

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Thats not the case.  There was a guy at a place I used to work that used to get really mad when we would portscan our subnet to see what ports were open on the machines, etc etc.  Because it filled up his logs.  He had probably 30 ports open on a default redhat linux install, with a firewall setup to email him on connection attempts.  Close the ports!?  Never!  But don't portscan because then he gets big emails.  bah.

I won't make any generalizing statement about unix admins, other than that there are still some people running these boxes I wouldn't want working for me.

Andrew Hurst
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

"I believe a system that is harder to use will have smarter people running it."

You are going to be soooo disappointed with many things in life if this is your guiding principle. Stupidity knows no boundaries, and that inclues OS boundaries.

Mark Hoffman
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

UNIX is not better than Windows.
Windows is not better than UNIX.
They each have their different set of problems.

The myth of UNIX admins being better than NT admins are false I think. A poor UNIX admin cause more serious problems than a poor NT admin normally.

Bad UNIX admins break UNIX by firewalling needed ports and not allowing SUID bits and chmod 700 on /dev/kmem etc. wich causes all kinds of strange behaviour.

Just my 2 cents,

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

When I'm trying to get real work done, I don't want my OS to be hard to use. I have better things to worry about.

Nimoy's Bilbo
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

To be honest, it's easier for an idiot to reliably run a Windows system than a Unix system. However, since our profession so rarely culls the herds, this does not mean you won't find idiots running Unix boxen.

However, I think it *is* likely that the Unix idiot will be more adamant/bullheaded about his idiocy.


Wednesday, August 6, 2003


Today this might well be the case. But I suppose it ultimately comes down to what you're used to.
  I can't speak for the "old days", but I can only assume that someone using the old systems from the 70's and 80's were a lot "harder" to use than, say, Windows is today.

Mickey Petersen
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Which set of users are "smarter"? Those that choose any easier to use system or those that choose the harder?

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Measure the users by the quality of their work, not their operating system choice.

Nimoy's Bilbo
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

A system that is harder to use generally will attract the same intelligence of sysadmins, it'll just be misconfigured.

The only system I've ever seen that made it hard to admin in the right way is OpenBSD.  They configured it in such a way that it was configured minimally but securely and correctly at the start and forced you to actually need something before you tried to set it up.  So, out of the box, no NFS, no telnet, no web server, mail only set up for the local machine, etc.

The problem is that an idiot sysadmin will probably still bungle the install of everything else, but that's another matter.

Flamebait Sr.
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

"I believe a system that is harder to use will have smarter people running it."

You must be new to the job.

Robert Moir
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

From personal experience I believe that NTs ease of administration really does open the door for a lot of dumb admins. Moreover, this is one of the origins of the bad perception most people have of Windows.

Bad security. How could it be good if the admin. doesn't even know what how to work a packet filter.

Unstable. A lot of small companies try to save a few bucks purchasing cheap no-brand servers. If the hw isn't whql certified it can't be trusted. Period.

(sorry about the bad english.)

All Mighty
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Interesting discussion tangents: hard to use OS presumably == smarter admins. I'm skeptical too.

But how about this: The harder-to-use OS is "easier" to program or develop in than the stewpot that is Microsoft Windows + .Net.

On the Unix/Linux side you have shell script, Perl, gcc, PHP, MySql, and a few other common tools, all fairly widely standardized or so it seems, with a decent approach to configuring platform specific  builds (autoconf, etc.) It (Unix) may be arcane in its own way but it's sorta standardized and relatively static.

On the Windows side you have VC++, ATL, MFC, COM, .NET, ASP, VB, Delphi, and many, many splintered factions using this that and the other development convention.  About 16 septillion ways of doing the same "Hello, World" program, to Linux's 5 to 10.

Personally, I've seen real knobs and real gurus on both sides of this divide, so I view the filtering effect of hardship as a red herring.

Bored Bystander
Thursday, August 7, 2003

No way is *nix development easier than .NET development, at least when it comes to GUIs.

There may be some development tasks that are easier to do in traditionally "unix" programming environments than in Windows ones, but GUI programming is so easy using the .NET framework in comparison to any *nix equivalent that it's not even funny.  The only one that comes close is QT, but that's cross platform.

John Wilson
Thursday, August 7, 2003

"I believe a system that is harder to use will have smarter people running it."

What's "hard"? What's "smart"?

Doesn't the amount of viruses, exploits, etc. that Windows is said to have, make it a hard task to be a Windows admin? Is the Windows admin smarter then?

And how do you measure smartnes? Is it only how smart the guy is in the admin job, or do you also count ability to help co-workers succeed as a way to be smart? I've met Unix admins who were very good at the admin job, but were complete bastards when it came to helpfulnes towards co-workers, and I've met Windows admins who were both good admins AND nice people, helping you getting the job done.

(For the record, I'm a Linux user claiming that there exist Windows admins who are both smart and nice :)

I think you should put the "harder makes smarter" theory to rest if you want to conclude that Unix admins are smarter...

Martin A. Boegelund
Thursday, August 7, 2003

What I'm seeing here is that the quality of the operator makes a huge difference.  FlameBait Sr., for instance, has trouble administering OpenBSD, which for me is the easiest of the three operating systems in the house to administer (the others being Windows 98 and Linux). My OpenBSD box, which is my primary development machine, never gives me any flack.

Clay Dowling
Thursday, August 7, 2003

This only confirms my resolve to start my two year old boy on Unix. Once he has mastered the command shell, then we can talk GUI. If he wants to play Disney’s toddler programs on windows, he will damn well have to earn it!

Thursday, August 7, 2003

We completely switched Java development to Red Hat about a year ago, and use Windows as only testing platform. You need some administrative skills to better use Linux, and software, like IDE, but then development performance will be excellent. The data is NEVER missed, as it happened for us on Win NT. Better security, up2date patches, very fast file system and more benefits.

Evgeny /Javadesk/
Saturday, August 9, 2003

Carl wrote " I want to switch to get away from the dullard users "

Yeah, having a commercial software company would be great if it weren't for all the damn dullard users.  And, god, there are so many of them.

Gee... wouldn't it be nice if we had FEWER customers.


Thursday, August 14, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home