![[SJF Logo]](../../images/sjflogo.gif)
I am terribly disheartened that so many *ix zealots are so blinded by their hatred of Microsoft that they cannot engage in any kind of honest debate. Yes, there is much to to dislike about Microsoft, and if anybody wants to believe that on balance, Microsoft is evil or bad or whatever: that's fine. Want to break up Microsoft? Great. Want Bill Gates in jail? I can live with that. Microsoft sure as hell doesn't make themselves easy to like.
But when this hatred becomes so ingrained that one cannot even have a narrow technical debate without getting "Yah, but Microsoft sucks" in response, this is blind zealotry.
The Register ran an excellent piece on some of Microsoft's internal memos about their experience converting Hotmail from BSD to MS Exchange, and unlike most MS-vs-*ix discussions, this one had technical details that were simply delicious.
"A Windows server out of the box is an elaborate system. Although it performs specific tasks well (such as being a web server) there are many services that have a complex set of dependencies, and it is never clear which ones are necessary and which can be removed to improve the system's efficiency."They are singing a popular song here. How many of us NT admins have looked at the dozens of services running on a new box and thought "How in the hell do I know which ones I can turn off without breaking something". This is a nightmare, and *ix systems have a much more transparent set of dependencies, making it dramatically easier to "just try it". Furthermore, *ix systems make it easy to configure one global set of services at startup time (by simply replacing the /etc/rc.d tree with rsync) - this is hard to beat.
The previous bit was a technical discussion, and at no point did we use the words "monopoly", refer to Bill Gates, or make this about a great conspiracy to crush open source or rip off the consumer. Even a Windows lover would have to grant that the point had merit without having it undermine his whole case. All parties learn something by this kind of rational discourse.
But let's take a different point that some could argue is in favor of the Windows platform (there are plenty of them, and it doesn't matter which one is chosen) -- is it possible to have a rational debate? In many cases the answer is no. The all-too-often approach is to treat a narrow technical discussion as attempting to "defend Microsoft ripping off consumers", so the merits of the narrow issue are completely ignored. It doesn't matter which side one comes down on the narrow issue - opinions will vary - but when the response is "Yah, but Microsoft sucks" it's pretty clear that the person simply is unable to engage in a rational debate.
Granting a narrow technical point does not undermine one's argument: instead it shows an intellectual honesty that makes one open to the evidence. It is entirely logically consistent to grant Microsoft broad "points" in technical areas but be revolted by their business methods, but to presume that the second obviates the merits for discussion on the first is blind zealotry.
Posted by Steve at November 22, 2002 12:17 PM | TrackBackYou're a bigger asshole then I thought.
Posted by: Me on November 22, 2002 02:24 PMConsidering I don't know how much of an asshole you considered me before, I'm at a loss to know just what kind of metric to apply to this updated characterization.
Posted by: Steve on November 22, 2002 04:02 PMTruer words, have never been spoken...:)
Posted by: Techie2000 on November 26, 2002 05:35 PMConsidering that 'Me' seems to have the intellectual compentence and integrity of a flea, it's are to imagine that 'Me' even 'thinks'.
Posted by: guycad on December 9, 2002 09:38 AMWINDOWS SUCKS!
wait.
I stick by my statement, but not blindly.
I work for tech services for my school, and supporting windows is a total bitch. Clueless users are always breaking their systems, and it seems like all the network stuff done through NT is always a huge hackjob to do anything new. The email [NT based also] is always going down.
In my experience, the only dependability windows has is the ability to consistently fail, and at the worst times.
WINDOWS SUCKS is a learned reflex. It is assumed that windows sucks. It will continue to be assumed that windows sucks. And it will be a safe assumption.
Now, bring *NIXy OS's into the picture. I dont even have to say anything here. *NIX can deck Windows anyday, in terms of performance, speed, reliabilty, and good design.
When we say WINDOWS SUCKS we are really saying that given our experience with Windows, and Microsoft's total betrayal of its users with deplorable software, we do not now, nor ever, wish to be associated in any way with anything that Microsoft has their hand in, ESPECIALLY WINDOWS.
WINDOWS SUCKS.
I pity thou, NT admin.
Posted by: Dom on February 4, 2003 10:43 PM"Windows Sucks!", these words should be a important part of the vocabulary in all households. But, no it shouldn't be said ignorantly, everyone should have the oppourtunity to know why this statement is true. Any administrator who knows what's going on, and hasn't been molded in to a point-and-click whore, should be very aware of this and have the ability to back it up. If someone does "blindly" spit out this comment, I'm not going to chastise them, they are just finally realizing the truth. Its a learning process, first they see the problem, then we are to help them learn from it. I would think, judging from the domain name, that you would advocate the education of others, instead of making them think that they could be wrong. In closing, "windows sucks!" this is for too many reasons to list. Mostly becuase it feeds off of the ignorance of consumers, instead of advocating a broader and more clear knowledge of technology.
Don't let the man get you down!
Posted by: ellipses on February 25, 2003 10:52 AM