<< Drive letters are illogical and totally unnecessary because it's far more efficient to have everything located in one root folder. >>
I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo that deemed drive letters as illogical. Why are drive letters illogical and unnecessary, and why is it more efficient to have everything located in one root folder (note: I'd still mount my /usr separate from /home). !how unix does it != illogical.
<< Windows is everything but secure. Any self-respecting expert on OS's can tell you this. >>
I guess I can throw my self-respect out the window, because part of my duties is to develop tools for security analysis, as well as do penetration tests against client networks myself. To say Windows is inherently insecure is rather absurd. Need we look at all the advisories for *nix? How many times do we need to see bogus daemons modified with only a few lines of code to accept any l/p (harder to do in Windows, as you don't have the source to modify the services), stack smashing of services because people can't lock down identd to prevent people from determining the owner of a daemon, etc.? Both OS' have their countless vulnerabilities, so who do you blame when your system is compromised? Blame Microsoft because admins/users can't apply a damn patch, or blame the open-source developers of *nix distros because they can't check their bounds properly? Goes both ways.
Explain to me why you feel a generalized label of insecurity can be applied to Windows itself, please.
<< Ever used the CLI interface of *NIX or *BSD? Now that's what I call control. >>
Yes, everyday, all day. Now, what do you define as "control?" I've noted the unfortunate lack of tools available for win32, but I've written many of my own as replacement. Do I prefer the CLI of *nix? Yes.
<< One of the reasons why Windows sucks as a server OS, is because its GUI can't be switched off and it has no functional CLI-interface, just a severely crippled and limited one. >>
Again, what are you trying to say? How is Windows' CLI "crippled and limited?" Are you somehow encumbered in your ability to run programs from the CLI for a reason which I'm not aware? Do not confuse lack of tools for lack of ability. As I said above, I have most of my favorite *nix tools ported to Windows, and I'm quite functional.
<< If you've ever really used Linux, *BSD or any similar OS's, you'll notice how little you can actually do with Windows. That's the power of Windows: simplicity and therefore ease of use. The creators of Linux and *BSD don't believe in ease of use by obscuring everything which can be obscured. They believe in customizability and total control over a system. >>
As I've said countless times, I use SCO, AIX, and Linux at least on a daily basis, whether I like it or not. Much of my target platform is for *nix, as many of our manufacturing clients run SCO, AIX, etc.. I also use Win2k, and I still fail to see "how little I can do with Windows." Please explain this to me. Again, lets not confuse ignorance with lack of ability. Are there things more easily, and more cleanly, accomplished in a *nix environment? Absolutely. Are there things I would rather do in a *nix environment? Absolutely. The converse is also true. Do I have a choice, not unless my boss/clients tell me I do.
<< Can you install the parts of Windows XP you want to install? Can you remove parts you won't need? You can't. >>
You're simply noting aspects of *nix that you prefer over Windows, but how does this make Windows a poor OS? Someone driving a BMW would see the driver of a Camry as complacent, but that doesn't mean the Camry isn't a sound solution, nor does it mean the BMW is superior. There are times when *nix is a fit, and there are times when Windows is a fit. Neither car, nor OS, nor programming language is the panacean solution for any problem.
Facebook
Twitter