[wplug] .Net Launch

[Dave Neuer]

--- Kevin Olalde <kevin at olalde.org> wrote:
> > However, most of the PC software developers I have
> known, who have tried
> > Linux, feel it is a nightmare to administer
> 
> Now I'd say the same of Windows.  A complete
> nightmare to administer for
> anything other than 'out of the box' uses (and even
> then, still a pain).

Linux can be difficult to administer, but part of that
is because there are a multiplicity of distributions
and no standard. For instance, the difference between
configuring a NIC for ip aliasing in RedHat vs.
Slackware...

This has become worse of late I think, but part of
that is a reflection of the chaos in the Proprietary
Unix camp as well. For instance, most Linux distros
used to handle network setup the way Irix did it,
however, RedHat's scheme now is similar to Solaris,
I'm told. I'm sure that that's a concious effort on th
part of RedHat to appeal to the corporate crowd who
has plenty of Sun boxen and admins w/ Sun expertise.

I'd sincerely hope that the LSB would address issues
like network config and other common tasks in the form
of a "recommended" set of standards, optional for
compliance purposes. That way, distros would be
allowed to innovate, but distro's gear towards ease of
administration & use or interoperability could do
these things the "standard" way.

> 
> > and is sorely lacking robust
> > software development tools.  Its just not quite
> ready for primetime in the
> > PC software development arena.  
> 
> Now this is were I really disagree.  To say that the
> tools are different, I'd
> agree.  To say that the MS tools have a wider
> appeal, in certain areas I'd
> agree.  To say Linux isn't ready for "primetime in
> the PC software development
> arena" is placing way too much value on what 'extra'
> benifits the MS tools bring
> (and IMHO, those 'extra' benifits are extremely
> expensive on all sorts of
> levels).  The tools are different, if one has a hard
> time learning tools (or
> just no time), then switch from one to the other
> will always be a problem.

I agree wholeheartedly here. MS Visual C++, for
example, compiles code to very good x86 machine code
... when it can even correctly understand the input.
MS's code generation is great, but I personally got
fed up w/ discovering bugs in their C++ implementation
every week (wrong semantics for set.difference(),
inability to handle inline template instantiation,
etc...).

GCC, on the other hand, while possibly not generating
perfectly optimal code for a particular architecture,
generates *good* code for a huge host of
architectures, and is fantastic where standards
compliance is concerned and is only getting better.

And for visual tools (for those who like pretty
browsing of source, help finding function defintions,
etc) there are tools like KDevelop and Eclipse
emerging which, while I haven't used them, I hear are
quite good.

> 
> > Do you really want to put Linux in the hands
> > of current M$ customers and then fall short of
> delivering a complete
> > package?
> 
> A "complete package"?.... now there's a can of
> worms.
> 

A can of worms, maybe, but one that really does have
to be dealt with in an elegant way by someone for
Linux to really make inroads in markets like the one
Kevin refers to (a subset of the much-coveted
"desktop" market). Unfortunately, it hasn't been done
yet. Fortunately, it seems eminently possible and,
since it's an explicit goal of so many talented people
in the community, probably inevitable.

Dave Neuer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com