[Info-vax] [OT] Linux vs Windows vs OS X. Was Re: Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Paul Sture]

In article <am0ap2F23lrU1 at mid.individual.net>,
 billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <nospam-9BBB3A.18542519012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
> 	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
> > In article <alvu1iFllU2 at mid.individual.net>,
> >  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <50fa9a7b$0$6073$e4fe514c at dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
> >> 	MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
> >> > On 19-jan-2013 1:07, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> >> >> The only operating system which seems to have a serious future
> >> >> is Linux.
> >> > 
> >> > Mostly for "LAMP" web servers, but hardly on 'the desktop' and
> >> > (especially there) Linux is still extremely marginal.  
> >> 
> >> Huh??  I am playing with three different "Desktop Linux" distributions
> >> now that install easier than Windows and have all the functionality 
> >> offered by a full-fledged (read after you buy a lot of extras) Windows
> >> right out of the box!!
> > 
> > Windows installations are far easier than they used to be, particularly 
> > for the server versions.  
> 
> In the past week I have done a 2008 Server and a Ubuntu.  Which one
> do you think was harder?

It's been a couple of years since I installed Ubuntu but I'd reckon 
Ubuntu is the harder of the two.

> > 
> > For a long time I was convinced that Microsoft made installation 
> > deliberately labour intensive.   Do you remember all the kerfuffle a 
> > decade or more ago about the Out Of The Box Experience from MS, where 
> > they laid down strict guidelines as to how OEMs wrote their own 
> > installation routines?
> 
> I never thought it was deliberate. Never attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I thought it was very deliberate, but may have been driven by marketing 
above all else.
 
> > 
> > The most accurate description I have come across for that is Stockholm 
> > Syndrome.  Anyone who had to slog through Windows ME's interminable 
> > "Press OK to continue" prompts will recognise that.
> > 
> > Linux is definitely ahead of Windows in terms of selecting your language 
> > and tailoring your disks at installation, but the latter is not for 
> > novices.
> 
> My last Ubuntu install asked only one question: Do you want to use the
> whole disk?  In the average users desktop install I can think of no
> reason to ever answer no.

OK, I'm not the average user, and was doinbg dual boot installations.

I did find Ubuntu a swine when I wanted to do something as simple as 
change the desktop image, and particularly when I wanted a non-US date 
format (which seems strange when you consider that Canonical is a UK 
company).

> > 
> > When it comes to applying the latest patches to the O/S, Linux is 
> > streets ahead of Windows as well.  With Windows you need to apply the 
> > updates and reboot then rinse and repeat multiple times before you are 
> > up to date.
> 
> I have always assumed this was due to the fact that some of even the
> kernel stuff in Windows is in dynamic libraries that need to be reloaded
> before later patches can be applied.

Could be, but I have been informed by experienced Windows developers 
that this needn't be the case.
 
> > 
> >> > This was
> >> > also exactly the area which VMS supposedly underestimated.
> >> 
> >> I doubt anyone here evert hought VMS was tsargeted for or even
> >> reasonbly considerable for a desktop.  None of the orignal development
> >> was in that direction.  And by the time the "Desktop" became important
> >> VMS was already to deeply ingrained with Server concepts.
> > 
> > If you had access the excellent DEC Direct magazine produced by DEC UK 
> > in the early 90s you would have come across various desktop productivity 
> > tools.  DEC had a word processor for Windows that was well ahead of the 
> > competition too.  From what I recall that was competitively priced 
> > against a standalone copy of MS Word, but couldn't hope to compete with 
> > the bundled packages of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation 
> > utility, especially where most vendors would offer deep discounts if you 
> > proved you already had a copy of a competitor's product.
> 
> But that's not VMS.  There were lots of alternatives for Windows in the
> early days.  None of them ever had enough marketshare to compete.  Now,
> that could be because being the OS vendor MS had a legitimate competitive
> advantage or it could  have been their questionable business practices,
> but in any event, if the biggies like WordStar and WordPerfect could not
> compete thinkng that DEC ever had a chance would be rather naive.

I got carried away a bit there, but there were things like DEC Document 
and DECwrite, Teamworks, All-In-One which all ran on VMS.
 
> > 
> >> >                                                             The
> >> > worrisome part is, that many 'mission-critical' things are on
> >> > Windows systems; for instance, I've seen TV news imagery from
> >> > navy vessels here, with Windows logos on the background (of the
> >> > 'desktop', I presume)...
> >> 
> >> Just because the frontend says WindowsXP doesn't mean the backend is.
> >> Many hospitals have Windows on the desktop and Mumps (yes, that Mumps)
> >> in the backend. (Look up Vista and I don't mean the one from Microsoft.)
> > 
> > Many moons ago I worked with a product which had the support of more 
> > users per VAX CPU than any other software as one of its design goals.  
> > When the developer commissioned an "independent survey" to look at the 
> > competing products, Vista came out top in several performance metrics, 
> > with the developer's product coming a respectable second.
> 
> Read what I said again.  I am not talking about MS Vista.  Vista is a
> hospital/medical office package written originally for the VA.  it runs
> on Mumps.  Most hospitals frontend it with Windows boxes but that is
> nothing but the UI.

No, this was in the early 90s, long before MS used the name.  I think we 
are talking about the same product, which ran on VAX hardware.

http://vistapedia.net/index.php?title=MUMPS_Overview

"MUMPS is a general purpose ANSI and ISO standard computer language 
which is a key component of VistA systems. As with VistA, there is 
considerable history.

MUMPS is the middle component of the whole VistA structural stack.

The structural components of most VistA implementations includes in its 
stack-

1. computer hardware running as a server - from PC's to much larger CPUs
      the VA runs many DEC(now HP) VAX
      A PC may run Linux - GTM Stacks
2. An Operation system- Linux or Windows or DEC/HP VMS
3. MUMPS/M System  - Cache' or GT.M are the usual
4. Kernel (FileMan Sub component) - standardizes communications betwen 
OS and FileMan and MUMPS VistA Apps

..."

> > 
> > No problems here either.  There is some silliness with those 
> > distributions which try to persuade you that "proprietary software is 
> > evil" and make you hunt for various codecs.  
> 
> The only ring like this I have ru into was Ubuntu which says something about
> Flash being third-party and making me click a checkbox if I want it.

I think it was Fedora which gave me a lecture.  Open Solaris went 
further and pointed me at commercially available codecs.

Fedora "Forbidden items":

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems
 

> >> And yet, OS x is nothing but BSD packaged by a third party who, by the way,
> >> have no real control over the direction the lower levels go.  They either
> >> stand still or risk having all their third party offerings obsoleted over-
> >> night.
> > 
> > But Apple does have the resources to fork it.
> 
> Some rags are questioning how much longer the Apple domain will last.

They are saying the same about MS, HP and others too.  I really cannot 
see Apple disappearing any time soon.

> 
> I am actually looking at VirtualBox on Server 2008 again.  It has improved
> but it still has some quirks I don't like.  But we will see where it goes.

I found VirtualBox on Server 2008 to be very solid and it could 
certainly handle some hefty I/O loads.

> The built in virtualization from MS seemed to be cutting some people (like
> FreeBSD) out of the picture.  VMWare is really nice.  As long as you work
> for someone with deep pockets.  The only employer I have had in a long time
> who met that requirement was the government and with the state of the budget
> and the the economy, that may not last either.

-- 
Paul Sture