3 ms·

> Instead of trapping people on an OS because of vendor lock-in, try improving core parts of the OS to make it worth using. For a software developer, "core par

by zvrba 9y ago

> Instead of trapping people on an OS because of vendor lock-in, try improving core parts of the OS to make it worth using. For a software developer, "core parts" of the OS are way more advanced and have much more to offer than Linux. If you don't believe me, start browsing here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/bg126469.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/bg126469.... Every functionality for which you would use a (one of many) 3rd party libraries on Linux, is included in the core OS on Windows.

rocqua 9y ago
One might argue that replacing 3d party libraries isn't doing the "core parts" better, it's just being bloated. Moreover, it's being bloated without choice because most people just use the included version so alternatives don't get to thrive.
- zvrba 9y ago
  > One might argue that replacing 3d party libraries isn't doing the "core parts" better, it's just being bloated. First, they're not "replacing" anything. Printing, image acquisition, font rendering, advanced tracing (ETW), authentication and directory (Kerberos), remote access, internationalization, etc. are core OS services. Second, I recently installed Win10 on a machine intended for embedded use. All this "bloat" took ~10GB of disk space, compared to the most plain, cheapest OVH installation which used 2.5GB of disk space and doesn't deliver nearly 1/4 of the features that Windows does. So which "bloat" are we talking about? > Moreover, it's being bloated without choice because most people just use the included version so alternatives don't get to thrive. If the OS-provided version is well thought-out [1] (APIs since Vista seem to be), why would I want an "alternative" that, even if it provides exactly the same functionality, isn't integrated with the rest of the system? (Thankfully, systemd is attacking the integration aspect.) Linux is full of "almost does the job" alternatives, as exemplified in [2]. Thank you, but I'll choose the OS-provided facility, not the least because it vastly simplifies deployment. [1] EDIT: "Well though-out" is not the same as "easy to use". My impression is that C-level APIs are designed for performance and flexibility first, ease of use comes second. [2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/coding-guidelines/cross-platform-performance-and-eventing.md https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/...
  - vetinari 9y ago
    > Linux is full of "almost does the job" alternatives, as exemplified in [2]. So is Windows. For example, you mentioned Kerberos. Only the Windows implementation is so limited, that you can authenticate against one realm only. What if you need tickets from more realms? In Windows, tough luck. And no, you cannot replace the Windows Kerberos implementation with another security provider.

by zvrba 9y ago

rocqua 9y ago

One might argue that replacing 3d party libraries isn't doing the "core parts" better, it's just being bloated. Moreover, it's being bloated without choice because most people just use the included version so alternatives don't get to thrive.

zvrba 9y ago
> One might argue that replacing 3d party libraries isn't doing the "core parts" better, it's just being bloated. First, they're not "replacing" anything. Printing, image acquisition, font rendering, advanced tracing (ETW), authentication and directory (Kerberos), remote access, internationalization, etc. are core OS services. Second, I recently installed Win10 on a machine intended for embedded use. All this "bloat" took ~10GB of disk space, compared to the most plain, cheapest OVH installation which used 2.5GB of disk space and doesn't deliver nearly 1/4 of the features that Windows does. So which "bloat" are we talking about? > Moreover, it's being bloated without choice because most people just use the included version so alternatives don't get to thrive. If the OS-provided version is well thought-out [1] (APIs since Vista seem to be), why would I want an "alternative" that, even if it provides exactly the same functionality, isn't integrated with the rest of the system? (Thankfully, systemd is attacking the integration aspect.) Linux is full of "almost does the job" alternatives, as exemplified in [2]. Thank you, but I'll choose the OS-provided facility, not the least because it vastly simplifies deployment. [1] EDIT: "Well though-out" is not the same as "easy to use". My impression is that C-level APIs are designed for performance and flexibility first, ease of use comes second. [2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/coding-guidelines/cross-platform-performance-and-eventing.md https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/...
- vetinari 9y ago
  > Linux is full of "almost does the job" alternatives, as exemplified in [2]. So is Windows. For example, you mentioned Kerberos. Only the Windows implementation is so limited, that you can authenticate against one realm only. What if you need tickets from more realms? In Windows, tough luck. And no, you cannot replace the Windows Kerberos implementation with another security provider.