5 ms·

This happens because of underlying implementation of file systems. UNIX-based systems have the notion of "linking/unlinking" files: a file is a link to a set of

This happens because of underlying implementation of file systems. UNIX-based systems have the notion of "linking/unlinking" files: a file is a link to a set of sectors on your hard drive. One can create many more links to the same data (using ln command). Deleting is the same as unlinking, i.e. removing a link. When the last link disappears, the file is considered "deleted". When an application opens a file, it creates yet another link to it, so nothing stops you from removing the link - the file isn't deleted yet since your app still uses its own. I'm not sure how Windows can be "fixed" in this regard, since their filesystems don't have the notion of hard linking nor does Win32 API: there is no way you can move/delete file on Win32 while keeping existing open file handles alive. However, the biggest issue with Windows, in my opinion, is Registry. Nearly all "popular" Windows gripes can be tracked down to registry abuse: decreasing performance over time, adware/spyware, viruses, etc... Registry is like a secondary file system, but much slower, more primitive, less secure and, most importantly, nearly completely hidden from the users: there are no tools with exception of primitive regedit, to deal with it.

briansmith 18y ago
Windows has had hard links for a decade or so. Vista even ships with "mklink" which can make three different kinds of links. Before that, you could download utilities to make them. Windows won't unlink a link that is in use because its normal filesystem API promises that behavior. You can use different APIs to get different behavior. The registry exists in the format it is in to boost performance, not hinder performance. It supports approximately the same ACLs as the filesystem so there is nothing that makes it inherently less secure than the filesystem. And, the registry is designed to be exposed by custom GUIs, not by regedit. For example, to change the registry setting for the default program to open ".html" files with, you could* use regedit, but the Windows philosphy says there should be a dedicated UI for it instead (the "Default Programs" UI in this case).
- anigbrowl 18y ago
  'Strue. I do get frustrated with the registry model, although I've gotten good at dealing with it. On the other hand, custom GUIs help to improve Linux penetration, since many people are intimidated the command line or configuration file editing. I like Win and Linux, Mac seems to me to combine the worst of both. Sure, it's personal. Application compatibility matters, Linux lags badly on video & audio editing tools. When I first ran Linux around 1993, what really annoyed me were Emacs & vi. Sure, they're powerful, but extremely alienating to new users. DOS had Edit, or Windows 3 had Notepad. Ubuntu and like distros succeed because most people just want to drive without learning how to be a mechanic. Linux's biggest problem is people's perception that there's no 'standard' distribution and that they're going to have do an awful lot of icky maintenance.
rcoder 18y ago
Honestly, the registry is no worse from an end-user POV than the /etc filesystem under Linux. In point of fact, given the diversity of file formats and sources in /etc, it's probably fair to say that the registry is equally navigable and understandable to the average Windows power user as the config tree is to a Linux fan. Because keys are typed and support ACLs, it's also arguably better-protected against accidental or intentional breakage. If you want to attack an ad-hoc config system, then perhaps talk about the mess that is OS X 'defaults', or GConf's half-assed reimplementation of the Windows registry for GNOME. That being said, I am most certainly not a Windows partisan. The last time I worked primarily on a Windows system was when I worked for a large hardware manufacturer, and the entire company ran on Exchange + Office. That was over five years ago, and I have been almost 100% on Mac OS X + Linux in the meantime, with only occasional use of Windows in a VM to verify IE compatibility. The reason is this: for the tools I need to be productive (Vim, Ruby, Java, Firefox, MySQL, IM client, email client) Windows is at best equally capable, and at worst a second-class host, to Linux. OS X is about as suitable a platform for those tools, but has a much smoother media (esp. online video) and mobile story. Hence, the advantages of Windows (huge application library, obscure HW compat) are largely moot, while its disadvantages (poor POSIX/UNIX compat., weird dev tools, cost) are more apparent.
- graywh 18y ago
  The Windows registry also keeps the equivalent of many of the "dotfiles" in each user's home directory.
  - windsurfer 18y ago
    In a binary blob that can't be easily accessed without the system being booted up... at least not that I know of.
- old-gregg 18y ago
  In my Linux days I'd just make a copy of /etc and my home directory and that was always enough to get a new machine, install Debian, run a few aptitude commands, restore /etc and move on. Try doing it on Windows. There is always a small army of GUI tools, often from 3rd parties, to help you accomplish things like these. Just recently I had to get rid of Adobe CS3 on my Mac: it was easy enough - just run find | grep on your / and you're in good shape. On Windows, big part of the game is played in the registry, and good luck cleaning it up from something as massive and badly written as Adobe software. Ask an average Microsoft SQL Server user: "WHAT IS MS SQL SERVER?" I mean in terms of files and configuration data that you're putting on your machine when you're installing one. I bet very few people know precisely what it is. MS SQL, just like any piece of reasonably big Windows software, is a complex mesh of files scattered all over your hard drive, hooked up together with a few hundred registry entries scattered all over your registry, and replicating your SQL configuration on another machine is pretty much impossible without yet another complex Windows GUI tool. Internet Explorer is also like that: there are all sorts of hooks and back doors in the registry that you can stick your DLL into, to be loaded and considered a part of MSIE the browser, so an average user, without additional GUI guidance, has no chance of figuring out where all these popups are coming from, hence the need (and a big market) of various spyware/adware removal tools. On Linux/Mac these tools make no sense: a 10 line bash script would accomplish all they do. The reason? It's the registry, the biggest engineering fuck up in the history of Windows. This is why I hate seeing Gnome moving in that direction - their Gnome Conf is a reincarnation of the same "wonderful" idea: to badly re-implement a file system in sake of elusive "centralized configuration storage" advantage. There isn't any advantage in centralizing your config in some non-standard complex format: you aren't gaining anything, you're loosing a huge army of tools and techniques and people's knowledge which standard file systems come with: just use them, store you config files as files in a file system, it's freaking great at storing files.

briansmith 18y ago

Windows has had hard links for a decade or so. Vista even ships with "mklink" which can make three different kinds of links. Before that, you could download utilities to make them. Windows won't unlink a link that is in use because its normal filesystem API promises that behavior. You can use different APIs to get different behavior. The registry exists in the format it is in to boost performance, not hinder performance. It supports approximately the same ACLs as the filesystem so there is nothing that makes it inherently less secure than the filesystem. And, the registry is designed to be exposed by custom GUIs, not by regedit. For example, to change the registry setting for the default program to open ".html" files with, you could* use regedit, but the Windows philosphy says there should be a dedicated UI for it instead (the "Default Programs" UI in this case).

anigbrowl 18y ago
'Strue. I do get frustrated with the registry model, although I've gotten good at dealing with it. On the other hand, custom GUIs help to improve Linux penetration, since many people are intimidated the command line or configuration file editing. I like Win and Linux, Mac seems to me to combine the worst of both. Sure, it's personal. Application compatibility matters, Linux lags badly on video & audio editing tools. When I first ran Linux around 1993, what really annoyed me were Emacs & vi. Sure, they're powerful, but extremely alienating to new users. DOS had Edit, or Windows 3 had Notepad. Ubuntu and like distros succeed because most people just want to drive without learning how to be a mechanic. Linux's biggest problem is people's perception that there's no 'standard' distribution and that they're going to have do an awful lot of icky maintenance.

rcoder 18y ago

Honestly, the registry is no worse from an end-user POV than the /etc filesystem under Linux. In point of fact, given the diversity of file formats and sources in /etc, it's probably fair to say that the registry is equally navigable and understandable to the average Windows power user as the config tree is to a Linux fan. Because keys are typed and support ACLs, it's also arguably better-protected against accidental or intentional breakage. If you want to attack an ad-hoc config system, then perhaps talk about the mess that is OS X 'defaults', or GConf's half-assed reimplementation of the Windows registry for GNOME. That being said, I am most certainly not a Windows partisan. The last time I worked primarily on a Windows system was when I worked for a large hardware manufacturer, and the entire company ran on Exchange + Office. That was over five years ago, and I have been almost 100% on Mac OS X + Linux in the meantime, with only occasional use of Windows in a VM to verify IE compatibility. The reason is this: for the tools I need to be productive (Vim, Ruby, Java, Firefox, MySQL, IM client, email client) Windows is at best equally capable, and at worst a second-class host, to Linux. OS X is about as suitable a platform for those tools, but has a much smoother media (esp. online video) and mobile story. Hence, the advantages of Windows (huge application library, obscure HW compat) are largely moot, while its disadvantages (poor POSIX/UNIX compat., weird dev tools, cost) are more apparent.

graywh 18y ago
The Windows registry also keeps the equivalent of many of the "dotfiles" in each user's home directory.
- windsurfer 18y ago
  In a binary blob that can't be easily accessed without the system being booted up... at least not that I know of.
old-gregg 18y ago
In my Linux days I'd just make a copy of /etc and my home directory and that was always enough to get a new machine, install Debian, run a few aptitude commands, restore /etc and move on. Try doing it on Windows. There is always a small army of GUI tools, often from 3rd parties, to help you accomplish things like these. Just recently I had to get rid of Adobe CS3 on my Mac: it was easy enough - just run find | grep on your / and you're in good shape. On Windows, big part of the game is played in the registry, and good luck cleaning it up from something as massive and badly written as Adobe software. Ask an average Microsoft SQL Server user: "WHAT IS MS SQL SERVER?" I mean in terms of files and configuration data that you're putting on your machine when you're installing one. I bet very few people know precisely what it is. MS SQL, just like any piece of reasonably big Windows software, is a complex mesh of files scattered all over your hard drive, hooked up together with a few hundred registry entries scattered all over your registry, and replicating your SQL configuration on another machine is pretty much impossible without yet another complex Windows GUI tool. Internet Explorer is also like that: there are all sorts of hooks and back doors in the registry that you can stick your DLL into, to be loaded and considered a part of MSIE the browser, so an average user, without additional GUI guidance, has no chance of figuring out where all these popups are coming from, hence the need (and a big market) of various spyware/adware removal tools. On Linux/Mac these tools make no sense: a 10 line bash script would accomplish all they do. The reason? It's the registry, the biggest engineering fuck up in the history of Windows. This is why I hate seeing Gnome moving in that direction - their Gnome Conf is a reincarnation of the same "wonderful" idea: to badly re-implement a file system in sake of elusive "centralized configuration storage" advantage. There isn't any advantage in centralizing your config in some non-standard complex format: you aren't gaining anything, you're loosing a huge army of tools and techniques and people's knowledge which standard file systems come with: just use them, store you config files as files in a file system, it's freaking great at storing files.