5 ms·

Just off the top of my head: package management, live-cd functionality, architecture support, command-line interfaces, GUI variety, kernel customization, scalin

by okasaki 12y ago

Just off the top of my head: package management, live-cd functionality, architecture support, command-line interfaces, GUI variety, kernel customization, scaling to low-powered harware, licencing.

peatmoss 12y ago
Package management covers this, but is too understated: many of the applications that researchers use are downright hard to get working on Windows--particularly if you require any customization. I've run into this in a maddening way when working with geospatial tools. Need custom OGR/GDAL support? Prepare to spend hours figuring out how to make it work with Windows. Some deal to a lesser extent with R. Amount of time spent on edge cases is Windows > Mac > Linux. I use a Mac, but every time I build up an R environment with lots of library dependencies on Linux, I find myself saying, "well, that was easier than I expected." Conversely, when I use Windows, I'm right back to fighting library dependencies. Windows makes simple things easy, but complex things nearly intractable.
- bohol 12y ago
  In my experience a lot of this isn't becuase it can't work on windows, but because the developer didn't take the time to make it work on Windows. I also had my fair share on build and dependency problems on Linux when wanting something custom. I think this is much more a ecosystem thing than a systems thing. Which do count of course.
wfunction 12y ago
GUI "variety"? Are you joking? The very reason there exists so much "variety" is that they all suck. Windows has one GUI system and it's worked darn well for quite a long time, and will continue to do so. Linux might be able to let you make your windows do somersaults so you can show off to your friends, but it still hasn't been able to get the basics right, like focus-stealing prevention. Windows is miles ahead of Linux on GUI -- if there's one thing I can tell you for sure, it's that. And Linux is "miles ahead of Windows for research because of its command-line interfaces"? Really? Since when are 25-year-old command-line shells research products? Not to mention stuff like http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls As for package management, when it works it works, but sometimes I wish it could burn in hell. I can't tell you how many times I've run into problems getting packages to work because their dependencies were either (1) no longer available ("sorry! our servers changed, your version of Linux is outdated"), (2) only available in source code form (but good luck compiling it!), or (3) not available for my version ("sorry, this version is too new for your OS"), among other things. Distributing your dependencies along with your application might not be sound engineering practice, but it sure as hell can make things actually work out of the box so you can focus on what you actually want to do.
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  >like focus-stealing prevention Example? I could show you thousands of issues on windows where a window has stolen focus and it wasn't prevented[0] [0]: http://www.eightforums.com/ http://www.eightforums.com/
  - wfunction 12y ago
    Could you link me to 2-3 of the actual posts instead of linking me to the entire forum? In the meantime, it seems to me you've already conceded that Linux can't get it right, so I'm glad we agree there.
- jauer 12y ago
  Also, Windows has package management in the form of Chocolatey/OneGet: http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2014/04/03/windows-management-framework-v5-preview.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2014/04/03/.... It just isn't used by most end-users so awareness is limited.
  - cheald 12y ago
    Ehhh....that's "installer downloading and executing", which is a far cry from "package management". Notably, it doesn't provide dependency resolution (which is 90% of a package manager's job, IMO), and Windows' software packaging conventions don't really work well for an apt-like system, since they are intended to be mostly self-contained outside of shared frameworks. I use chocolatey, but it's not anywhere near the level of apt-get. That's more Windows and Windows developers' fault than chocolatey's though. They've done a great job given what they have to work with.
- acadien 12y ago
  "miles ahead of Windows for research" For example, only 2 of the currently fastest 500 super computers run Windows and 1 of them is owned by Microsoft. All of the others run Linux or Unix. "Since when are 25-year-old command-line shells research products?" The shell is a researcher's best friend as they have always been (and will be for the foreseeable future) the direct interface between data and the user. I honestly can't think of a faster and easier way to parse a nasty 10GB log file from a simulation than bash. The fact that its old and still in use is a testament to its usefulness.
tomc1985 12y ago
package management: chocolatey, M$ is also developing something live cd functionality: bartPE, UBCD4WIN architecture support: x86, x64, itanium (limited), ARM (limited) command-line interfaces: powershell (sucks but still...), command.com kernel customization: not directly but there are special skus scaling to low powered hardware: Windows Embedded Edition licensing: linux still wins

by okasaki 12y ago

Just off the top of my head: package management, live-cd functionality, architecture support, command-line interfaces, GUI variety, kernel customization, scaling to low-powered harware, licencing.

peatmoss 12y ago

Package management covers this, but is too understated: many of the applications that researchers use are downright hard to get working on Windows--particularly if you require any customization. I've run into this in a maddening way when working with geospatial tools. Need custom OGR/GDAL support? Prepare to spend hours figuring out how to make it work with Windows. Some deal to a lesser extent with R. Amount of time spent on edge cases is Windows > Mac > Linux. I use a Mac, but every time I build up an R environment with lots of library dependencies on Linux, I find myself saying, "well, that was easier than I expected." Conversely, when I use Windows, I'm right back to fighting library dependencies. Windows makes simple things easy, but complex things nearly intractable.

bohol 12y ago
In my experience a lot of this isn't becuase it can't work on windows, but because the developer didn't take the time to make it work on Windows. I also had my fair share on build and dependency problems on Linux when wanting something custom. I think this is much more a ecosystem thing than a systems thing. Which do count of course.

wfunction 12y ago

GUI "variety"? Are you joking? The very reason there exists so much "variety" is that they all suck. Windows has one GUI system and it's worked darn well for quite a long time, and will continue to do so. Linux might be able to let you make your windows do somersaults so you can show off to your friends, but it still hasn't been able to get the basics right, like focus-stealing prevention. Windows is miles ahead of Linux on GUI -- if there's one thing I can tell you for sure, it's that. And Linux is "miles ahead of Windows for research because of its command-line interfaces"? Really? Since when are 25-year-old command-line shells research products? Not to mention stuff like http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls As for package management, when it works it works, but sometimes I wish it could burn in hell. I can't tell you how many times I've run into problems getting packages to work because their dependencies were either (1) no longer available ("sorry! our servers changed, your version of Linux is outdated"), (2) only available in source code form (but good luck compiling it!), or (3) not available for my version ("sorry, this version is too new for your OS"), among other things. Distributing your dependencies along with your application might not be sound engineering practice, but it sure as hell can make things actually work out of the box so you can focus on what you actually want to do.

zxcvcxz 12y ago
>like focus-stealing prevention Example? I could show you thousands of issues on windows where a window has stolen focus and it wasn't prevented[0] [0]: http://www.eightforums.com/ http://www.eightforums.com/
- wfunction 12y ago
  Could you link me to 2-3 of the actual posts instead of linking me to the entire forum? In the meantime, it seems to me you've already conceded that Linux can't get it right, so I'm glad we agree there.
jauer 12y ago
Also, Windows has package management in the form of Chocolatey/OneGet: http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2014/04/03/windows-management-framework-v5-preview.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2014/04/03/.... It just isn't used by most end-users so awareness is limited.
- cheald 12y ago
  Ehhh....that's "installer downloading and executing", which is a far cry from "package management". Notably, it doesn't provide dependency resolution (which is 90% of a package manager's job, IMO), and Windows' software packaging conventions don't really work well for an apt-like system, since they are intended to be mostly self-contained outside of shared frameworks. I use chocolatey, but it's not anywhere near the level of apt-get. That's more Windows and Windows developers' fault than chocolatey's though. They've done a great job given what they have to work with.
acadien 12y ago
"miles ahead of Windows for research" For example, only 2 of the currently fastest 500 super computers run Windows and 1 of them is owned by Microsoft. All of the others run Linux or Unix. "Since when are 25-year-old command-line shells research products?" The shell is a researcher's best friend as they have always been (and will be for the foreseeable future) the direct interface between data and the user. I honestly can't think of a faster and easier way to parse a nasty 10GB log file from a simulation than bash. The fact that its old and still in use is a testament to its usefulness.

tomc1985 12y ago

package management: chocolatey, M$ is also developing something live cd functionality: bartPE, UBCD4WIN architecture support: x86, x64, itanium (limited), ARM (limited) command-line interfaces: powershell (sucks but still...), command.com kernel customization: not directly but there are special skus scaling to low powered hardware: Windows Embedded Edition licensing: linux still wins