Re: Response to Winux/Lion/etc.

[Arun Sharma <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:40:12AM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Arun Sharma wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 02:29:01PM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> > > By default, one logs into a Linux/Unix system as a normal user
> > > (with very few privileges), and only becomes superuser when the
> > > need arises for system management. In fact, normal users do not
> > > usually log in as a superuser for an entirely different reason -
> > > they don't even have the superuser password.
> >
> > And how is it different from Win2k ?
> 
> Well, you have to be a Windows user to understand that one ;-)
> 

My BSD and Linux have been headless for 6 months now.

> Permissions are the bane of the Windows world - they are not tolerated.
> The concept of more than one person using the machine is usually alien to
> these users.
> 
> In almost all workstation cases (NT/w2k), I find users logged in with
> privileges equal to administrator level, if not as the administrator
> him/herself. Why? Because being logged in as an ordinary user limits what
> they can do on the machine (according to them).
> 
> Even otherwise, things are no better. In the words of Vinod Unny (fanatic
> pro-Windows guru for PCQ, who is just beginning to switch to the bright
> side since discovering the power of Linux ;-) "Default permissions in
> Windows suck". And *defaults* is what most people work with. I have yet to
> see a Windows user who would increase permissions on his machine to save
> the user from himself!
> 

I'm not trying to defend windows. My point is, you could've defended
Linux without criticizing Windows.

My opinion:

Win2k might be a bad multi-user system, but it's not so bad at
multi tasking, which is what a typical server computer does. Gone
are the days when zillion students used to login to a multi user
box for their computing needs.

> > Back in the days when I was a flaming Linux head, I ran into arguments
> > with him on similar topics.
> 
> I don't know what to make of this - you make it sound bad that someone is
> passionate about his cause. 

There is "passionate" in the RMS sense and then there is passionate in
the slashdot/c.o.l.advocacy sense. I was talking about the latter.

> It also makes it sound like there is a
> decreased level of belief in (the relevance of) Linux on your side.

Sure. I've made no secret of it. The reasons I liked Linux for:
open source methodology, great educational tool and flexibility
are still dear to me.  I like Linux, because it still supports
these values. However, I've found something else, which supports
the same values, without the extra baggage that Linux comes with
(politics, anti-Microsoftism, GPL, noise).

I'm less hung up about the name: whether it's called "Linux" or "BSD"
or "foo". I've noticed that people have paid more attention to the name
than necessary (Linux, GNU/Linux, Linux 6.2 etc). Ultimately, its the
values that matter, not the name.
	
	-Arun