info/why-linux-is-better
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nbeaver/why-linux-is-better.git synced 2025-08-22 05:22:57 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Reword and add sources to some sections.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nathaniel Beaver
2015-09-16 10:59:44 -05:00
parent beeb5577db
commit c8b5295a80
1 changed files with 57 additions and 29 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

86
README.rst
View File

@@ -1306,9 +1306,9 @@ There are some drawbacks to this approach::
Update inertia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another consequence of the single integrated window manager
is that Windows users are resistant to change user interfaces,
so improvements that require changes to the user interface are often delayed.
Another consequence of tying the desktop environment to the operating system version
and providing a single desktop environment for a given version of Windows
is that improvements that require changes to the user interface are often delayed.
***
UAC
@@ -1360,13 +1360,13 @@ but to highlight the risks of monoculture and vendor lock-in
and to provide contrast to the way
that the Linux ecosystem maintains checks and balances.
Linux users can, if they wish,
install a recent kernel and up-to-date applications
together with a window manager that hasn't changed much since 1987,
and a non-negligable number do exactly that. [#twm_debian]_ [#twm_1987]_ [#twm_popcon]_
Linux users can run the latest kernel and applications
on a window manager that hasn't changed much since 1987, [#twm_debian]_ [#twm_1987]_
and some of them actually do so by choice. [#twm_user_by_choice]_ [#twm_popcon]_
.. [#twm_debian] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/twm
.. [#twm_1987] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twm
.. [#twm_user_by_choice] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/131106/is-twm-still-a-viable-window-manager#comment209905_131120
.. [#twm_popcon] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=twm
This reflects a general distrust of mandatory backward-incompatible updates.
@@ -1619,32 +1619,52 @@ such as a C compiler (usually ``gcc``),
build automation (e.g. ``make``),
text utilities (``diff``, ``patch``, ``grep``, ``find``, etc.),
and more than one shell (e.g. ``bash``, ``dash``, and ``csh``).
In fact, they are required to provide these tools by the `POSIX standard`_.
In fact, the `POSIX standard`_ requires that these be available.
Standards like POSIX make writing and using portable software easier,
and standard POSIX tools are unlikely to become obsolete.
.. _POSIX standard: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696699/utilities/contents.html
On Windows, by contrast,
neither the `C compiler and build system`_
nor the currently favored Windows shell (`PowerShell`_)
are installed by default.
there is no default set of tools that match the POSIX utilities
(though certainly not for lack of trying).
[#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_
.. _C compiler and build system: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/
The `Windows C compiler and build system`_
is not installed by default,
even though a zero-price Community version is available.
There is a scriptable shell on all version of Windows (``CMD.EXE``)
but the currently favored Windows shell (`PowerShell`_)
was not available by default until Windows 8.
.. _Windows C compiler and build system: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/
.. _PowerShell: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh847837.aspx
------------------------
Registries and dotfiles.
------------------------
.. [#] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754351.aspx
.. [#] https://superuser.com/questions/495360/does-windows-8-still-implement-posix
.. [#] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4746043/where-does-microsoft-windows-7-posix-implementation-currently-stand
.. [#] http://brianreiter.org/2010/08/24/the-sad-history-of-the-microsoft-posix-subsystem/
.. [#] https://superuser.com/questions/293023/unix-command-line-utilities-for-windows-x64
--------------------------------------------------
Software configuration: registries and text files.
--------------------------------------------------
On Windows, configuration files are not centralized in the user's home directory.
Most of the things that users care about
--- not losing configuration between installs ---
are scattered around as ``.INI`` text files
in various directories or in the `Windows Registry`_.
The data that matters
--- that retains configuration when upgrading or recovering from data loss ---
is scattered around as ``.INI`` text files in unpredictable directories
or in the `Windows Registry`_.
In general, there is insufficient separation amongst an application's
configuration and plugins,
history and log files,
and data that is cached for performance.
This makes configuration less robust
and harder to adapt to the needs of specific users.
Windows developers have noted the `many other drawbacks`_ `of the registry`_.
Windows developers have noted the `many other drawbacks`_ `of the registry`_ in particular.
.. _Windows Registry: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms970651.aspx
.. _many other drawbacks: https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/why-the-windows-registry-sucks-technically/
@@ -1653,32 +1673,36 @@ Windows developers have noted the `many other drawbacks`_ `of the registry`_.
On Linux, most configuration can be done graphically
within applications or configuration managers provided by the desktop environment.
A lot of it is handled by the `package manager`_.
However, there are a variety of possibilities depending on the needs of the people using it.
However, there are a variety of possibilities
depending on the needs of the people using it.
.. _package manager: `Package manager with signed binaries.`_
System administrators, for example,
care about system-level configuration files,
generally text files in ``/etc/``.
Text files are simple to edit for ad-hoc debugging and automation,
Text files are simple to edit
for ad-hoc debugging and automation,
easy to diff,
easy to backup or version control,
and robust against corruption.
User level configuration is stored in dotfiles (hidden folders or files)
User level configuration is stored in dotfiles
(hidden folders or files)
in the user's home directory.
There are good arguments to the effect that
making dotfiles responsible for configuration `is problematic`_.
Configuration files would make much more sense
if stored in a dedicated configuration folder in the user's home directory,
and indeed some applications are `beginning to standardize on this`_.
In the meantime, however, dotfiles do the job, cluttered as they are,
since each user's files and configuration
is isolated to his or her home directory.
.. _is problematic: https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp
.. _beginning to standardize on this: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
In the meantime, however, dotfiles do the job, cluttered as they are,
since each user's files and configuration
is isolated to his or her home directory.
Centralized databases like the Windows Registry
are usually unnecessary for configuration.
Applications for which text files are a bad choice,
@@ -2054,8 +2078,8 @@ In practice, though, Windows users are `more likely`_
to inadvertently install malware,
primarily because of the way they install non-malicious software
(see `notes on package management`_).
Requiring every computer user to do the work of package maintainers
is harmful in a variety of ways;
Finding trustworthy sources for software is non-trivial,
and requiring ordinary users to do it is harmful in a variety of ways;
it tends to encourage a cargo-cult mentality toward security
instead of systematic root-cause analysis.
@@ -2072,7 +2096,11 @@ As a result,
.. _falsely attribute: http://www.combofix.org/suspect-a-malware-infection-heres-the-right-way-to-remove-it.php
.. _software misbehavior to malware: http://lifehacker.com/5958001/the-5-biggest-myths-about-slow-pcs-and-how-you-can-actually-fix-them
Some users may even attribute problems arising from failing hardware to malware.
Some users may even attribute problems arising from failing hardware to malware. [#]_ [#]_ [#]_
.. [#] https://dniinoi.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/the-myth-behind-virus-attack-and-hardware/
.. [#] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/65153/is-there-any-virus-that-can-cause-physical-damage
.. [#] http://askbobrankin.com/can_a_virus_really_destroy_your_hard_drive.html
This also has consequences for developers.
Because few Linux users experience problems due to malware,