| Subject | Re: [IB-Architect] Re: Some thoughts on IB and security |
|---|---|
| Author | Jim Starkey |
| Post date | 2000-04-28T22:36:57Z |
At 06:16 PM 4/28/00 -0400, Emil Briggs wrote:
but the attitude of Linux developers -- the software is artificially
hard to use. Much of the problem is documentation. Most open
source products have absolutely rotten online docs and rely on
other folks for offline documentation. CVS is a notable exception --
the man page is almost enough to use the product if you already
understood everything about it.
Linux is currently an excellent server platform that is inordinately
hard to use. There is probably nothing wrong with the kernel. The
utilities are intentionally as obtuse as "real Unix" but usable. The
online documentation is deplorable. Even Microsoft discovered html.
If Interbase is to be a major success, it must raise the bar
substantially. It must be installable without either a PhD or
a GED degree. It cannot require system tuning or rebuilding the
kernel. It should not require a 400 page book to get started.
It should not require a user to understand lock table size before
he learns about a select. The first question a user sees during
an install should not be classic or SuperServer?
It's an attitude thing. Nothing on Linux requires software to
be obtuse.
they start to use it, you are going to cause trouble for many, many
people.
Jim Starkey
>Jim Starkey wrote:You have missed my point. The problem with Linux is not Linux
>>
>>
>>
>> The things I hate most about Linux is the attitude that I have nothing
>> better to do than to learn everything about a tool in order to use it.
>>
>
>Hmm. I guess you don't like Linux/Unix. You've made that pretty clear
>in repeated posts. You also have made it clear that you don't know
>very much about the current state of Linux -- criticizing shortcomings
>that may have been relevant 5 years ago (or 20 years ago for that
>matter)
>but are not relevant now. I'm a big proponent of Linux but I'll be
>the first one to admit that in many areas it needs a lot of work.
>
but the attitude of Linux developers -- the software is artificially
hard to use. Much of the problem is documentation. Most open
source products have absolutely rotten online docs and rely on
other folks for offline documentation. CVS is a notable exception --
the man page is almost enough to use the product if you already
understood everything about it.
Linux is currently an excellent server platform that is inordinately
hard to use. There is probably nothing wrong with the kernel. The
utilities are intentionally as obtuse as "real Unix" but usable. The
online documentation is deplorable. Even Microsoft discovered html.
If Interbase is to be a major success, it must raise the bar
substantially. It must be installable without either a PhD or
a GED degree. It cannot require system tuning or rebuilding the
kernel. It should not require a 400 page book to get started.
It should not require a user to understand lock table size before
he learns about a select. The first question a user sees during
an install should not be classic or SuperServer?
It's an attitude thing. Nothing on Linux requires software to
be obtuse.
>If you think that people are going to understand a product before
>Now if you don't want to understand how to install and run Apache that's
>fine. It doesn't matter what product you use though -- Apache, IIS
>whatever,
>if you don't know what you're doing and you put a server on the Internet
>you're asking for trouble.
>
they start to use it, you are going to cause trouble for many, many
people.
Jim Starkey