Other GUI and CLI based Operating Systems

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello skilled guys !

This thread comes from another one as a reply to ralphbsz:

Why most giant companies use Linux instead of FreeBSD?

ralphbsz said:
You can perfectly well program in Windows and Linux too. Anything a FreeBSD machine can be programmed to do, a Windows machine can be taught too.
_______________________________________

Hello Ralph,

it is not my intention to contradict what you wrote.
But as I said and I repeat here again: there are projects that are not possible to implement in Windows.
I've received confirmation by Microsoft Technical Support.

Probably (and I think surely) for its "window implementation technology" that doesn't allow to operate at low level as FreeBSD does.

Surely a GUI is a beautifull and usefull mean to use a computer as a PC, that is a machine "services oriented" (facebook, email, ecc...) but any machine controlled by a operating systems based on a GUI is not a computer.
This behaviour is also valid for Linux and any Linux-like OSes.

Surely your high skills can help to clarify this concept: differences between GUI and CLI operative systems.

So I'd like to propose a question to the members of this Forums.

I have two software resources. The first is a brief Microsoft Windows script and the second one a Linux-like operating system.

They seem to do the same thing.

Can I share they with you ? Are you interested to analyze them for fun to see if they work fine ? I don't think. And what they do is easy to do on a FreeBSD platform.

The problem is not easy. Are several professionals (personally I don't think that they are skilled in Computer Science and Computer Science Engineer) that use the softwares above mentioned.

And this is shameful.

Let me know.

Bye bye !!
 
I've often ranted that if M$ would just stick with providing a working desktop and leave the server world to the NIXes we'd get along just fine. The first problem is that M$ changes/depricates/obfuscates their APIs and kernel so frequently that any authoritative statement about what it can and cannot do is suspect three months later. That being said, there are projects I would never let anywhere near a windoze machine, and there are projects that if I was better at c#/.net I'd do them on windoze just to get them done and off my plate quickly. At least historically the issue for me has been scalability and interoperaility. M$, being a closed system and following the IBM mentality of trying to create a captive customer base, I don't trust a word they put out with regard to real cost of implementation and support. In short I don't think there is an easy and correct answer to your original question, but anecdotally I know I'm a lot more comfortable with enterprise/server project backends being handled in the NIX world.
 
That did make me laugh, hence the thanks. It's reminiscent of sticking in questions about CURRENT, as long it sounds like it's a thread about how you hate Linux.
 
I agree with kpedersen: Having a long discussion about which operating system is better is pointless. It typically turns into a contest of "who has the bigger thing" - something that stupid men do. And the more intelligent women will tell you: it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it. I think all the common operating systems in use today have strong points, and are valuable in certain applications. We don't need to discuss here why FreeBSD is good at certain things (we all know, which is why why we all run it). OpenBSD is honestly better at certain other things. For some (many?) applications, Linux beats all of the BSDs. And I know people who run Windows (including my wife, who does not suffer from lack of technical skills, nor is she stupid), because it is the best solution. That even extends to Windows on servers: for some things, it's great; for others, not so much. As vince and tempest point out, certain things are hard on Windows, and the lack of documentation (sometimes intentional) in combination with closed source and lack of accessible service contracts make some things needlessly hard. This reminds me of an old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "Well, then stop doing it." If something is hard (or feels impossible to you) on Windows, then don't try it; use a more appropriate OS.

Being a religious extremist about this is just dumb. When faced with a nail, use a hammer. A screw, use a screwdriver. Make sure you know the difference between straight blade and philips. When faced with a tree, use a chainsaw. Using a hammer on a screw may sort of work, but the results will not be satisfactory. Using a chainsaw on a nail has the potential to injure or kill you. And using a philips screwdriver to cut down a tree is a huge waste of time (but perhaps possible).

In reality, the difference is not GUI versus CLI. Windows has perfectly functioning CLIs, and AFAIK you can do (nearly?) everything on a Windows server via CLI. A decade ago, I did quite a bit of Java and C++ development on Windows, and all I used was an emacs clone called "epsilon", and the command line to run make. Works great. But admittedly, some things are pretty hard in Windows (one example I know is integrating a virus checker into a custom file system, which is virtually impossible). Either don't try them, or get help from MicroSoft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top