|Monday, June 18th, 2001|
1:30a - anti-microsoft crazypeople
So here I'm going to rant a bit about why Microsoft Ain't The Devil. And some of you have probably heard this before, and many of you are probably really sick of it (hi cathexis!) but I'm gonna do it before :) So I'll lay out some of the points I want to make and I'll make them, Microsoft Vs. Linux, from the perspective of the Average User.
1) Ease of use.
Do we really have to even mention this? Microsoft version: right-click the ZIP file and choose "extract". Linux CLI version: gunzip < some.file.tar.gz | tar xvf -. Linux GUI version: well, I don't know, seeing as how I've never gotten a Linux GUI working worth beans. Which reminds me:
2) Ease of setup.
Microsoft: put the disc in and wait an hour. (basically.) Bin-go!
Linux: put the disc in and wait an hour. Congratulations, you've got a CLI. I'm not sure what you do from here to get a GUI - I tried once and gave up after another hour because I didn't need it.
3) Application power.
Microsoft: platform runs Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Visual C++, and Adobe Premiere. And Microsoft Excel, which I'm told is a wonderful spreadsheet program, though I don't use spreadsheets.
Linux equivalents: The Gimp. Good, but not as good as Adobe, from what I've heard from people who use it. (There's a Windows version too, I'm told it's not better.) I'm reasonably certain there's no dev environment for Linux that's as good as MSVC - if there was, I'd have heard about it. I don't think there's *any* equivalent to Premiere. Or Excel. at least, any that's even remotely successful.
My few experiences with pre-set-up XWindows have not impressed me with Linux's GUI stability. On the other hand, the OS is quite a bit more stable. (finally, Linux gets a point!)
Windows has perhaps a few holes, but out-of-the-box there's no way for hackers to get in and muck about too badly. Yes, people can crash you remotely, but nothing's perfectly safe anyway, and Linux can be crashed remotely too. Perhaps this would be a point in Linux's favor, except:
In Linux, if you forget your "root password", you're locked out and can't make any major changes. Whoops. Windows doesn't have that flaw.
Yes, I said "flaw".
Your average user doesn't *need* the overbearing excessive security of Linux. It's pointless. So he's safe from himself accidentally screwing the pooch quite as easily - so what? He/she can end up locked out of their own system!
And, in fact, Linux has another serious problem. All Linux distributions come with a built-in gateway for hackers to get right into the system and completely subvert it! It's called the Telnet daemon. Windows doesn't have one. You. Can't. Get. In. No matter what you try to do, even if you own the system, you can't get even remotely the level of control as a hacker could get through a default install in Linux.
And they wonder why people still use Windows . . .
Sheesh, *I* still use Windows. And so does *everyone* in The Gang in Seattle (my local group of friends, for those who don't know). Yeah, a few of us have dual-boot linux/windows systems, but really. For any serious work, I'll boot up Windows any day. And for any game playing, I'll, well, boot up Windows any day . . .
Other stuff tomorrow. I'm thinking of posting drafts of the Letter I'm Planning To Send To My Ex (On A Floppy Disk With Other Stuff). Comments?
current mood: grrrrrr
(2 comments |comment on this)
brother. Why am I going on an errands day with my mom when she's *already* in a bad mood and taking offense at everything I say?
(1 comment |comment on this)
7:07p - now it all makes sense
Chainmail is often structured in bugs, which is the smallest unit of 4-in-1 weave that looks like chainmail. One bug's width of chainmail is 3 rows wide - two bugs is 7 rows. In fact, a bug is actually 4 rows, not 3, except that one of the rows is what you create when you connect two bugs together. A half a bug, therefore, is 2 rings wide. Box chain can be created by taking a one-bug-wide strip and connecting it to itself.
I now see that the same concepts for European mail apply to Persian mail as well. 3-in-1 "half persian" is, in fact, half a Persian bug wide, or 2 rings. In extending this to 3 rings wide, I found it trying to contort itself into a position to knit it to itself, which would clearly produce Persian box chain in this case.
Unfortunately, 5/16" 16gu rings are too small to make Persian fabric, so to speak. I shall attempt that some other time.
(comment on this)