On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:37:12PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
| >I'll repeat or emphasis that the windows release process needs to
| >be simple enough that *I* can do it.
|
| Well, that's a perfect goal :-) But my experience with doing
slightly
| simple programming tasks on Windows is that Windows will slap you
wherever
| possible - even when you're trying to solve simple problems. I
stopped
| dreaming that anything on Windows works as it should.

I'll add to that that I used to think this way, too, but Mark Hammond
slowly convinced me otherwise.

Today I have the opinion that no matter what other people say, Windows
is actually superior to *anything* I've seen in Linux or OS X, except
for the networking stack and process management. COM, for example, is
very cool stuff.

You should see some of the stuff Mark has done that allows one to call
pretty much any Python object via COM from any language that supports
COM as long as the Python object has a interface declaration using
'zope.interface'. I'm still waiting to see something like COM on the
Linux world.

Over with the bashing, back to the topic now.

--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.

http://enfoldsystems.com

9 Responses to “I Love Windows!”

1. 1 Tim Olsen on January 20, 2006 said:

   there are other component technologies out there
   COM is not the only component technology out there. Have you heard of CORBA? (It runs on Linux too). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_componentry for an overview of the available technologies.

   Reply
2. 2 Sidnei da Silva on January 20, 2006 said:

   of course
   Yeah, I know CORBA. But a component architecture is nothing without components. Best I can tell, CORBA is pretty much abandoned these days.

   The problem as I see it is that Linux doesn’t have yet agreed on a standard component architecture. KDE has DCOP, Gnome has bonobo, and now there’s also D-BUS. It will take a while until we get mature components for some enterprise-level tasks.

   Reply
3. 3 Glyph Lefkowitz on January 20, 2006 said:

   Hello!
   I am tempted to reply to this with a screed about how awful Windows is (and I can’t resist this one snark: it’s not just the networking; have you ever SEEN how badly Windows’ filesystem performs???)

   I’ll try to resist others though, and say: Hello! Twisted needs a Windows maintainer badly. Are you interested? :)

   Reply
4. 4 Sidnei da Silva on January 20, 2006 said:

   twisted, filesystems
   I’m not Mark Hammond-level on Windows expertise, but I surely hope to get there someday. Then I could volunteer for mantaining twisted on Windows.

   As for filesystems, I haven’t benchmarked anything but certainly NTFS feels faster than OS X’s HFS+/UFS. ;)

   Reply
5. 5 João Marcus on January 20, 2006 said:

   COM is good because Microsoft has complete control…
   Microsoft can make their own standards, because every Windows developer will use them. The same applies to Apple. Linux has competing standards, and some developers have giant egos. Such developers can’t stand using what’s already there, they want to build a better alternative. I’m not saying it’s always bad.

   Reply
6. 6 Florian on January 20, 2006 said:

   wtf?
   Dude I seriously wish you would get a clue.

   Reply
7. 7 Philipp von Weitershausen on January 21, 2006 said:

   Do you like anything else than COM?
   Yes, having lots functionality from other Windows programs and Windows services available via COM and making functionality available that way is pretty cool. I think .NET is even cooler and it looks like Microsoft is seriously propagating IronPython as a first class .NET platform language. That rocks.

   Component models are not everything, though. And it’s not like OSX or KDE don’t have a component model either which brings me to the question: Do you like anything else about Windows other than COM? There’s not too much more to like I’ve found.

   Reply
8. 8 Nerdbeard on February 22, 2006 said:

   Ego vs Profit
   What’s worse, an ego-driven standard, or one that will ultimately be leveraged in every possible way to wring as much money out of you as possible? I’d rather not use a component architecture that only works on one OS — and a commercial one at that.

   Reply
9. 9 Nerdbeard on February 22, 2006 said:

   So?
   "Linux" is hardly a complete platform. It’s scarcely even a meaningful word, let alone a development target. "KDE" is a platform comparable to Windows, and (as you note) it *does* have a standard component architecture, as well as a boatload of excellent components. Better yet and unlike COM, you can run it on a wide range of hardware and OS environments. IIUC, you can even use DCOP components on Windows, if you are so pathologically inclined.

   Saying Windows is better than Linux or *BSD is a bit like saying wagons are better than wheels.

   Reply