> Linux is not like some other OS's, where the program files and
> configuration files are all mixed in together in a huge directory, and
> where updates and urgrades have no package/version control.
Okay, because I'm up 'early', and in view of recent philosophy-stimulating
events (like Eric Raymond's upcoming visit and Windows Refund Day), I want
to raise a few issues here. I'm basically just thinking out loud, so take
me with a grain of salt.
Viewing Linux the way Ken's describing it here doesn't make sense, as far
as I'm concerned. I don't mean to pick on Ken, but I'm very skeptical of
undue praise for systems. Linux is a great system, but it should be
praised for what it is.
It is not the realm of the operating system to decide whether program
files and configuration files exist in the same directory, nor is package
control an OS issue. Linux doesn't automatically make any of this easier;
in fact, its great strength on this point agianst modern Windows (mainly
NT) is that it does almost *nothing* (as an operating system) with regard
to these issues.
Part of the problem with modern Windows (mainly NT) is that the OS forces
some of these issues down below the user level, when it's really the user
level at which they belong. The Windows Registry is essentially a
configuration database -- perhaps meeting Ken's criterion of keeping
program files and configuration data separate, and maybe even assisting
with 'package control'. The problem is that the Registry is accessible
(in practical terms) only through a very specific set of APIs; it's thus
moderately difficult to automate, control remotely, back up, and so on.
These problems arise because the OS vendor has layered so much
functionality on top of a simple concept and essentially hidden the
implementation from the end user.
RPM could have done this too; that fact that it didn't has little to do
with Linux and everything to do with good, user-centered design and system
administration. You're basically praising the RPM system and the system
administrators who take advantage of it (or things like it). The fact
that Linux doesn't get in the way is what's important.
And even with Windows's problems, there's nothing intrinsic to Windows
that forces programs to be confusing. (In other words, Windows gets in
the way of good system administration to *some* extent, but not overly
so.) The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is one of culture; Windows
programs (including -- and especially! -- those from Microsoft) are
written with old, non-OSes like Windows 95 in mind, thereby making it very
difficult for system administrators to manage Windows NT machines. But
this isn't specifically NT's fault. On the corporate level, it's as much
Microsoft's fault as anyone else's, but it's *not* a problem with their
operating system.
There are definitely *other* problems with Windows NT, by the way. But I
don't think this is one of them. I hate MS as much as anyone else, but
it's a reasoned, thoughtful hatred. :)
Shawn