This isn't a flame war. It's a heated disagreement.
|Windows does some things better than Linux.|
... actually, OK, windows is easy to use, it has a massive user base and it does what is required of it, regardless of how well it does it. I'll give it that.
|Linux does some things better than Windows.|
The only thing I can think of that windows does better is be easy to use.
|Guess who spends significant amounts of money on UI design?|
Funny, then, that I still succeed at getting angry at the layout of just about every one of their programs because I find them illogical... The start menu is fine... except that if you make a shortcut to a program, and then delete the program, when you right-click it to try and delete the shortcut (this can be anywhere), one of two things will happen:
1. It will crash the whole explorer.exe program, and the entire GUI will hang untill you kill it and then restart the explorer program
2. See above
|Guess how many people care that the kernel does X with Y instead of Z.|
Geeks like you and me do (or should). Normal people should too. For example, the windows scheduler is terrible. I don't know which (I don't know enough about the subject to figure it out), but it either gives programs too long to execute before it switches, or not long enough. Probably the latter because that would result in context-switching more often, which is supposedly a real expensive thing to do. Either way, it's horrible. At school, you have to wait about five minutes (after logging in) for the machine to actually respond to anything you do.
Most people attribute that to the computer, but it's not. It's a P4 with 1 GiB RAM... the machine is fine, it's the OS.
|Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.|
This is an adaptation of something Arthur C. Clarke said, isn't it?
|Brian Kernighan wrote:|
|"The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements."|
The truth! Then again, assert() is pretty useful too.