My Thoughts: Learning Linux is hard (from Microsoft products) but worth the price?

The amount of information that is purely leaking out of my head as I write this article is just ridiculous. I just finished configuring Django/Python, Debian, Apache, MariaDb (after PostgreSQL), Google Cloud, PuTTY, DBeaver, Eclipse, and Git from scratch (no knowledge). That experience was so very tedious.

If I were to do this again, I would have learned Java and MySql first. The rest are fine. The biggest hurdles was reading documentations for MariaDb which some doubles from MySql. This worked for the most part, but in some rarer instances, MariaDb has kind of split from MySql. So, I spent a lot of time following directions that didn't work. Django was an added layer too because I was not sure if it was Django configuration or an Apache configuration. I think by going with Java and MySql, I would have one less layer of technology to figure out where my problem was.

Another hurdle was that I was working of a Windows system while configuring these technologies on Google Cloud. Of course, I also went with Debian without the GUI so I had to learn all the terminal commands. I did not setup a comparable environment on my machine so I had to upload to Google Cloud to test things. This of course meant that I had to figure out how to connect PuTTY and DBeaver to Google Cloud.

Visual Studio may be a good alternative to Eclipse and DBeaver. That I am not sure would have been easier or not. From my experience most people in this tech stack typically use Eclipse. I am not so sure about DB IDE.

Compared to my experience with Microsoft products, this was much much harder than learning MS products. Wizards, tutorials, how-to instructions, etc. were all levels easier to focus on the configurations that needed to be changed. MS definitely got my up, running, and programming within the same day. This took me about 3 weeks only weekends and some nights, so maybe equivalent to 10 days of actual work. Either case, way longer than it took for MS. Maybe this is a sign of my age...

As for pure learning curve goes, MS is way easier and faster.

As for performance, empty shells of a project is already way faster than empty MS projects.

As for price, MS is way too expensive.

In conclusion, there are pros and cons to both. As a person that wants to make decent wage to effort, learning non-MS product is worth the price as they are paid more in general for similar jobs. Good MS developers can still be paid well in higher tiers but there are fewer available openings and more lower quality developers vying for the same role plus managers who cannot recognize good talent.

Project: My First Attempt in Doing Anything in Linux

I thought that I was quite flexible in understanding how to run computers. I have quite some experience supporting Windows systems for personal and business use (albeit enterprise level). Yet, I cannot naturally navigate and figure things out on Linux. I would imagine switching from Linux to Windows is much simpler than Windows to Linux.

From installing applications, installing drivers, finding upgrades, to just basic command prompt uses, I have struggled with them all. By struggle, I mean that I had to either web search or read a book. Nothing seemed intuitive to me... or perhaps this is a sign of my age. Even following instructions was not always so simple. There was always something different, especially in the GUI. Command prompt was more similar between versions and distributions, but it does not always play very nicely with other components that were installed through the GUI.

In my opinion, the GUI should be simple to use but I have actually found that the command prompt has comparable perks (or rather fewer 'issues'). There are also some nuisances in the GUI that does not quite allow you to just use the keyboard without having to switch to the mouse.

After this experience, I can see clearer on how Windows can still be quite powerful yet having always many IT professionals complaining about them. Windows requires much less knowledge about the system to get a development environment running or even just simple infrastructure use. I can simply install Windows, Visual Studio, and MS SQL Server and have a development environment basically ready for me to develop. A little bit of knowledge on public IP address and you can publish a simple web application within a day or two.

I have already spent over a week just trying to get Linux running with Python, Eclipse, and Django. Along with the installation, I have also learned a lot of other functions to running and maintaining Linux that I would not care much for as a developer. So although Linux may be more enterprise friendly, it is not so friendly on the individual level. I would think just to get a company started with Linux technology, you'll need at least 2-3 people at the minimum for average entrepreneurs: someone that understands how to maintain Linux, a developer, and sales. While for Windows, you really only need one person because a sales person could throw together a web application... maybe two where the developer also maintains the server. Sure you could find a Linux person who can do all three, but from my experience, they are far from being sales people even if they have superior products while sales people could sell Microsoft inferior products.

I've heard some friends say that Linux is still dominant in enterprise level but I see more and more conversions to .NET solutions on enterprise websites. This may not be an indication that they Microsoft-centric for their infrastructure, but by their hype I would imagine that the technology should be changing in the direction of Linux as companies grow to enterprise level. They also say it is free, but Microsoft's solution is basically free too (only because everyone practically already has it). You can find companies with only Microsoft products, but you will be hard-pressed to find companies with absolutely zero Microsoft systems.

Although this is mostly my rant on the learning curve to Linux, I am not bashing on its power and effectiveness technologically. I just think if the community did a better job on making it more newbie-friendly, they may find that they would have a greater impact... but then with some Linux folks, they almost seem like they design Linux just to prevent technology illiterates from converting.

Reference

http://askubuntu.com/questions/224942/linux-headers-not-upgraded

Quote: Linux vs Windows

Linux is to chopsticks as Windows is to fork
Linux : chopsticks :: Windows : fork

I came up with this to describe my experience with Linux and Windows. I am primarily a Windows user and only started using Linux about a week ago. I can see where there are some potentials to Linux that I can make use of but the learning curve is just much higher (in my opinion). Sure Windows crashes more often, but a simple reboot fixes most problems. When Linux crashes, I have absolutely no idea what is going on without figuring out all the inter-dependencies of the application, drivers, and OS. Sure you can eventually fix it permanently, but that's somehow more annoying especially when you're new to the application.

My views on Linux will likely change as I use it more often, but I feel this analogy best describes my experience so far. Starve if you cannot figure out how to use chopsticks, perhaps stab the food if possible. While the fork is easy to use, and you can easily scoop up the food if you cannot figure how to stab it.