When developing for a Linux target, you develop on Linux. However, instead of developing directly on Linux, you may connect from an IDE on Windows or enter via ssh for development.
For my Linux development, I'm developing on a Linux VPS with RLogin on a Windows machine.
By using a VPS, you can develop anywhere as long as you have an internet environment, the work cost of replacing clients is very low, and there are many advantages such as easy disaster recovery with virtual hardware and image backup. It's not the advantage of Linux, but the advantage of having a remote development environment. However, Linux VPS is a good one to enjoy this advantage at a low price.
The advantage of developing on Linux is that you can minimize the difference if you develop something that runs on Linux.
Even if you develop using Python or PHP on Windows, it may not work well in the production environment, due to problems such as library incompatibility and path rule differences. If you develop with the target from the beginning, there will be fewer differences from the development work, or additional libraries that require settings for different environments can be smoothly deployed to production by recording the setting work performed during development. You can (yum install libxxx is required, echo "extension=mcrypt.so" >> /etc/php.ini is required, knowledge during development can be used in production) In
short, for the final environment Even if cross-platform development can be done, it is inefficient, so we develop according to the target from the beginning. If you are developing an application for Windows, of course you do it on Windows, and if you are targeting OSX or iPhone, you do it on OSX.
The advantage of going through the client Windows is that it has excellent UI and tools, and I feel the advantage of being able to use ATOK rather than the troublesomeness of entering Japanese directly on Linux, and many GUI-based User-friendly tools are available, and web systems can directly validate client browsers, which is a big advantage. If you develop directly on Linux, you will get a result that is different from the expected client UI. )
Currently, popular programming languages such as Python, Java, PHP, Ruby, Node.js are mainly developed on Linux. It seems that Windows is also making efforts, but Linux (Mac) is easier to install and create a development environment, whereas in Windows, there are cases where you have to download software while researching and create a development environment. comes up often.
For example, when using Python, most libraries can be easily installed with pip on Linux (Mac), but on Windows it is difficult to compile from the source code yourself, so the library is We recommend using the precompiled Anaconda distribution.
From the history of OS, Linux has been raised by many hackers, while Windows is for running commercial applications. I think this difference is the reason why Linux (Mac) is better for programming (except for business use).
In the web world, many people develop on Macs. By the way, 23.7% of his site's visitors are using his Internet Explorer browser and Edge is 3.0%, so Microsoft is already in the minority.
This is because the development environment is ready.
You can't do programming development on Windows without preparing a separate environment, but with a normal Linux distribution, C/C++, Python, and Perl development, editors, etc. are almost complete at the time of installation.
Also, Windows before Windows XP (other than NT) tended to blue screen when developing. So I think Linux was used, which is also helpful in that respect.
Also, Linux and other language environments are mostly open source, so you can study by looking at the contents.
Linux users were called dogs or dog cooks among UNIX users. When Linux is written in Japanese from the Roman alphabet, it becomes "inu x", so it was called a dog. It seems that it was the etymology of Bakso, an abbreviation for Berkeley software design.
Windows users are like "Pachokon people" without any derogatory term or something like Doza.
I don't think it's been called by a large community in general, but Makar, Doza, and Inukuro may have been used as common names.
By the way, kitchen is an abbreviation for kitchen, and it seems that it was a derogatory term for a user who was a bit shy and energetic like a junior high school student.
Now there is only Linux, and I recall old memories that I used to call an aggressive child who always raises the middle finger of his glasses with a loud snort.
It's just writing what I was looking at objectively from the sidelines, and it's not my ideological beliefs or words.
* I will add it because my memory has been revived.
There was a time when Inu x= was called dog shit, and I think there was a time when the ending of the last linu "kusu" or linax "kusu" was not replaced with shit or dog shit.
That flow may have been the detonator that created the horse manure.
Don't get mad, in my defense I'm more of a Linux person lol
Linux doesn't have many features that Windows has long had. Some of them are mentioned here.
When David Cutler designed Windows NT, were there any Unix shortcomings that he learned from? -Quora
When I worked at Microsoft about 10 years ago, I remember that Solaris was more impressive than Linux in terms of functionality. While Linux lagged behind in functionality, Solaris, like Windows, had many advanced features. device manager, fast scheduling of O(1) algorithms, journaling file system, service dependency management, fine-grained kernel locking, lightweight threads, ability to dynamically load device drivers across different kernel versions, And so on.
Linux, on the other hand, is ahead of Windows in architecture support, volume management, networking, POSIX compatibility, and more. Some features are for end-user convenience, while others make sense in an enterprise configuration. So it's impossible to compare the two in terms of kernel functionality, but as an engineer on the Windows development team, it's nice to see these functional differences up close. As far as I can tell, Linux is catching up with missing features, and I'm happy to hear that.
It was my personal impression of Linux at the time. I've never heard of an anti-Linux culture. I was able to learn so much that I could only do justice to the Windows kernel.
The only place Linux is failing is the desktop. As a Linux desktop user, I can tell you that the only reason Linux is failing in the desktop environment is excessive (excessive) selfishness .
distro watchIf you take a look, there are over 100 different Linux distributions. Why are there so many Linux distributions and what makes them so special? Let's simplify and explain.
Initially there were mainly three versions. Debian, Fedora, Slackware. Here we follow the Debian lineage to keep things as simple as possible.
Debian is good and Debian is stable. But Debian is so robust that it lacks new and cool stuff. So some developers started working on the lightweight Linux Knoppix, while others started working on the more cutting-edge version, Ubuntu.
Ubuntu got attention. However, many people did not like Ubuntu's interface. So, after a while, besides Ubuntu, we had Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu.
Then there were those who wanted better software support. So they created Ubuntu Studio. Others still wanted a different interface, so they made mint. On the other hand, some people who liked everything created ZorinOS because they wanted better colors in the interface. Google created ChromeOS because they wanted something simpler. I also wanted something similar to MacOS, so some people created Elementary OS. In addition, I wanted something more secure, so I created ParrotOS. Some people hated it all, so they made Solus, Arch, and hundreds of other things.
Over time, this workforce became inflated because everyone had to fix the same problem over and over, instead of working together toward a common goal. So, I ended up with the following absurd diagram.
Imagine if these people were working on the same Linux distribution.
Is it possible for MacOS to switch from its own kernel to a UNIX kernel, even on Windows?
Whether it is possible or not, it is possible.
Just the other day, Microsoft gave up on developing an in-house browser engine that had become too complex and switched to Chromium. The same thing could happen in the kernel, not zero.
But I don't think it will be migrated for now, just the possibility is not zero.
The reason MacOS switched to UNIX was probably because the design was too old and it was better to switch than to improve it. Once upon a time, Microsoft also switched from the 95 kernel for personal computers, which was stuck, to the NT kernel for servers. At this stage, the scalability issue has been resolved, so there is no reason to switch to a completely different kernel architecture for now.
In the next few decades, if system layering and virtualization progress further and the advantage of "the core being Windows architecture" is lost even more than now, I wonder if there will be some cases. I think. Also, I don't think it's necessarily Linux.
0 コメント:
コメントを投稿