Comment 73 for bug 61235

Windows does many things in brute force inelegant ways in order to attain that "superiority".
I would rather my software be efficient and I would rather know when my hardware (or network, or any number of configurations) has a problem and get it fixed. It's a somewhat religeous or philosophical point though where opposing points of view are both logical and "correct"

I am of the camp that says, stress test things and push things to their limit regularly and expose any weaknesses as soon and as often as possible, rather than let them accumulate. You suffer the occasional failure at your own hand this way, which seems stupid. "If you hadn't touched it, it'd still be running." But I say I'd rather a thing fail on my schedule than on it's own unpredictable one.

My boss is the exact opposite. He would leave things alone and carefully avoid bumping anything and he would write a program that trieds to do a given action 10 times to make sure it worked once, rather than hunt down why it might be unreliable and design a proper scheme to make the operation atomic. He considers the brute force or shotgun approach to be a form of reliability ala "belt & suspenders".
I almost can't disagree because outwardly theres no getting around the fact that the shotgun based system often keeps chugging along where the "right" system halts.

So, Windows is like my boss. Undeniably effective, but better? Personally no matter that I understand the practical aspects, I still just can't make myself do anything but reject that way of going about things. It's sort of.. ignorant? short sighted? destructive? It's like solving permissions problems by chmod -R 777 everything in sight.