Slashdot Mirror
Linux is Window Manager's Product of the Year
brokeninside writes "Infoworld's 'Windows Manager' Columnist Bob Livingston named Linux his 1999 product of the year in his most recent column. I especially enjoyed his assertion that Microsoft was 'playing catchup' with Windows 2000. He said, '...Microsoft is catching up with Linux, not setting a higher standard.'"
Microsoft IS playing catchup with Win2k. Why?
;p
First of all, you wouldn't believe the number of interns where I work that get their hands on a Linux workstation for the first time, and then, upon managing to screw up something, reboot. Microsoft products have been so dependant on the reboot, it's been ingrained in the minds of people without enough luck to have gotten some experience with something better.
Not only that, but Win2k is Microsoft's attempt to make NT a usefull OS - meaning you can play games on it. =) And now it seems like they're chickening out on being able to offer a product that can do both by promising Windows Millenium, which I betaed, much to my own sorrow. It seems to me that the only way they can keep the OS stable is to prevent it from doing things - using easily written video card drivers for instance.
But... but... you'll be hearing MORE about it? Perhaps Livingston's been reading his own publication too much. Last time I checked, Linux was gaining buzzword status - it's almost up there with 'intranet' now... =)
Plus, Microsoft is now REALLY playing catchup, because, after all, once the DOJ gets through with them, they might be open source.
There is no sig.
"Linux isn't perfect. Support is still an issue. And fixes add up to patches, although you can use automated installation utilities."
..."
:-)
At this point, the list of people not supporting Linux is likely shorter than the list of people who are. I think he's confusing support with "double click to add SP9 to your system" ease-of-fixing.
"You will like our integration. Microsoft's decision to make Internet Explorer a hard-to-remove feature of Windows 98 -- in direct defiance of an earlier order by Judge Jackson -- has
I don't think there were earlier rulings by Mr. Jackson about not integrating Explorer in Win98. Perhaps he means another judge.
However, there are many interesting bits:
"icrosoft got away with this because its legal counsel convinced two out of three judges on an appeals court that Windows 98 "isn't an upgrade of Windows 95" and therefore was in compliance with the previous order. You know a company's in trouble when legal hairsplitting replaces common sense."
Can you sense the bitterness here? I can understand why the man doesn't like Microsoft: how can they sleep at night knowing they were selling IE 4 + the upgrade equivalence of a service pack to the public, for the same price as a full operating system?
It sounds like he's really cluefull about how Linux is starting to make MS sit up and take notice. Since Linux has passed the "embrace and extend," and FUD litmus tests, MS is starting to realise that they have to compete on merits. They obviously thought they could set up Linux as a nice straw men for their DoJ hearing, and later take the community down a few pegs.. But now the result is an actual form of competition, if not full out market share battles
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Does anyone here, even for a second, believe that Windows 2000 will not be a major software release and developers will scramble to support it? Ignore the technical issues: The "windows phenomenon" has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with marketing, the perception of reality, and human nature.
This article is paying lip-service to the community. Given ZD Net's track record I wouldn't be suprised if it was written specifically to get posted to slashdot (like many other articles like this which seem to make it to the front page). Don't buy it.
Linux is a versatile OS but it has many shortcomings which the pundits and many linux enthusiasts want to ignore - the hardware drivers are not on par with their NT counterparts, nor is the support infrastructure there. There are some drivers which are rock solid under linux, but the majority of them have quirks, bugs, and I'd say upwards of 50% are in "perma-beta". Further, the tcp/ip lock-spin problem as surfaced in the mindcraft testing seems to prove that linux does what it was designed to do: run well on *well supported* commodity hardware, do so with good stability, and makes an excellent server for home / small business use. However, for mega corporations and so-called "e-commerce" - it's lacking. This is called Solaris Country - big iron and massively redundant servers. the BSD's also do better in this arena (although, like Wendy's, they make superior burgers but everybody thinks McDonalds is better). The above paragraph is mainly here as a reality-check: linux is not perfect. It has shortcomings. The sooner we accept them (and then work to shore them up), the sooner we stop worrying about "beating microsoft" and start building superior code, that's the same day we win the war. If you want historical proof: japanese samauri(sp?) - they held the belief that by not concerning themselves with the outcome of battle they would win. And they did. Atleast until we dropped the bomb on them.
But, I digress. Mistrust articles like these: these little "opinion" columns are just paying lip service to whatever hype happens to the popular one at the moment. Go back and search for "push technology", or even earlier to the Macintosh and the windows 3.0 days... it's all the same: the pundits say what their readers want them to say. Just like slashdot likes to moderate and post people who agree with it's values and beliefs. Boil it all away and you're left with one thing - and it isn't the truth.
When I read the article, I was surprised how direct and to the point the writer was. He comes across as neither a linux zealot nor a MS fanatic, which is what many articles that sing the praises of either product do. Here, we have a clear analysis of the good things and the flaws in both products (and of microsoft's business strategy), which is a refreshing change from many "propaganda" pieces.
... we'll see its products make big strides in usability and stability". Competition is a good thing for consumers :)
But what I liked most was the last paragraph: "When microsoft is forced to compete on equal footing
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
My first reaction, as a happy linux user who thinks open source will eventually conquer all inferior methods, was to think "No there's not! Linux is perfect! Bow before the kernel!"
Of course, Linux isn't perfect. Nothing's perfect, after all. But the difference is that, once we admit we have faults, it doesn't take long for open source to fix them. As a result, my second reaction was to think "Well, what are these criticisms, so I can fix them?"
I think it's that kind of attitude (the second) which will make the reporter's vision of a linux-on-even-footing(financially, not innovationwise)-with-Microsoft come true.
-Denor
Ok, here I go...
Some would say that the major development in Windows2000 was the Active Directory, and that remainder of the issues he cites (security, stability, horsepower) were only fulfillments of a longstanding promise.
Now, if Win2k came out only with those improvements in implementation and no changes in underlying architecture, then he would be justified in saying that M$ was playing catchup to Linux. But again, there is the AD, which is the major marketing point and really quite a massive overhaul of the way many organizations currently function. For that feature alone (there are others but I don't understand them very well) it seems unjustified to call M$ a bunch of copycats when it comes to Win2k.
Just a viewpoint to consider.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I was beginning to think InfoWorld was a lost cause. This is the same magazine that employs that visionary Bob Metcalfe. You'll remember him as the knucklehead who knocked Linux because it's based on "30 year old technology". I tried to call Bob to complain but I guess he doesn't use phones for similar reasons.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a Linux trip
That started from this Slashdot site
Aboard this Livingston ship.
The mate was a mighty Inforworld guy,
The product brave and sure.
Most votes made for Linux that day
For a free sourcin' tour, a free sourcin' tour.
The product race started getting rough,
The Win2K was tossed,
If not for the zelots of the slashdot site
The honor would be lost, the honor would be lost.
The code won praise from the home of this honest journalist
With Openness
The Kernel too,
The best OS and superior,
The Red Hat guys
The Taco and Roblimo,
Here on open source Isle.
So this is the thread of the product race,
We've beat Redmond one more time,
We'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.
The Livingston and the public too,
Have recognized the very best,
To help Linux get some press,
With the product of the year.
No cost, no Bill and open sorece,
Not a single blue screen,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be.
So join us here each release my freinds,
You're sure to get a smile,
Linux got product of the year
Here on open source' Isle."
HP has a clone that emulates _all_ the functionallity of echange server. The location of the site is here.
And there is even an offer of 50 free licenses! And the web based mail interface looks awesome.
I liked the article. Brian Livingstone was fair to both Microsoft and Linux. He basically pointed out that consumers want stability and security, two features that Microsoft fails to deliver and that Linux does deliver.
He wants Microsoft to improve their products and sees Linux as pointing the way to a better computer platform, one that has stability, security, and ease of use.
But Mr. Livingstone is still missing the big picture. The reason that Linux is gaining such a big share is that Linux uses open standards. Linux works and plays well with others. Linux doesn't want to be the only choice. Linux wants to be one of many choices.
And Linux runs on just about every computer platform right now that will support a multitasking OS. Everything from palmtops, to routers, to the desktop, to servers, all the way up to the most powerful supercomputers in the world.
Most of the software that runs on Linux also runs on a dozen other OSes. If your samba server under Linux doesn't have enough power, put in a Sun Enterprise server in its place, also running samba.
In contrast, Microsoft makes proprietary every standard that they touch. They can't seem to help themself. Everyone uses sendmail, they use exchange. Everyone uses java, they use j++. They are even trying to pervert perl right now by adding windows only extentions to the language. Microsoft does want to be your only choice.
Microsoft runs only on one platform. The x86. Given that there is a wide range of power in this venerable processor and the IA64 is coming, but even then you don't have much choice of vendors.
Microsoft only writes applications for one platform. Yes, they have done a little work with the macs, but only as an after thought.
I think that Linux is the tip of a new way of doing things that gives the consumer maximum choice.
I think that Bill is just now realizing that. Microsoft will need to change and change radically to keep any of their marketshare. You may not even recognize MS in a few years.
-- Never make a general statement.
(Most companies know, only too well, that different versions of Office are incompatiable. Replacing EACH AND EVERY FILE on their corporate fileserver, to ensure everything is up-to-date is a pain, expensive, and takes people away from Real Work. You know, the stuff that earns the company money. An offer of an alternative that would take them off this financially ruinous roundabout would appeal to the execs and accountants alike, not to mention the poor plebs who do the typing.)
Ok, so we've dealt with 100% Word compatiability. The answer is YES. We've also dealt with Office compatibility - it's irrelevent, as Office 2000 won't be compatiable with any other version anyway, and the corps know that. What does that leave? Marketing and human nature.
Ok, marketing. Yes, true, Microsoft has TV ads and billboards. So did IBM, when they released OS/2. That really doesn't capture the degree of mindshare that advertising agencies would have you believe. Otherwise, there'd be a whole different meaning to Blue Screen of Death.
So, what does count? Mindshare. Plain and simple. Linux is getting column inches in the technical, educational and financial columns, sometimes even in the main sections, with such stories as European Governments switching to Linux, and rumours of China doing the same. The financial press has been in a feeding frenzy, with such stories as Red Hat going from $14/share to over $250/share, in only a few months, and VA Linux rocketing from $22/share to nearly $300/share in half a week. Sorry, but that grabs attention in a way very little else does.
Then, there's the educational sector to consider. Mexico and Britain will be churning out Linux coders, not Visual Basic wannabes. Do you -think- financial departments -like- paying more than they have to for software licences, tech support that isn't, etc? And here's a ready supply of willing Linux nerds, who won't need multi-billion support contracts or software that costs more to keep running than the entire Apollo program!
Ok, now let's look at drivers. Linux vs NT, The Battle Of The Giant. Sorry, no plural, NT has far fewer drivers: no PnP support, no USB support, no Firewire support, fewer networking protocols, fewer graphics modes, earlier ActiveX (it's possible to get ActiveX 6 for Linux, but why you'd want to is beyond me - either way, NT's still on version 3), fewer printers, fewer Ethernet cards, fewer sound cards, fewer graphics cards, incomplete multicasting support, no routing support, no QoS support, poorer RAID support, no software watchdog support and poorer driver handling.
Before critisizing Linux for being "worse" than NT over drivers, I'd say "take a step back", because I honestly can't see a single way in which NT can claim superiority over Linux, with regards to drivers. And even if one or two cases were found, that's all they'd be. The overall picture would still be that Linux was superior. To convince me otherwise, you'd have to answer EACH AND EVERY point above, OR for those points you can't disagree on, find AT LEAST ONE way in which NT was superior to Linux. And even then, you'd only have gotten to the point of showing they were equal. You would have to exceed even this very ambitious goal with a significant number of additional points to show NT's overall superiority.
Let's take the supposed beta-ness of Linux' drivers. Have you -used- 50% of Linux' drivers? Has anyone? If not, then you are relying on heresay, not personal observation. How do -you- know that the person was using the latest drivers?
(eg: Ethernet cards - many make use of the Tulip code, but the "standard" kernel used a very old version of this for some time, due to a disagreement over patch philosophy.)
Then, how do you know what options or compiler the person was using? eg: Linux was rather sensitive to pgcc for a while, and only fools like me use -O6 in the Makefile.
Do you know that the hardware used was reliable, and non-defective? If a chip is flaky at the upper end of it's specs, or if the computer's fan is broken, then you -can- actually get more faults with GOOD drivers than badly-written ones. The badly-written ones might, potentially, keep the hardware slow enough to operate, whilst bug-free, well-written drivers might push things a bit too hard.
If you don't know the quality of hardware, don't assume the fault -has- to be in software. It could just as easily be in hardware, or in the interaction between the two, even when a line-by-line check of the driver shows it to be 100% absolutely perfect and utterly bug-free.
A good example of what I mean is in the docs for CPUBurn, where it states that this will push the CPU and the rest of the motherboard to the limits, for Linux, but that a Windows version is proving a problem because Windows is too inefficient for the program to push the system.
Does that mean Linux is defective, because it works better? Nope! It means that you need more work-arounds for bad hardware than Windows does, certainly, but it's still ultimately a hardware bug not a software one.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)