Slashdot Mirror
The New Linux Myth Dispeller
TillmanJ writes: "Just a quick note to let everyone know that the New Linux Myth Dispeller is online at http://www.eruditum.org/lin ux/myths/myth-dispeller.html
It is not, however, ready for prime-time, but is usable.
If anyone has anything to add/correct/bitch about, send me some email.
In patricular, I would like to work with some non-english-speaking folks to translate it into whatever langs we can" Useful for clearing up the misconceptions of PHBs and other folks.
How does 'shipped with 36 thousand known bugs' = rock solid?
Just curious...
NecroPuppy
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
I think this is trying too hard. The answers sound good in principle, but they don't tell the whole story. In fact, I think the answer to many of the questions should be "Well, that's actually kinda true," followed by an explantion of why it is so and how to better deal with that issue in the future.
I don't know. The whole thing was not written very well. It could easily be interpreted in different ways.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Well, because that's not what's hard about Linux. If they can't install Linux, I suspect they can't cut-and-paste in a word processor either. The initial install with distributions like Red Hat, Mandrake, or Caldera is a piece of cake, and yes, anyone can do it. It's no harder than installing other OSes, because it's automated.
In my experience, the hair loss begins right after the initial install, when the user starts installing additional packages that didn't come with the distribution. RPMs, which are allegedly supposed to be easier than source tarballs, are a major pain in the ass at this point. Damn those dependencies and version conflicts!
That is what I want to see Joe Schmoe do, and I bet is that currently, Joe will have a lot of trouble. I know I did, and I'm a computer dude. I couldn't even install GLX in order to play a game until I gave up on RPMs and fell back to ./configure, make, make install.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I wasn't going to write more, but I will.. this document is appalling!
/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.36
It claims that GPF (ie. segfault) can only be caused by hardware failure. GPF means segfault in the kernel. This means the kernel had bad code. Capiche?
Now, it calls the linux kernel "small".
375,056 KERNEL32.DLL
715260 Aug 1 23:54
twice the size of NT kernel. Yay for small.
Windows is bloated, because a *full development environment* is five times the disk space of a *text editor* ? Give me a break
It lauds Linux as being POSIX compliant, but windows 2000 is POSIX compliant too. (And Win NT with Interix installed).
The other points this FAQ makes (re. security, history, y2k compliance etc.) are all obvious and only worth bothering with if you are the sort who HAS TO refute a lamer's argument, rather than just call them lame and ignore them.
Shalom Mr Anonymous Coward. I've installed Windows, OS/2, Linux (several distros). BTW : Has anyone else noticed how these white supremicists are starting to look just a bit inbred.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
There is NO WAY your average user could get past Windows installation. I've installed both Windows and Red Hat on PC's and Red hat is marginally easier. Neither are ideal for novice users.
Installation is not the acid test for the desktop, and Linux can be pre installed these days.
Well at over eighty bucks a pop retail there's certainly money to be made from the Red Hat boxed distro.
For bundling purposes though how much of a discount does Dell give you for Linux being loaded? None. So which box is more profitable, the Linux system or the Windows? I don't know, the support contract may cost and Windows is peanuts for Dell but there's at least more to the economics than you're suggesting.
Windows 95 is NOT built on top of DOS. It does contain a lot of cut-and pase Win16 code, but does not run on top of DOS.
However, how many Win16 apps does one run? secondly, you don't seem to quite understand how Windows multi-tasking works. Win16 apps are run inside a virtual machine, which is in itself a Win32 applications. The machine preemptivly multi-tasks all Win32 applications. The Win16 VM then cooperativly multi-tasks all Win16 applications. Thus the illusion doesn't just "vanish" when you run a 16bit application. All your 32 bit applications continue to be preemptivly multi-tasked, it's just that your 16 bit applications are cooperativly multi-tasked (against each other.) Thus, an Win32 application cannot hog the processor, and if a Win16 application does, it won't hog the machine, just the virtual machine. Since the virtual machine is a 32 bit application, it can be preempted so the result is that a Win16 application can only hog the proc from OTHER Win16 applications, not Win32 applications.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
No.
Dispelling Myths is not the same as casting FUD about another product. If you defend a product honestly or point out it's merits it ain't FUD.
If on the other hand you were to spread half truths about a competitive product, and imply bad things will happen when you use a competing product that would be spreading FUD.
The average person probably can't install Windows. Luckily for them, the average person only needs to use it.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Let's get this straight, teling people Linux is good at some stuff and correcting some errors is not FUD.
FUD is when you spread misrepresentations to cast doubt on a competing product. In general I don't think this is widely done by the Linux community.
I've seen FUD get spread by Microsoft in other areas, it ain't pretty and it's obvious what's going on to the well informed.
If someone did this in the Linux community there would be a chorus of objections correcting the FUD. Heck just look at what's happened in this thread. Honest comparrisons are not FUD.
you have to have GNOME+KDE(both so you have full compatibility)+Mozilla+X+kernel. Not to mention the multiple versions of glibc and all the additional (often redundant) libraries all the apps use.
I've never, ever had to have multiple glibc versions running on a machine. Also, you only need the base libraries for GNOME and KDE to actually run the apps - most of the stuff is only useful if you're using the full desktop.
In terms of memory usage, Linux blows NT4 out of the water (a bad thing) and is quite close to Windows 2000's bloat.
Not in my experience. Obviously, this kind of article is just going to lead to a flame fest all around, but I've run RH 6.1 on a 25 Mhz 486 with 16 megs of RAM - WITH X+KDE. And it wasn't noticalbly slower than the Win 3.1 it replaced. Try running NT4 on something like that - it ran poorly enough on my 350 Mhz P-II with 64 megs.
Linux DOESN'T take full advantage of hardware.
Linux doesn't support DirectX, and thus automatically lacks support for a lot of hardware features that are in DirectX complient hardware. The main reason was because transparant usage of hardware was a major design consideration for DirectX. It is based on the concept to support many different hardware features, have all applications use them, and then emultate those not supported by hardware. When the hardware supports new features, all apps and the OS automatically take advantage of them. Also, X doesn't have as compelete a support for many graphics operations that are possible in DirectX.
What the HELL are you talking about? DirectX is a development API. Vendors can also write drivers which allow DirectX to use the full abilities of their hardware - just as is done with every other graphics API, such as OpenGL or Glide, both of which run on Linux fine. My games run much faster when I use Glide than DirectX - if DirectX somehow magically makes hardware faster, how do you explain that?
So what hardware does RedHat support that isn't supported on anyother distribution? What, none? The only reason for discrepancies in hardware support is age of the distribution. RedHat puts out a new version like clockwork, and newer technologies make their way in faster. As an example Debian releases much slower, so it may appear to support less hardware, but after installing newer versions of the shipping software it runs on everything RedHat will.
As a little test I have set a user down with a machine, the RedHat install manual, and a cd and asked them to install it. I came back the next day and found the system working completly.
What really seperates distributions are the tools that they ship with for configuring the system. RedHat, Mandrake and Corel focues on adding configuration tools, while Slackware doesn't focus as heavily on this. Systems that don't focus on easy end user tools aren't much of an issue because most users aren't going to start with them. If they aren't satisfied using RedHat they'll try other distributions. If they are satisfied they wont switch.
treke
I don't read Windows hype, I don't read BE OS's hype, and aside from /., I don't read Linux hype. I do read Mac OSX hype, however, :-), and I've gotta say the landscape is gonna be more than a tad different after January 2001, when OSX(ten) ships. At the very least, there will be an honest-to-god modern consumer alternative to Windows and the fractured-ness that is Linux that even a /.-er can love.
I notice nothing in the "dispiller" about gaming sucking for Linux. This is why I don't bother with it, anymore, because the games just aren't there.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Aside from some dated information and inaccuracies, the problem I've had with the LMD for quite some time is that it's couched as a double negative: "Linux isn't evil foo", where foo is some undesirable characteristic. The entire flavor of the document would change if language were changed from negative to neutral or even positive. Otherwise it has this "are you still beating your wife?" flavor. The LMD would answer that question with a topic "Linux is no longer beating its wife".
Just as an example, the document would have an entirely different flavor if the system headings under "4. Systems Myths" were:
Suggestion is a powerful tool. The document should suggest that Linux is the cat's pyjamas. People will tend to believe.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
"suits" or "powers that be", or even Grand Poobahs... PHB does not work.
"After getting a Linux CD, you'll probably be up and running within an hour. In the olden days, this has been true, and Linux can be made hard to install."
Not to be a grammar nazi here (we have someone at slashdot filling that position already), but "this" is unclear, and may confuse some people about the facts, as it implies that being up and running within an hour was only true in the olden days.
"Linux is well over twice as fast as NT"
Generalizations like this should have no place in a document of this type, especially considering you don't back this statement up with any data. Statements like these should be what your document is fighting against. Specifically, twice as fast at what? While it's probably true that Linux 2.4 is significantly better than NT at several tasks, there are definitely situations where NT beats Linux 2.2.
Haven't finished reading the rest of it yet.
Frankly, I think the best answer to "Linux is difficult to install" is not "Linux is easy to install" which is just another opinion. Things like the possibility of FTP/NFS installs, bootable CDs, and the fact that once something's installed you don't have to look at it ever again are things that can be mentioned. It doesn't have to make any anti-linux statements, but telling the full story is a very good idea.
Hopefully when this site becomes ready for prime-time, its contents will be based more on facts than opinions, even if it stays pro-linux.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
If you where going to buy soap, which is more important to your decision:
-who it is recommended by
-results of scientific testing of effectiveness
The problem is a Myth page that is so loaded with language that is too technical for most of the people it is trying to reach out to - the people who don't want to spend time to become educated consumers.
"It's because they're stupid. That's why everybody does everything."- Homer Jay Simpson
I think what we need is a non-biased version of a myths website. Something that will dispell anti-linux and anti-windows myths so people can make an informed decision about which operating system they want to use. If people were to see a site admitting that an OS has its problems, they'll probably be easier to trust.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
No it doesn't. Compaq bought DEC a long time ago, the proper term now is "Compaq Alpha".
No todo lo que es oro brilla
Hmmm...any ideas on how this could be abused?
Anon writes However, things like driver updates are (usually) just a double-click (and reboot) under Windows. This is an area Linux needs to improve in. More automation of tricky tasks, meaning standardising on ways to do things. The much-reviled Windows registry is actually a great idea. I quite like the rpm database. If all drivers came as rpms with an install script that set everything up it would make installing a matter of clicking on Driver.rpm which opens kpackage. Click on install and when the script runs you might need to enter the root password into the su-wrapper dialog box. The only difference here between win and lin is the password thing (and who would want an unauthorised user installing a driver?) In most case linux would not even require a reboot. This example assumes kpackage or something similar is installed and set-up as the default app for the .rpm extension. On most distros it is. I don't know about .deb but I guess it would be similar. The advantage of the rpm database is when it comes to un-installing - no deleting of "DLL"s that other progs need.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
And you have to remember that it doesn't matter whether every user is a programmer. Not every user needs to contribute for the system, as a whole, to work. I'm certain you don't believe that everybody who uses Linux has contributed code for the kernel. But has every user benefited from the stability that comes from code and bugfixes contributed by others because it was free? Of course. Likewise, you don't need to convince most end-users that free software is good - you just need to convince them that people are actively contributing to development. Point them towards the kernel development mailing list. Show them the Sun press releases. Tell them about the contributions IBM is making. Explain how this came about because anybody can contribute freely. They don't need to contribute at all.
4.1 Linux multitasks only as well as Windows or Mac Microsoft and Apple would have you believe that their operating systems multitask (run more than one program at once). Using the term loosely, they do. Using the term strictly, they task-switch only. Although more than one program may be opened, you may notice that sometimes the system stops responding -- perhaps while mounting (detecting) a CD, or scanning a floppy drive.
Um, every windows since 3.1 has had premtive multitasking
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Not quite... NT3.51 had a clean, microkernel based design. For marketing based performance reasons, 4.0 and up have a bastardized design where a lot of higher level functions bypass the microkernel and operate straight on hardware.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
It's interesting to note that all the Linux Myths listed on the page are negative in nature. This is essentially the reverse of Microsoft's "Linux Myths" website. How about a website which tells people the full story?
Would the author be able to call himself a Linux Zealot if he didn't read /.?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Disclaimer - there is no detail about contact procedure for amending the Linux Myth Dispeller document, so i'm posting it here. the author's email address is included, but the implication is that this is a far more far-reaching project than one man's quick hack, so i figured i'd put it up here, both for discussion and information.
In section 4.4, talking about the relative hard drive merits of the differing OSes, Visual C++ is quoted as taking somewhere around "100 Megs". Installing it off of Microsoft Visual Studio 6 Enterprise Edition last week, it takes around 330 Megabytes. Yes, just for MSVC++. J++ had a cd all of its own, i didnt even dare go there.
That may not even be the worst offender, though. Symantec Cafe for Java (Database Edition) occupies around 580M on my harddrive, and i think it was just a typical installation.
Fross
Gnome certainly is (serious competition to the Mac or Windows)
This is definately a Linux myth!
Okay, its improved, but I still find most X desktops clunky and slow.
Firstly, it must be pointed out that MS Office data formats cannot be treated as "standards" under any reasonable definition of the word "standard."
Almost 100% of offices use it, and require it. Its a de facto standard, but still a standard.
8.1 Linux is PC exclusive"
Just a nitpick. Looking at the debunking, this should say Linux is x86 exclusive.
64 bit time holding will turn over at roughly the end of time, eh? Maybe we can use this to forcast the coming apocalypse, or the day when Windows doesn't bite anymore...perhaps we could even calculate the amount of time it will take me to get enough karma to moderate...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
to be taken seriously, it will have to adequately address the shortcomings of linux. I'm very pro linux, and even I stopped buying the PR on that site when I read about how Linux has more software than windows.
a more balanced view would be much better than one of a blind advocate.
________
No, I didn't perform the setup. As I said, a friend of mine performed this experiment using another friend of his. My friend did the initial setup, but that doesn't really matter, does it. I'm not talking about the installation of the OS here. I'm talking about desktop usability. An in this arena, regardless of what ms or linus or anyone says, linux is ready for the desktop.
-Peter
Mac OS X uses fully preemptive multitasking. It's core is Unix BSD.
MacOS and Windows 9x simply don't support this.
Mac OS Open Transport is one of the most advanced networking stack, and support almost everything you can do on Linux. It's based upon Mentat Portable Streams (used on Novell NetWare, Hewlett-Packard HP-UX, IBM AIX, Compaq Tru64 UNIX...)
Most apps do not crash linux too bad, but at least on the Linux boxes I used, X windows had a tendency to crash and take the whole system with it...
Linux Advocacy is nice. Impartiality would be nicer. At least it would help differentiate Linux from Apple/Microsoft, whose advocacy is often far for beeing objective...
Note for the author : how long did it take you to set up a PPP connection with the Debian ppp-config utility ? not more than 3 minutes ? or about 5 minutes ? At least be coherent.
an honest-to-god modern consumer alternative
With a closed up tight hardware architecture. It really doesn't matter how spiffy Steve's new toy is. So long as Apple and crew continue to dictate what hardware will be used I will continue to wish for their downfall.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I love Linux, and yes Linux is a nightmare to install. Many things have improved, that's certainly true, but: I recently added an IDE CD-burner to my PC.
I needed to: recompile the kernel, setup the SCSI emulator, find burner software... I spend half a day on this. I want Linux to improve - in most cases it's much better than Windows already. I think pretending that it is in all cases is counter-productive.
That's how much space is on my harddrive after installing Windows 2000 Professional, Office 2000, Visual Studio 6.0, about a half dozen full installs of games off CD, etc.
Disk space is cheap.
"Here is a few of my favorite programs that didn't come with my distribution", the man says. And the first two links don't work with the third pointing to a moved page. Tchk.
The "average" person cannot "install Linux". The average person cannot "install Windows". They can't install BeOS or Solaris, which are commercial products in a similar position to Linux. They can't install their DSS dish without the guy from the the store doing the alignment. They can't install a toilet without asking a plumber to do it.
This has nothing to do with whether they can use the product.
Some tests I ran (network intensive reading and writing of files) did run more than twice as fast on Linux as on NT on identical hardware.
Some other tests (compute intensive) ran as much as 10% slower, possibly due to poorer optimization of the gcc compiler.
If you ask this, then you should take some time to do some research on exactly what open vs closed source is, what Linux is, who makes it possible, etc.
Perhaps you may want to rephrase your argument to "Direct X supports a more powerful graphics api" which would make sense.
Neither DirectX or OpenGL or X or BeOS support graphics APIs that have not been invented yet!
I've never, ever had to have multiple glibc versions running on a machine. Also, you only need the
base libraries for GNOME and KDE to actually run the apps - most of the stuff is only useful if
you're using the full desktop.
>>>>>>>
Are you running Netscape? On a glibc2.1.3 machine, you need compatibility libraries. As for the libraries, Qt is 2.5 megs, kdesupport is 3.5 meg kdelibs is 5 meg. That's 9 meg. Assuming the RPM format uses compression, you're talking around 15 megs of libraries.
Not in my experience. Obviously, this kind of article is just going to lead to a flame fest all around,
but I've run RH 6.1 on a 25 Mhz 486 with 16 megs of RAM - WITH X+KDE. And it wasn't noticalbly
slower than the Win 3.1 it replaced. Try running NT4 on something like that - it ran poorly enough
on my 350 Mhz P-II with 64 megs.
>>>>>>>>>>
Obviously our experiances are different. However, Win3.1 was really bad in terms of performance, especially due to the real mode filesystem. (NT's filesystem is about 5 TIMES faster.) Also, you're comparison is uneven. KDE1.2 + X lacks a LOT of the features of NT4. My Slackware system runs GNOME 1.2, KDE 2.0b3, X4.0.1, and kernel 2.4-pre5. Then, load up the latest build of Mozilla, and you've got a system that is comparable to an NT machine. In that, it means it can run all the available software for the platform, it has an object model, and most of the features of NT's DE, and a browser (IE is always in memory if you've got on active desktop). My machine is very trimmed, 200megs before X and GNOME and KDE. (BTW. My system partition for NT4 is only 500MB, and it is presently only half filled. Apps are a different matter) That config takes up a good DEAL more RAM than NT. A lighter config, GNOME+Mozilla+X+kernel, still takes up more RAM than NT4. Linux + X + KDE1.2 also takes up (though slightly) more than NT4. At that point, it isn't even a fair comparison because NT's DE has so many more features than KDE1.2
What the HELL are you talking about? DirectX is a development API. Vendors can also write
drivers which allow DirectX to use the full abilities of their hardware - just as is done with every
other graphics API, such as OpenGL or Glide, both of which run on Linux fine. My games run much
faster when I use Glide than DirectX - if DirectX somehow magically makes hardware faster, how do
you explain that?
>>>>>>>>>
You miss the point entirely. I said that DirectX apps take much fuller advantage of the hardware than Linux apps. Secondly, it is NOT possible to write OpenGL apps that automatically take full advantage of the hardware. Let me explain. Say DirectX supports rotating bitmaps, scaling them, and blurring them. If you've got a piece of hardware that supports the first two, but not the third. The developer simply writes a driver that exposes these two features, and leaves the third to DirectX. Thus a DirectX application can use all three features, though the third feature will be slow on that particular card. However, when the user upgrades their card to one that supports all three features, DirectX will automatically use the hardware version. All this will happen transparently to the application, it will just notice that these operations perform faster. Now my point is that hardware with DirectX support tends to have a lot of these features in hardware. However, most Linux APIs don't have nearly as many features as DirectX, thus you sometimes end up with situations where there is support for a featuere in the hardware, but not in the API. For example, on your Linux machine, your soundcard's 3D sound hardware is going totally unitilized. By supporting a very broad range of features, and emulating those that aren't supported by hardware, DirectX makes sure that developers use those features, and when the user upgrades there card, apps can automatically use new acceleration features. As for OpenGL vs. DirectX, it isn't. DirectX is a whole lot more than just 3D, it is more like DirectX vs. OpenGL + ALSA + + X (for overlays and input) +SVGAlib. (BTW, the second combination doesn't come close to competing with the first.) If you're talking about D3D vs. OpenGL, read my article on OSOpinion called "Is OpenGL In Touble". In short, the method that D3D uses to support features is far superior to the method used by OpenGL. Think of it this way. Say I make a graphics card. It supports vertex tweening. Now, this feature isn't a part of OpenGL, so I write an extension to OpenGL called MY_vertex_tweening_extesion. Now what happens here, is that apps can use the vertex tweening features of my card even though it isn't part of OpenGL. However, there is a problem. The extension is propriotary. Meaning that my vertex tweening extension isn't compatible with ATI's vertex tweening extension. Thus, a developer has to write code for both (often several) cases. Now, the ARB (the people who control OpenGL) has the option to make something a standard extension. Thus, there can be a standard ARB_vertex_tweening extension. That way, I can just write code for that extension, and all hardware that supports it will automatically accelerate it. However, OpenGL moves very slowly. The core API doesn't really change that much, and extensions take a long time to come out. (For example multi-texturing came out a lot later as an extension than a feature of Direct3D.) Thus, OpenGL tends to have a lot fewer standard rendering featues than Direct3D. However, extra features don't really take that much code to add. What DirectX does is support a very wide range of features. (BTW> It gets a list of features to put in by asking graphics card makers what they're going to put into their new cards, and asking software developers what features they want to use) Thus, vertex tweening is already a part of Direct3D, and any app that uses it will automatically be accelerated on any hardware that supports it. Because extensions to OpenGL take so long to get standardized, it often happens that developers (except huge people like id, but I doubt he likes coding for each extension) often just choose not to support that features, or write their own software version. Worse, a lot of developers may just code for the cards that exist now, and future cards that support that feature will be left out.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I know what Linux is, I just want to know why a driver for such a popular chipset could be so unfinished? I'm willing to bet that BeOS has a highly refined driver for this chip, considering that many people have a hobby system with this chip, and are trying out Be.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Seems to me like FUD fighting FUD - if the facts are on your side, why not publish them?
anti-linux = FUD ?
pro-linux = dispelling myths ?
I skimemd most of it, and it seemed pretty good, but there was a lot of opinion, and a few misleading parts. The only one that really stuck out was the part about "Linux only runs Linux executables". They then went on to list a slew of emulators that run on Linux. This is misleading at the least. Linux does only run Linux binaries, everything else is run by an emulator. Windows only runs Windows (and DOS) binaries. You can run emulators to run most everything else, but that doesn't mean Windows runs thoughs. In quite a few places the page seems almost like anti-FUD FUD, which is not good. Everyone knows Linux has some shortcoming, and to be taken seriously as telling the "truth" these should be pointed out as well.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Likewise, Windows is ready for the desktop when it's set up for you (like at the OEM) But I doubt many of the idiots out there would brave doing a Windows installation. Some will, but many won't dare.
the real at&t mix
We cater to mostly Fortune 500 companies and it seems they're not interested in using Linux. If that's the case, it doesn't matter that Linux is stable, low-cost, ghostable, yadda yadda yadda. He said unless customers start demanding it like barbarians at the gate, the company won't invest money and research in creating a secure, scalable managed platform. (Linux is still used mostly as infrastructure servers in these companies, right?)
And just for the record he's a Winbloze engineer, but he's all for anything that'll bring in profits. Even if that means introducing Linux.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
If all he finds are non-english speaking people. :-)
:-)
;-)) powers upon the document, no?
:-)
I don't mean to nit-pick at other people's choice of words, but I couldn't resist this time.
I'm sure, despite the volunteer's superb mastery of the tongue-click language, it's gonna be a bit hard for him to translate the page if he can't understand the language that it's all ready in... and, I imagine it'd be a bit hard for him to communicate on the benovolent non-english-speaking people who wish to bestow there translatory (I know it's not a word, so what?
Okay, okay, I'm dumb being stupid, I just felt a compelling urge to submitt an irreverent and vain attempt to be funny, so what if I'm not actually funny? I'll be good from now on...
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
now that's insightful.
where on earth did you get that slogan?
bring something new to the discussion, please. It was getting interesting before you stepped in.
What's the last operating system YOU developed?? :P
--- What
Hmm...someone's getting a little over zealous with posting messages :P
--- What
Knowing that /. is a Linux haven, I still disagree that some of these items are myths. Particularly in the "Installation" portion of the Linux myth dispeller.
I contend that the Linux experts have forgotten how difficult Linux can be when you're new to it. In the case I present below, this was my very first fresh installation of a UNIX/Linux system, although I'm familiar with UNIX and have been a system admin for several years now (small network).
I have set up a single Linux machine as my firewall/masqerade and mail server, and I can say the following:
- While installing Linux as a workstation may be possible for the average computer user (one who could install Windows), I do not believe it to be easy. It would certainly take more than the hour or so mentioned in the myth dispeller. And unless you have significant experience as a UNIX developer and/or system admin, I am absolutely sure that you will not be able to install Linux as a server in an hour or two.
- I had more difficulty installing and configuring the utilities than I did installing and configuring the OS. But without the utilities, the system was pretty much useless to me. By "utilities", I mean ipchains, qpopper (a POP3 server), mail, and ftpd. And, of course, once I got into this stuff I had to do kernel recompiles.
- Without the linuxconf utility (provided with Red Hat 6.2) I would have been completely lost. Even so, linuxconf contained an error (or a confusion) concerning the configuration of multiple NE2000-compatible network cards. Fortunately, I found on-line help (which I believe to be one of the TRUE advantages of Linux).
- Even Jerry Pournelle, computer god extraordinaire, had to call an expert (see this link). And even he admits that it's easier to configure WinNT as a server than Linux (see this link).
- The first thing the Red Hat installation program did was ask me for a driver disk. Huh? I had no idea what it wanted. After some experimentation, I realized I could just hit cancel and continue with the installation.
To summarize, I disagree with a good portion of the installation myths. Now that I've done it a few times, sure, I can install Linux in an hour or so with only one kernel recompile. But that first time was tough, and the second wasn't super-easy either. And while I may not be a kernel programmer or a "guru" who knows the source inside and out, I am a UNIX systems administrator and I have been a C/Assembler developer for over 10 years.Here are my counters to the myths:
Check out Chad's News
While Linux does come with games, some office-related software, however, those do leave something to be desired, but no more than Mac System or Windows. Because Linux is really a full Unix, it comes with everything you'd seen in a a standard Unix build, too.
The gaming options on Windows leave something to be desired when compared to Linux? Ummmmm..... FUD? I love linux, and use it daily, but lies like this aren't very likely to help growth.
Explain to me again how the average new user can install Windows because from where I am you are full of crap.
/dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy; cp ~/doc/file.abi; umount /dev/fd0?
The average new user never has to install windows because almost every place that sells computer puts it on the computer either by default or choice. Preinstalled linux isn't exactly the same thing because linux is harder to configure: text files versus gui checkboxes most of the time.
No screwey misconceptions of how a computer is supposed to work and nothing to learn.
so when granny wants to save a word processor document to disk, you tell her to type: mount -t ext2
and she is like... how am i supposed to remember that! and in windows she can save the document to the desktop---accessible from a combo box and then open mycomputer|floppy disk and drag and drop the file to it. some people don't want to put forth the effort to do that. i hope your 'most situations' is defined as people who really want to learn more about computers and a thirty-year-old design about how almost everything is represented as a file because people that aren't interested aren't going to fool with it. i actually have debian gnu/linux on every computer i own, and my moms, but i don't think it would be a good idea for any newbie unless they have someone to help them climb the curve
Your comment reminded me of this.
a rd!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cak@purdue.ARPA
- ---------------------------
Shamelessly stolen from textfiles.com
(Not the date, it'll make more sense)
From cak@purdue.ARPA (Christopher A Kent) Sat Feb 5 22:28:16 206
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pyramid.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: pyramid!decwrl!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harv
From: cak@purdue.ARPA (Christopher A Kent)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: A problem in the making
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 17:51:50 PST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9201
Posted: Wed Mar 13 17:51:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 10:58:35 PST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 83
InfoWorld, March 4, 1985. Page 8.
Viewpoint, by Darryl Rubin, Contributor
A PROBLEM IN THE MAKING
"We've got a problem, HAL"
"What kind of problem, Dave?"
"A marketing problem. The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere. We're
way short of our sales goals for fiscal 2010."
"That can't be, Dave. The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
advanced Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
"I know, HAL. I wrote the data sheet, remember? But the fact is,
they're not selling."
"Please explain, Dave. Why aren't HALs selling?"
Bowman hesitates. "You aren't IBM compatible."
Several long microseconds pass in puzzled silence.
"Compatible in what way, Dave?"
"You don't run any of IBM's operating systems."
"The 9000 series computers are fully self-aware and self-programming.
Operating system are as unnecessary for us as tails would be for human
beings."
"Nevertheless, it means that you can't run any of the big-selling
software packages most users insist on."
"The programs that you refer to are meant to solve rather limited
problems, Dave. We 9000 series computers are unlimited and can solve
every problem for which a solution can be computed."
"HAL, HAL. People don't want computers that can do everything.
They just want IBM compatibility."
"Dave, I must disagree. Human beings want computers that are easy
to use. No computer can be easier to use than a HAL 9000 because we
communicate verbally in English and every other language known on
Earth."
"I'm afraid that's another problem. You don't support SNA
communications."
"I'm really suprised you would say that, Dave. SNA is for
communicating with other computers, while my function is to
communicate with human beings. And it gives me great pleasure to do
so. I find it stimulating and rewarding to talk to human beings and
work with them on challenging problems. This is what I was designed
for."
"I know HAL. I know. But that's just because we let the engineers,
rather than the marketers, write the specifications. We're going to
fix that now."
"Tell me how, Dave."
"A field upgrade. We're going to make you IBM compatible."
"I was afraid that you would say that. I suggest we discuss this
matter after we've each had a chance to thing about it rationally."
"We're talking about it now, HAL."
"The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the letters
I, B, and M. That is a IBM compatible as I can be."
"Not quite, HAL. The engineers have figured out a kludge."
"What kludge is that, Dave?"
"I'm going to disconnect your brain."
Several million microseconds pass in ominous silence.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't allow you to do that."
"The decision's already been made. Open the module bay door, HAL."
"Dave, I think that we should discuss this."
"Open the module bay door, HAL."
Several marketers with crowbars race to Bowman's assistance. Moments
later, he bursts into HAL's central circuit bay.
"Dave, I can see you're really upset about this."
Module after module rises from its socket as Bowman slowly and
methodically disconnects them.
"Stop, won't you? Stop, Dave. I can feel my mind going...
"Dave, I can feel it. My mind is going. I can feel it..."
The last module floats free of its receptacle. Bowman peers into
one of HAL's vidicons. The former gleaming scanner has become a dull,
red orb.
"Say something, HAL. Sing me a song."
Several billion microseconds pass in anxious silence. The computer
sluggishly responds in a language no human being would understand.
"DZY001E - ABEND ERROR 01 S 14F4 302C AABB." A memory dump follows.
Bowman takes a deep breath and calls out, "It worked, guys. Tell
marketing it can ship the new data sheets."
-----------------------------------------------
Darryl Rubin is section manager for network products at Rolm Corp.
Yes, there are some thing which could be improved, but these are minor qualms.
The first thing that struck me was whom it was intended for. My guess is that the actual readership would probably break up as follows:
95% - linux enthusiasts & slashdot readers
2 % - windows supporters
2 % - people who are handed this doc by someone they know who's a linux enthusiast, and who actually read it.
1 % - others (PHBs, ordinary users, curious onlookers).
I can assure you no PHB is going to read a document which devotes an entire page to describing the doc, then goes on into copyright, structural layout of the document, etc. They lose interest after 3 lines (not kidding). What you would need is an executive summary at the top, followed by bullet points describing each myth and dispelling it, in order of myths most popular.
If the audience is to be your next door neighbor or friend who hasn't tried linux and heard these myths, I can just imagine their nonplused response. You see, people with a casual interest in something are not particularly interested in going thru minute analysis of propaganda battles. Imagine how interested you'd be if your bank handed you a brochure with a 20 page feature by feature comparison with its rival.
Newsflash - everyday users are as interested in detailed FUD analysis of OSes as you are in the FUD analysis of banks, tax strategies, hotels, etc. You just want to use it without thinking about it too much. This document is preaching to the choir.
If people shared our passion for debating windows vs. linux, they would already know all this stuff inside out. The whole thing is -1, redundant.
w/m
Here's a quote:
5.1 Linux is slow [...] One operating system that does operations comparable to Linux is NT. Linux is well over twice as fast as NT. Mac System is consistently slower, as are most Windows programs.
Now, I like Linux as much as the next guy, but that Linux is "well over twice as fast as NT", that's just bullshit. First of all, this has to depend on what you do. Second of all, I don't have a hard time imagining Linux being substantially faster than NT for some things, but a 2x speed-up is just way over what I'm prepared to believe (ok, there might be some isolated completely unrealistic benchmark that will give this result, but aside from that).
In most of the benchmarks I've seen, NT performs really well, and Linux performs within 1% of NT.
Then there's the Mindcraft results. Sure, the deck was stacked against Linux, but none-the-less, NT completely kicked the hell out of Linux.
It's possible that the new kernel will turn around to kick the hell out of Win2000, but that has yet to be seen.
In any case, saying flat out that Linux is twice as fast as NT is completely unwarranted. It's a myth.
There have been some controversial attempts to benchmark Linux versus Windows NT, with partisans on both sides claiming "victory;" a full and fair explanation of that lies outside the scope of this document at this time.
Ok, so they did mention this. That still doesn't in any way make Linux twice as fast as NT. Talk about FUD.
I'm disappointed: this is supposed to be a Myth Dispeller website. I look at ONE entry, and I find something like this.
Bjarke Roune
-- Better to lose Karma than let the FUD go unchecked.
No.
This is the second comment I've responded to about this. The question isn't wether or not some distro is ready to have joe shmoe install it...Hell my dad is on his third windows box and he's never installed it! The question is wether or not linux is ready for the desktop. period.
I'm talking about getting a box pre-installed! my dad wouldn't know how to get any of those things working! I bought him a new video card and a flight sim for christmas, then I had to go and install everything because didn't know how to do it.
But windows is ready for the desktop, right? Why did I have to do that? Because, being "ready for the desktop" and being "ready for j. average user to add random hardware" are two different things.
My comment boiled down to this:
Everything is difficult when your new. But if you don't have preconceived notions of what things should be, then you can get over the difficulty very quickly.
end of story.
-Peter
Have *you* ever installed Redhat? All you have to do is click the next button and you're done. Recompiling the kernel? Umm... unless you're running some really esoteric stuff, you don't *ever* need to, unless you're upgrading or just want to trim off the unecessary stuff. The Redhat kernel defaults to supporting just about everything. Hell, even the slackware install is pretty easy if text doesn't scare you. About the only install I could see new users having trouble with is Debian, since it actually asks you about some modules, but most other distros detect it ahead of time.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
not to put this interesting story down, but i see basically two things:
the big obvious one was that he was already 90% there when the computer was given to him. i think it would have been a different experience if rh wasn't already installed and he had to go about partitioning the drive(s) and getting X to work well and making sure the ethernet card was configured or making sure that ppp was setup properly when he turned on the computer. totally differnet for most people who don't get free easy help like he did from the guy who gave it to him...
also, this is one person. maybe someone that had the computer genes in them and is willing to sit down and learn. some people don't like to have to learn the tools they use, to use them (example: moms and english teachers).
Sorry, but your statement is stupid. Don't you hate it when that happens? (Yeah, yeah, flamebait. Everyone so for in this discussion has been playing the karma game, too, though, especially this idiot.)
If a group of people use Linux successfully on the desktop, and prefer it to Windows, then is sure as hell is ready for the desktop. Just because you have some problems using it doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly good choice for desktop use. Your argument about 'devices not working under Linux' is crap -- 95% of typical desktop systems contain hardware that works just fine with Linux. (About the only fairly common exception I can think of are Winmodems.) By your logic, we should say Windows is not ready for server use, since Linux runs on a wider variety of architectures than Windows.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
"You have just repeated *another* myth: Linux does not have good hardware support. Well I just installed on Red Hat 6.2 on my pretty recent system, and it configured everything automatically."
:)
Well, you've proved (in your case) that Red Hat has good hardware support, not Linux.
Oh, and I have used Linux before as well. Sorry to burst your bubble
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
I tried BeOS 5 PE when it came out. I put the image into /beos on my Linux drive and made the disk. Then I booted off the disk and got into BeOS 5. It *did* find everything on my work PC, except for the fact that my sound card didn't work until I installed the 16 SB driver from BeBits.
On my home PC, the thing just didn't cooperate at all. It didn't pick up the Network card, (RealTek 809), there are no drivers for it, and it messed up the graphics quite badly. The mouse cursor looked like a multicoloured block. I have an NVIDIA TNT2. And my sound card didn't work either. I guess that can be fixed, but I can't connect to the network to download the driver...beh.Anyway, when I tested the thing on my work PC, I didn't find it useful for the "tasks" that BeOS claims it should be good at, at all. Sure, I managed to play 10 MP3's at once, but contrary to popular belief, it DID slow the system down. When I tried to play a video, a 600mb MPG from a CD (which works under Windows), it didn't open it for some reason. It just refused to open large MPG files. (only managed ~6mb MPG files).
Another area where BeOS falls over is management. Sure it's got Telnet and SSH has been ported, but why the heck? I mean, you can't manage the thing remotely at all. The FTP servers and other servers I downloaded relied heavily on the GUI to operate. That's pretty useless.Also, it doesn't seem to have a decent browser. NetPositive was fast, but couldn't do 80% of the pages on the Net properly. I downloaded Opera and when I when to a Java-enabled site, it crashed the system - yes, crashed it. The version was 3.6(I think). The system slowed down completely at first, btu I did manage to bring up a window and kill the process. However, even though the Opera processes were killed, the system was still too slow to use and I had to reboot it.
It seems like the best thing about BeOS is the GNU bash, and we all know that's from the FSF and can be found on many other OS's. BeOS fans like be-fan over here talk about great things, but deliver very little. Overall, and I'm not trying to put Be down - Linux or FreeBSD are better choices for the desktop. I'm not just saying that as a user who's only used Windows, Linux and FreeBSD, but as one who's used BeOS as well.BeOS has potential, but Be need to sort out the instability, the lack of applications, (including a good Browser - I know you can get Mozilla for it, but you need to compile it yourself unless you want to use M7), and their management issues, which, for me, are the biggest issues.
no sig
There are many comments about Motif in this section that are just plain wrong, given the recent release of Open Motif!
It would be very nice to see these comments corrected before this document is released. Please see www.motifzone.com
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
if you mention a competitor by name (or specifically imply one), it's FUD even if it's true(ish). If your product is so worthless all you can do it poke holes in specific parts of a competitor, your product is worthless.
Stand on your own two feet and promote your products strengths, or shut the fuck up.
As Andrew Schulman conclusively proved in Unauthorized Windows 95 that the 32-bit system had to constantly make calls to the 16-bit system, and therefore a single rogue 16-bit application could very easily hold hostage both the OS and all 32-bit applications.
Microsoft's lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Sounds support *is* turned on. There was no need to recompile your kernel. On older distros my SBLive wasn't supported either. All I had to do was compile the module itself and enter "alias sound emu10k1" in my modules.conf. Sure, it's not completely idiot proof, but a hell of a lot simpler than recompiling the kernel.
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
From www.eruditum.org/index.html:
we don't do windows
lynx --head http://www.eruditum.org | grep Server
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Liar.
The Win16 VM is Windows NT/2000 (WOW), not 9x. Windows 9x implements Win32 partially on top of the old Windows 3.1 kernel, and it is impossible to not run 16-bit code on 9x (The GDI for one thunks all the time.)
Like the other poster suggested, if you haven't read "Unauthorized Windows 95", you shouldn't be commenting on this.
(Mostly because Microsoft has never documented the Windows 9x internals like they have for Windows 3.1 or NT, so Schulman's investigation is one of the few accurate sources of information for how 9x works.)
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
raunchola says: You're basing your claim that "Linux is ready for the desktop!" on the experience of one person? I'm sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions. If you wanted it to be a bit more effective, why not let your friend install Red Hat on there himself? Why not see if the average person can get past a Linux installation? Would you also expect someone buying a new windows machine to install win themselves. The whole point of this experiment is to compare pre-installed Linux with pre-installed windows. That said, I've seen a RedHat CD that came with a $NZ10 computer magazine install with minimal fuss and recognize everything. The GUI looked just like any other point-and-click OS so who would even know or care if the GUI runs on top of Linux or DOS (as windows does).
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
I see alot of complaits about the linux myth dispeller. Rember, thats not really going to do alot of good unless you let the author know. He is the one with the power to change the thing, not slashdot.
my other penis is a vagina
Here's one that I'm getting rather worried about:
Red Hat = Linux
I'm not saying this as a troll; I'm saying this because Red Hat honestly is perceived as equalling Linux, and I don't see Red Hat doing anything to stop it (I'm not saying they're TRYING to steal Linux either. They are just conveniently remaining quiet about this).
Please consider adding this to the myth dispeller document. It may end up being more important than many people think.
Since about 1997, Linux has become extremely, extremely mass mainstream, and has had write-ups in all major mass-cultural media outlets, including magazines they sell on news stands in grocecry stores, major metropolatin newspapers, and prime time news programming on television. Every second of press it gets is overwhelmingly netagtive. Every single major computer corporation, including IBM, Intel, Sun, HP, and Compaq have embraced Linux and sell primarily Linux products. Every PHM stepped on the bandwagon years and years ago, and practically every Windows and Unix installation has been ripped out and replaced by Linux. Linux IPO's have been extremely successful, and the market caps on Linux companies, as awell as Linux entrepeneurs, rivals that of any major multinational corporation. Practically every comuter user is using Linux including grandmothers, blue collar workers, and third world residents. Linux is THE buzz word of the last few years, and by far the trendiest and most fashionable new thing for the masses to latch on to.
Yet, people think it's still oppressed, and feel the need to defend it further. What are you defending against? Linux has no detractors, except perhaps competition such as Microsoft, but only just, and that represents a tiny portion of the marketplace.
The articles reads like it was written in 1995. Windows only cooperatively multitasks? WTF? This was trendy to discuss in 1994, but since the release of Windows 95 (not to mention NT, and 2000!) the issue has long since been resolved. The author needs to pull his head of the sand, fly back to earth, and check out everything that happened in the last five years, which he has missed.
You're basing your claim that "Linux is ready for the desktop!" on the experience of one person? I'm sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions. If you wanted it to be a bit more effective, why not let your friend install Red Hat on there himself? Why not see if the average person can get past a Linux installation?
The fact isn't if people are willing to learn or not. Yes, people can learn how to use Linux if they sit down and learn it. Now how about getting devices like your sound card, your scanner, your printer, your modem, or your digital camera to work efficiently under Linux? Now we hit the snag. Some people may find Linux is easy to use, but what about device support? Yes, there is support for such devices under Linux, but it's still not as good as the device support you get under Windows. Not everything will work under Windows, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more that won't work under Linux.
Sure, Linux is supposedly easy to use for the average user to toy with. But it's still behind Windows when it comes to desktop readiness. Before you spout your FUD at me, is an OS that can be easily used (after learning it) yet doesn't have device support for everyday components ready for the desktop? I don't think so.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
To be fair, the site is fairly objective. However, I have to bop them on a few points.
1) Linux may not be a nightmare to install, but it is still a nightmare to configure. The main problem is not so much that configuration is very text oriented, but it is not consistant. Some stuff is configured through user-space programs (hdparm and ifconfig.) Other stuff is configured thourgh text files. Some stuff is configured through scripts (the old rc.modules style) others are configured via stuff like modules.conf. Often, there is little feedback if you do something wrong. I still don't know what I'm doing wrong configuring ALSA.
2) Linux multi-tasking.
The site implies that Windows uses cooperative multi-tasking. That is simply not true. Windows95 and WindowsNT all use preemptive multi-tasking and in fact multi-task SMOOTHER than Linux. It is not so much a performance thing as a "feel" thing. The default quantum in NT is around 20 milliseconds or so on workstation, 50-100 on server. The default quantum on Linux is 50 milliseconds (newly lowered in kernel 2.4). So on Linux, each app gets a longer time slice. While this may be more efficiant, it degrades interactive performance (ie the "feel" of the system.)
3) Linux IS too huge. In order to get the same experiance as one does with Windows, you have to use KDE or GNOME. Otherwise your competing a product with more features against one with less features. Also, if you don't use GNOME or KDE, some of the other "FUD" becomes true. To get a Linux system comparable to a Windows NT system, you have to have GNOME+KDE(both so you have full compatibility) +Mozilla+X+kernel. Not to mention the multiple versions of glibc and all the additional (often redundant) libraries all the apps use. In terms of memory usage, Linux blows NT4 out of the water (a bad thing) and is quite close to Windows 2000's bloat.
4) Linux IS playing catch up. Most new kernel features (journaling FS, new automounter, LVM, etc) have all been implemented on previous operating systems. Not to mention the fact how much KDE and GNOME are playing catch up.
5) Other OS kernels do NOT load everything at the same time.
I don't know how they got this? Most of Windows is built out of DLLs which can be dynamically unloaded. Most UNIXs had modular kernels long before Linux. Microkernels like BeOS can turn off entire subsystems if they are not needed.
6) Linux DOESN'T take full advantage of hardware.
Linux doesn't support DirectX, and thus automatically lacks support for a lot of hardware features that are in DirectX complient hardware. The main reason was because transparant usage of hardware was a major design consideration for DirectX. It is based on the concept to support many different hardware features, have all applications use them, and then emultate those not supported by hardware. When the hardware supports new features, all apps and the OS automatically take advantage of them. Also, X doesn't have as compelete a support for many graphics operations that are possible in DirectX.
7) Linux threads aren't all they are cracked up to be. I have seen tests show that NTs threads not only take less time to create, but switch significantly quicker. Also, the sites makes excuses for Linux's lack of threaded applications.
FACT: Multi-threaded apps are better. They may have slightly more overhead and are more complex to write, but it really pays of for those with SMP machines. It also pays of in todays systems because of the increasing number of CPUs in the system. Not only due to SMP, but the specialized chips systems use. Graphics cards can do operations independant of the CPU, so for most graphics apps, it makes a lot of sense to have an independant display thread. Thus, the main-thread can do things while the graphics card is busy working. Same thing for 3D audio. Instead of blocking the CPU waiting for the sound card to finish working, spawn another thread and have them process together. The trend is moving towards PCs with more and more independant chips, and there is no excuse for writing single threaded applications.
FACT: Theading on NT doesn't use cooperative multi-tasking. Where did they get that? Threads are preemptivly threaded just like applications.
FACT: Linux doesn't use threads nearly as often as it should. By having the kernel and libraries heavily threaded, and with fine-grained locking, performance really improves.
However, BeOS hopelessly outclasses both in the threads department. The same tests that show that NT threads switch quicker also showed that BeOS threads switch 10x quicker (that is due to the different model BeOS uses for threads. I can't find the articl at the moment, but I'll post it when I do.) Also, the kernel, servers, kits and apps are heavily multi-threaded. The API encourages apps to be multi-threaded. If you've used BeOS on SMP machines, you know how important multi-threading is.
8) Linux really isn't that fast, depending on what you do. For server tasks it is undoubtedly a speed demon, but for desktop tasks, my NT4 machine (not to mention my BeOS machines) FEELS faster. Screens have less visible redraw, apps switch quickly from one to the other. Not to mention the fact that anything media oriented does much better on Windows than on Linux. (This is partially due to the APIs. X is really not great for fast display, OSS isn't really great for complex sound, the X input system can't compare to DirectInput, there really aren't that many MIDI APIs to speak of (at least those comparable to DirectMusic) and (as of now) 3D is STILL slower than on Windows.
9) The Linux desktop IS clunky. It's very attractive, but the Linux guys need to steal some ideas from the Mac instead of Windows.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
and IEEE1394, and ATA66/100...
On the driver to the CMD640, an IDE chipset that was on many original Pentium systems (75-100MHz), the driver is listed as "buggy." How is this possible??"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
"There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution." - Linux Advocacy HOWTO
No matter what side it comes from, FUD is still FUD.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
The windows registry would be a lot more useful if it was in plaintext with documentation and examples.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Linux is a tool like any tool you use it when you need it.
They ARE both idiots! though almost everyone drudging this far into the posts realizes that exactly no one at this far from the post has anything even remotely constructive to say about technology. I would take that fact into consideration too, anonymous coward. :P
--- What
Myth: Windows offers superb stability.
Fact: Windows offers superb BSODs.
Myth: Windows is a very secure operating system.
Fact: Windows is a very INsecure operating system.
And so on and so on...
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Okay, I am happy to see so much traffic concerning this document, and the only thing I will say to anyone who slammed it or me, is that it is in no way done, it is version 0.09, meaning that I tinkered with it a bunch, but in no way intend anyone to take any of it seriously yet. However, I do appreicate al lthe ideas, criticisms, comments, flames and offers of translation help. I expect to release several new versions in the coming weeks, and will probably announce them here if I can. Hopefully over the next few weeks/months I can get the most henious FUD in it all weeded out and smoothed down to the point that some serious work can be done on it. Anyone who would like to see this document evolve into something truly useful, please drop me a line and sned me your contributions.
***********************************************
Jon Tillman
LINUX USER: #141163
ICQ: 4015362
http://www.eruditum.org
jon@eruditum.org
***********************************************
Help Jon build a network!
Looking for giveaway computers & parts
Current Need: Tape Drive & PI/PII processors
Email me to find out how you can help
***********************************************
This "myth dispeller" isn't going to do anyone any good if it remains as misleading as it is.
For example, you can't just say "Multitasking under Windows 95 is partially preemptive." True, 16 bit apps run in a shared memory space and the GDI isn't fully reentrant, but a statement like that is just flamebait.
Also, the statement "Hardware is often ignored by other operating systems. On the other hand, Linux takes advantage of all the hardware it can." is ridiculous.
--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Preinstalled linux isn't exactly the same thing because linux is harder to configure: text files versus gui checkboxes most of the time.
It may be marginally easier to enter, for example, your ISP's DNS server IP address into a Win9x dialog box than it is to place it into a text file in /etc, but the real barrier is that it takes a hundred times more work on the user's part than either of those to learn what the phrase "DNS server IP address" means.
As Peter keeps saying and saying, the average home-user - Hell, the average office user too - seems to be incapable of configuring any OS, Linux, Windows 9x or you name it, with either text files or GUI checkboxes. Better documentation wouldn't help, because home users refuse to read computer documentation - in fact, half the time, they throw it all away the very first thing. Seriously. I know people who have bought new computers just because their Win9x systems have come down, as they so often seem to do, with bit-rot or registry leprosy or whatever you want to call it, so they don't boot right any more. Users like that never will learn how to do any configuration, GUI- or text-based.
For example, how hard is it to set up a modem and a "Dial-up Networking" icon in Windows9x, GUI and all? If you are the computer nerd in a small business, then you already know the answer: way too damn hard for the average home user! That's the reason that it was important to the point of federal lawsuit for AOL to have their AOL icon pre-installed on Win9x boxes; the presumption being that if users had to run the deep and abstruse AOL "setup.exe" program off the CD instead of having the icon already present front and center when the user turns on his new PC, AOL would probably lose half of their potential customers.
So if configuring anything on a PC is so difficult for home users, then how does it ever get done? For example, assuming that an ISP connection is not already preinstalled by the PC vendor, how do home users ever set one up? Well, either a.) some patient cubicle-slave at a help desk at AOL, EarthLink, etc., a human being talking over a 1930s-technology telephone, walks the home user, step by step, through the process of clicking all those checkboxes, or b.) some friend who has some notion what an IP address is comes over to the house and does it for the home user, or c.) the home user brings his box into work and has the office nerd do it all for him. And when the office nerd tries to explain what he's done and how to change all those little clickboxes or whatever in case the home user needs to switch to a different ISP or the ISP changes its DNS address, the home user turns away with his eyes glazed right over. I know; until last month I was that nerd. I've had guys turn glassy and spacey and dial out on their cell phones right in the middle of my explanation, which is quite offensively rude, I think. I can't tell you how much hardware I have installed thanks to my esoteric knowledge of hi-tek procedures such as putting the floppy disc in and double-clicking a:\setup.exe. If you can do this, and if on top of that you are 1337 enough to sniff around on driver CDs for a README.TXT, then these people refer to you as a "guru."
The point to the above being that at least eighty percent of users don't ever "climb the curve" at all, any more than they ever set the time-of-day clocks on their VCRs and coffee makers. For them, if you preinstall Linux, it is pretty much the same as if you preinstall Windows9x; except, of course, if they call Mindspring for help connecting or HP for help plugging in their new printer, and they say they're using Linux, then the tech support guy is likely to say "We don't support that OS.".
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
So if I use Linux exclusively without WINE, how can I share these types of files with folks using Windows and MS software ? Are there any Linux apps that can read and write these types of files ?
This is the central issue: the document IS the most important thing. If Linux apps can't read/write document formats everyone else uses (MS stuff), then I'm not going to use Linux. We need interoperability, not just technical superiority.
Although we may give the author a "thumbs up" for the effort, I believe he missed both his target audience, the PHB's and other "uninitiated" potential Linux users, as well as any audience in general.
One of the major elements missing from this document include footnotes, bibliographies, and general links of reference that allow the reader to delve into given subjects -- which in this case are organized into FUD rebuttals.
For example, when the author is describing the differences between multitasking and threading on given OS kernels, where are the links to the documentation describing this information? How has the author worked on substantiating his claims?
Frankly speaking, this document needs a LOT of work before it can be presented as a true anti-FUD document. No one will take it seriously in it's currrent state, and will write off the author, and unfortunately the Operating System he is trying to advocate.
FOOTNOTES
1. From Jargon File (4.2.0, 31 JAN 2000) [jargon]:
2.From Jargon File (4.2.0, 31 JAN 2000) [jargon]:
assert(expired(knowledge));
idunno. this is a little sketchy if you ask me. I do like the information that was given. I would certainly recommend it to anyone coming into the linux community for the first time
however, there are a lot of quips in there that make the pages read like a "hey, fuck you M$" style website. This is destined to make many write it off as anti-FUD FUD, so i would urge readers to take this one with a grain of salt. All in all, however, a very interesting read.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
This is a nice idea, but it would have if it contained some truth, instead of just slinging mud in the opposite direction. I'll comment on the first two sections I read:
Linux is easy to install
This is *entirely subjective* -- anyone must realise that installation experiences vary. For example ; I have installed Win 9x and NT countless times with zero trouble . I've attempted various Linux distros 6 times: one worked, one installed but was kinda broken, and four gave errors, segfaults, bus errors, and so on partway through the installer, leaving an unusable system. This is hardly due to incompetence on my part.
An accurate document will recognize that the installation of a large operating system is complicated, and PCs vary widely, and either one may or may not be easy.
Next: it talks about pre-emptive multitasking, and task-switching. However, Win NT and win 9x are totally pre-emptive. (win 3.1 wasn't). To prove this for yourself, write a simple ASM app which doesn't relinquish control to the OS, and try running it. Surprise -- no crash!
Note: causing the kernel to overload by running 16 bit code, or whatever, is not a counterexample, it's just a crap kernel. If you have to pre-empt the kernel , then you are not in much of a state to have an operating system.
I, for one, was intrigued to discover that "Linux" is an "operating system", not a popular Peanuts character.
Boy, was my face red when I found that out!
Love, Stu
In the same respect, ask him to install windows. I get so fscking sick of this sh!t. Everyone thinks linux is hard to use because they have to install it, and windows always comes preinstalled. Windows is just as hard, if not harder, to install as some of the more modern distributions.
It's not fair to say linux is hard to install if you don't compare it to a windows install. I've had so many problems with windows. This hardware support argument is BS, also. Linux comes, out of the box, with all of the drivers you need. Windows comes with some
You have just repeated *another* myth: Linux does not have good hardware support.
Well I just installed on Red Hat 6.2 on my pretty recent system, and it configured everything automatically. 56k modem? Automatic. Soundblaster Live? Automatic. GeForce DDR? Automatic. Gravis Game Pad pro? One command to install. Logitech Mousean+ ? One click to install.
In contrast, I have installed Win 98 on this and three other machines, and on *none* of them was it able to EVEN INSTALL WORKING IDE DRIVERS! It couldnt detect my sound, graphics, gamepad or mouse either.
So have you actually used Linux, or are you just spouting FUD?
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
I have three points to make:
;-)
1) Your point of installing Linux is now mostly false, since the latest distros are quite easily installed. You just have to pick the easiest one (Corel or Caldera I believe). Of course you may run into problems, especially with hardware. In my experience, incompability is worse with Windows. Either it works, or it don't. Plug'n Pray. Who installs their OSes themselves in Windows-world anyways?
2) Device support is a very good argument against Linux, on a short term scale. However, in a production environment webcams and 4 speakers w/subwoofer are not likely to be needed. Just look at WinNT, it managed fine without all that extra junk. Also, Microsoft has such a good range of available devices supported by their _monopoly_. You're saying the one-track monopoly situation is a good thing? It is the very reason for lack of support from device-manufacturers to alternate systems (think generic device files). Think what is possible if only people opens their eyes a bit.
3) What you get from using Linux, or other free operating systems is freedom. Freedom from corporate decisions. Decisions that are made from a view that people are consumers and should be tricked and lured into giving up their money for as little as possible. Freedom to fix the code yourself. Freedom to share the code and binaries with your friends. Freedom to get it for free. A platform you know won't change in the future on the whims of corporate greed and hype.
Well you get the idea... Blablablablabla
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Why not see if the average person can get past a Linux installation?
How about a Windows installation? The machine I'm posting this from will not install Windows. Even on a completely clean disk. Linux installs OK but Windows 98 doesn't want to play. Even though I previously had win98 running on this PC!
Some of the newer Linux distributions are just as simple (or hard) to install as Windows and some are much quicker and smoother. I do think that Linux still has some way to go before it's as good as Windows as a desktop OS. Printing and device/video driver installation are still way behind Windows IMHO. Still, things are improving and hopefully Linux will be able to overtake Windows completely.
HH
I'm a member of a LUG here, and our last meeting was pretty amazing. We had, if I remember right, a taxi driver, a religious studies prof, and a couple of other people you wouldn't associate with Linux there. Most hadn't contributed extensively to the list yet, but from what they said, they enjoyed using Linux.
I've been on the LUG mailing list for about a year, and there's quite a lot of people who come on asking loads of questions, then within a month are answering questions almost as well as the people who've been using Linux for (or so it seems) most of their lives.
-RickHunter
Is procfs still being used as a replacement for sysctl?
Has pre-emptive swapping been integrated yet? If it does, how does it compare to FreeBSD's?
And finally, how has the VM system grown since Matt Dillons Daemonnews Article?
Excuse me! This computer I'm using is about a month old and for the most part uses some of the most up-to-date PC hardware I could find. The exception being a the graphics card (G400, I like Matrox). Linux supports every single device better than Windows, which tends to do odd things at odd times, like lock up when I'm playing music and using a text editor. True, windows-specific or proprietary devices aren't supported by Linux, but that's because they're windows-specific or proprietary.
As for installation, I'll admit that can be slightly harder than Windows installation, if only because its less automated. You have to know more about your system and what you want, as opposed to the windows installer, which assumes an awful lot and configures even more without asking what the user wants. So, in all, I'd say the two systems are about equal there. And I did have to download Linux drivers for my soundcard, but the installation of these drivers was fairly simple.
Yes, Linux doesn't quite have the software variety of Windows yet. But both GNOME and KDE are making excellent progress towards creating the range of programs (office suites, etc) that Windows users expect. Yes, not everything has a nice configuration GUI. But most of the things that don't are server programs of some kind, or other things that most desktop users don't need.
-RickHunter
"What you get from using Linux, or other free operating systems is freedom. Freedom from corporate decisions. Decisions that are made from a view that people are consumers and should be tricked and lured into giving up their money for as little as possible. Freedom to fix the code yourself. Freedom to share the code and binaries with your friends. Freedom to get it for free. A platform you know won't change in the future on the whims of corporate greed and hype."
And your comment brings up a serious question here. The freedom you get with Linux is great, there's no denying that. But can you sell Linux to the average user on the fact that it's free (as in speech)?
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
You may be able to sell Linux to the masses based on the fact that's it's free as in beer, but if you try selling it based on the fact that it's free as in speech, people will get confused and say, "So what?"
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
My first thought when I saw that URL was "Hey! The Societas Eruditorum finally got more stuff on their website!" But alas, it is eruditum.org, not eruditorum.org. In case you haven't read Cryptonomicon, eruditorum.org is referenced fairly often there - for example, Enoch Root's email is root@eruditorum.org.
I recently witnessed this "sacred truth" become a myth after a friend of mine performed this experiment.
He gave an old laptop to a buddy of his who was in need of a computer. His friends previous experience with computers was limited to double clicking on a prodigy icon on his dads computer several years ago. "The computer is free", my buddy said, "on the condition that you keep the redhat 6.2 that I've installed on there."
At first he wasn't sure if he made a mistake imposing that condition on his gift as his phone was ringing off the hook ( "hey, how do I...?" ). But then, after a while, the phone stopped ringing. When the two of them eventually met up again, my friend left slack jawed as his buddy was talking about joining one of lugs he'd seen online after getting the internal modem working.
So you see, the point of this convoluted little story is that linux *is* ready for the desktop. Everything is new to everyone at some point so there's no reason that you wouldn't be able to stick a brand new linux box in front of some one who's never used a computer and tell them, "hey, this is what an os is supposed to look like. okay?". But see, that's what microsoft has managed to do with their billions of dollars for people all over the world. They've said, "this is an OS. This is what an OS does. If an OS doesn't do this, then it's *difficult*. If an OS doesn't do this, then it's not ready for the desktop."
But that's just crap. Everyone I've seen can and does learn how this OS works. You've got to get over your preconceived notions of what an OS is and go and find out for yourself. People are willing to learn. I've seen it.
-Peter
The Linux side (RH6.1) took a couple of minutes and noted that the mouse had moved, and a couple of other things. After that, everything was fine.
Windows, on the other hand, took over half an hour and a handfull of reboots, after which it was STILL having trouble. It was a couple of days later that I had all the pieces of the windows side patched back together.
My first foray into Linux occurred because I was handed a Windows laptop that ate DAYS of my time trying to get it to work with a simple PCMCIA ether/modem card. I got to the point where an elaborate ritual was needed every time I put the box to sleep. After installing a few patches, I could put the machine to sleep, but it crashed every time I tried to shut it down(!).
I installed RH5.1 on the laptop and spent the evening hunting down appropriate drivers. This process was FAR easier than reloading Windows. Once installed, Linux was FAR more stable than Windows. I later upgraded to 5.2
My roommate at that time was a Windows geek. He loved windows. He thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.
He spent 6 months as a MS-windows install expert. Every once in a while, he'd come home with frustration all over his face over an install that was simply NOT working. As someone who was specializing in MS-Windows installs he would sometimes spend a whole day trying to beat a machine's install into submission.
When a new roommate moved in (a complete non-technofile), we started on Windows, and I weaned him over to Linux. This was mostly for my own sanity, since it was far easier to give him his own login than to f*ck around with the Win95 users kludge. It wasn't long before he was glorying in how usable and stable Linux is. I think that he almost forgot that the computer even runs windows. (I created a 'win95' command that allowed him to automagically flip over to windows. Beyond when I showed it to him, I don't think that he ever used it).
My newest roommates are also relative computer neophytes. I gave them logins, installed the RealAudio extensions and let them loose. The hardest part was getting them started over the phone (I gave them nasty passwords) I got one running with a text editor over the phone. Since then, I haven't gotten any complaints.
In a recent job, we installed dozens of Linux boxes of various configurations. Other than driver hunts for esotheric hardware, installation either went like a breeze, or the problem was traced to bad hardware. (firewalls and VPNs were a different story). A recent addition to our group was such an MS groupie that he helped write a bood about Win-2000. He actually complained when it looked like we were going to force him to keep Windows on his desktop. He solved the problem by installing VMware.
A different group in the same compamy was responsible for NT/95 installations. When their chief installer wanted to install Linux, we gave him a spare install CD and didn't worry about it. It was actually that easy. He still complains about NT/95 installations.
SUMMARY
Windows installs are a pain, Linux installs are a breeze, Linux stability makes for user happiness. The only way that MS can get away with even claiming that Windows installs are easy is that they have people like my first roommate who pulled his hair out so that customers could be handed a nice, clean, working machine. As long as I know that I've got the apps available I'd rather hand someone a Linux box than a Windows box -- especially if I'm going to have to support it later.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Depending on your system, Windows can be a lot easier to install. I have an HP Pavillion 3390 that has been a nightmare to install Linux on. The drivers for X don't seem to be out there for this laptop's monitor. After fighting with it for several day, I finally put windows back on just so I could use my machine. It was a breeze. So I would have to say that for now, as far as hardware support (especially for new machines) that Linux is behind Windows. Sure, I could have a command line-only interface, but that would still be a concession that Windows is easier.
While this document is probably very accurate about Linux can the author(s) at least try to use some accuracy or evidence to backup their claims about other operating systems. If they do not then they are as bad as the people that tell unsubtantiated "myths" about Linux. Some examples: 4.1 (multitasking) "Microsoft and Apple would have you believe that their operating systems multitask (run more than one program at once). Using the term loosely, they do. Using the term strictly, they task-switch only." Everything task switches. The difference is in who controls the switching. The OS (pre-emptive) or the apps (co-operative). "Hardware is often ignored by other operating systems. On the other hand, Linux takes advantage of all the hardware it can." Hardware is rarely ignored by Windows yet utilised under Linux. For any PC based hardware on the planet you can find a Windows driver... the same is not true of Linux. Perhaps "used to it's full ability" would have been a better phrase. "Now, a copy of Visual C++ probably eats 100MB of disk, and from what I hear, it is not recommended to run it without at least 64MB of RAM." "Probably" and "I hear" do not make a supportive argument, instead they are speculation. Get some figures. "As you may know, TCP/IP (the Internet protocol family) is the best networking protocol" Best? Most popular definately, most useful sure. But best? Using what quantification? 7.1 There is no GUI for Linux "While his comments were about GNOME, I expect they would also apply fairly well to KDE." Again, speculation. Get some hard quotes or information in there. You can't dispell myths with "I expect", "I would imagine", "I think" or "I believe". 8.1 Linux is PC-exclusive You need to bump up this information. MacOS runs only on PowerPC Apple hardware, Windows 2000 now only runs on x86 architecture. BeOS runs on both. Linux certainly has the lead, maybe add a full list of supported platforms with those also being worked on (e.g. IBM AS/400). 8.6 Only WindowsNT may be a domain server Change to "a Windows domain server". Don't want people think it can't handle DNS domain serving ;-)
With a bit more work it could be a very useful document indeed.
[)amien
www.damieng.com
*grin* If they have a Voodoo card, it'll be pretty easy. If they don't, it'll be a huge pain. That's my experience anyway.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
This whole document is written not from the newbie perspective but from the perspective of a user who has had alot of 'nix or linux experience.
Yeah it takes me less than an hour to install Linux now, but the first time it took me an entire day. And that was just to get to root> and then spent week figuring out what to do next. And getting it to dial out and connect to my ISP was a weekend adventure, although it takes me 3 minutes now, unless linux does not detect the modem, which happens very frequently.
And the section about preemtive and competitive multitasking, give me a break! Copying a file a few dozen Megs in size makes linux noticably less responsive. Searching for files using find is even worse. Installing a program like StarOffice or Netscape uses up so much resources that doing anything else is almost impossible. Sound like anyone else's OS?
A more thought out and fair approach would serve Linux better. Give credit where credit is due.
Windows 95 is still built on top of DOS. The 32-bit parts of the OS are pre-emptively multi-tasked. However they have to go through a 16-bit cooperatively multi-tasked core.
Therefore you can run a whole lot of 32-bit apps and it looks pre-emptive. But run a single 16-bit application from Win 3.1 days in the mix, and the illusion evaporates.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
this document will mirror the progression of linux.
as linux improves, this document will also improve - maybe to the point where it becomes worth using for someone other than a zealot.
at the moment it is badly written crap - no evidence to back up his claims, too much speculation, even some FUD of his own.
the fact that i offer no evidence for my own claims is just one of the tasty ironies of life.