Slashdot Mirror
Eazel On The Ropes
update() writes: "The SFGate has an article on Eazel. It's the usual color-by-numbers piece (embedded MP3 playing; Andy Hertzfeld is a genius) but with one new piece -- without new funding, the company has a month to go before running out of money." Particularly given that Eazel's beautiful desktop is in the new Mandrake 8.0, and scheduled to appear on several other companies' desktops, it would be a shame if the company should dissolve now. I wonder if some of the big names (Red Hat, VA, Mandrake, SuSE) could invest together to keep Eazel going at least for now -- they all stand to benefit. And would a PayPal account for donations be unreasonable?
I would ask, has anyone at Eazel heard of the terms 'cash flow' or 'break even point'? If all they know is 'burn rate' they're in big, big trouble... and if their mental picture of a business is Apple, they're absolutely fscked. Apple is neat, Apple is great, Apple has been an amazing place to work for many people, but Apple is a Fortune 500 company monster corporation that has long been able to throw a million dollars at this and that just in case it produces technology that might turn Mac users on. Jobs kickstarted this, by having Apple pay for backrubs and freshly squeezed orange juice for the first Macintosh creators (work 18 hours a day, but in an atmosphere of elitism, luxury and insecurity- worked pretty well) and then when he was canned, they forgot about the insecurity part and Apple people got used to working with basically unlimited resources. When Jobs returned he brought insecurity back to Apple and killed a lot of projects and scared people into producing like mad again- result, iMac, the cube, lots of good and bad products that were less boring.
But the common factor is that Apple people don't really think in terms of budget. They produce neat stuff but this is not the background you want, if you expect to manage a small business and have it survive- and all free and open-source projects more closely resemble small business than big business. It's about not running out of cash, managing your expenditures so you can keep going on a month-by-month basis. If you've got yourself into a position where you're going, "Unless we land this big investment we will run out of cash next month!" you have already lost. Go turn into a 501c3 nonprofit and s/investment/contribution/.
>Try: http://www.webmin.com/webmin/
I'll second that!
So far, webmin is the ONLY admin system (short of modifying config files by hand) that comes close to doing everything it should. Linuxconf? nice try, but it's too linux-centric and buggy.
WebMin is sweet. It's all Perl, and it gives me a consistent way to admin Debian, RedHat, FreeBSD or Solaris (and more) boxes.
What's the easiest way to setup printing in Debian (or FreeBSD)? Install webmin. Want to know how to change the IP address of your NIC on an unfamiliar unix variant? Try webmin.
Seriously, other than sound setup it gives you everything. Really.
WebMin is the best, most underrated Unix admin program I've met. The best part is that it works on almost every unix out there!
Oh, and I'll second Quanta as being the best HTML editor too. Unless you've spent the three years needed to master Emacs, it's the best way to go. (Sorry, no WYSIWYG. Still, what self respecting web designer uses WYSIWYG anyway?)
The KDE team doesn't announce that a new version is ready for public consumption until they either have working binaries or are in the process of finishing up the testing of the binaries. It was only around 1-2 weeks before Mandrake 7.2 users had fully operational RPMs ready for installation. It has been what.... at least 3 weeks going on a month and not even an announcement that "hey guys, we're working on the binaries.... here's our expected ETA for them, we'll keep you all posted!" from Ximian.
I agree totally that the most important factor for any mainstream platform is applications. Everyone needs and wants them, otherwise there's no sense in having a PC. People don't stare at pretty widgets all day, they want to write, read, surf the net, e-mail, play games, look at pr0n, and wipe their monitors, though not necessarily in that order. ;-) You can't do that stuff as well unless there are a lot of application choices. That's why Win9x is desktop king. That's why I still use it myself--few of the programs I love are available in Linux; in fact, I think only one is.
But the interface is key as well. Users want easy to understand and standard displays, so that they can go from home to work to a computer lab and know exactly what to do everywhere, without thinking "which shortcut is for Mac? which for Windows? Which for Linux? Why does this Linux have a shortcut panel here on the desktop, but this one has this thingy instead, and this one has nothing?" Most of all, average users need help sometimes. So, running Windows or MacOS, they can call up tech support and some random guy can tell them exactly what to do.
Not so for Linux. I can see it now: "Ma'am, are you running KDE or Gnome or Eazel? Well, umm, is there a little elf-like foot anywhere on your desktop?" Linux will never be a viable desktop operating system for non-techies until there is a standardized interface for average-joe oriented distributions. And no, a techie setting up a system for Grandma and being her own personal tech support doesn't count.
This is why the big companies, like it or not, need to back a standard for interfaces and run with it. Geeks everywhere can still choose to use whatever desktop and wm they want, or to go without one. But for average joes, we need a standard Linux interface.
Now, if Linux had one, it would have a great chance very soon. MS is going to be switching consumer desktops to Windows XP, and so a lot of the Win9x and DOS apps people use will be broken or run poorly. That would give Linux a chance to zoom onto more desktops quicker than it ever has before. I can see it now, screwdriver shops and small vendors everywhere telling customers, "Yeah, Windows XP is the new standard from Microsoft, but it won't run many older Windows programs. It'll also cost you an extra $100. But take a look at this computer with Linux--it works like Windows does, is more stable, is free, IBM backs it, and if you want this on your computer instead of Windows it not only won't cost you anything it'll come with free software to view pictures, play movies and music, edit and print text, and even make your own graphics, all for free." But it ain't going to happen because there's no standardization. But just imagine how big a threat to MS it would be if IBM and Sun backed a certain Linux interface and distribution for the average joe, and started offering it on all new IBM computers, and telling OEMs that it's the greatest thing since grated cheese and they should back it as an option.
It would be damn nice.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
1. -the GNOME team and/or Ximian DO NOT release packages on a timely basis when new versions of GNOME are out, users should not have to wait a month or more or in the case of Mandrake users for their distribution creator to release a new distro with the updated GNOME
Guess you don't appreciate that just because the source code is out, it's not necessarily an instantaneous process to make RPMs and test them thoroughly on all the distributions.
I have seen a ton of people complaining that Ximian hasn't released packages for GNOME 1.4. It's been three weeks since they were available. Ximian supports about 15 distributions and generally does a damn good job of bundling all the GNOME stuff together in one easy-to-install and easy-to-use set. Give them time to make sure that when they release Ximian GNOME 1.4 they get it right. The same moaners who are whinging and carping at the moment would be yelling blue murder if Ximian Evolution had corrupted their mail file or broken their IMAP setup, or if a minor glitch in Bonobo was causing grief with their GNOME subsystems.
For those of you who can't be bothered to build your own GNOME distro, be patient. The impatient can always install their own stuff on the day it comes out from the source code. If you don't have GNOME 1.4 running on your system at this point in time, that really is a result of the choices you have made.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I kinda figured there'd be replies similar to this one, so a reply here is as good as anywhere else.
:) BTW, I'm also of a similar opinion on this. Very definitely a KDE advocate. Thing is, providing the tools for the admin and webmaster are going to be key to which of those two come out dominant in the long run. If neither get to it in a serious way, it'll probably keep things split up like they are for a long while to come.
For the admin part, I am very glad that I don't have to deal with GUI tools.
So am I. All to often folks seem to get the notion that you have either GUI or Text config, but never ever both. That is simply not true. SWAT does an outstanding job of admin for Samba, yet I am just as capable of editing the text file directly. SWAT also shows me up front a variety of tweaks and settings that'd take me far longer to locate and learn then reading a cryptic man page. The two concepts can live in harmony.
It hurts performance, hurts stability, and most of all it opens up a whole lot of security issues.
Again you seem to be thinking from an NT perspective. There's no reason why a GUI would need to be running all the time. An admin can get in, make the tweaks, and get back out again. The point is, none of the GUI solutions available now give the sysadmin a compelling reason to use them.
From a webdesigner/developers point of view, Linux offers a lot of useful tools. Granted, no WYSIWYG html editors...
You say that like it's a minor point. This is a HUGE point for folks doing layout and design work. This is a major show stopper for a lot of folks. It should be a place where a *nix app provides a highly compelling reason for a user to move on over. The web is a Linux/BSD specialty served up on a gold platter.
For that, I use Quanta +, which offers the tools I need.
Quanta is a tweak on KWrite with the GUI made to look like HomeSite, without even half the functionality. For example, you do some PHP coding, as do I. Try putting together a page with JavaScript, HTML and PHP all in the same file and watch what happens to that syntax highlighting. I could rattle off another twenty some odd features I use regularly in HomeSite that Quanta, nor any other text/html editor simply doesn't provide.
It's not a matter of having apps that are "good enough" in comparison to Windows counterparts. Companies such as Eazel need to be working on those apps that make working with *nix a compelling choice for users on the fence. They don't have to be free, but they do need to make a user want to use the platform they're sitting on.
I'm not going to start a KDE vs. Gnome flamewar here
Oh sure, and take ALL the fun outta Slashdot while you're at it
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Now, it is clear after MS and Apple got done reading their customer surveys and doing their marketting research that the Explorer/Finder is the key factor to a successful desktop.
No, whatever their 'marketing research' says, the key factors are:
+ Available applications (Win)
+ Public awareness (Win+Mac)
+ Prettiness (Mac)
+ What everybody else uses (Win)
+ What came first in a niche field (Mac)
+ What they can get cheap on a CDR (Win)
At the end of the day, Explorer and Finder are just file managers. Many of the non-technical Windows and Mac users I know avoid managing their files properly, because they don't know how, or don't see the benefits - everything goes on the desktop or in the 'My Documents' directory. Eventually that fills up, then they forced into learning the skills required to get some return from the tedious task of file management.
None of them went with Windows or Macintosh because it had a great file manager.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I find this comparison between CueCat and software flawed, to say the least.
And not just because Red Hat broke even and Caldera showed profits this past quarter, but because you seem to miss a very important point about modern software business: THIS BUSINESS IS ALL ABOUT SERVICES. The days of selling software as a self-contained "product" are long gone. Look at Oracle, Microsoft and others as they are trying really hard to change themselves into business of selling their software as services.
I do agree that the open source companies don't seem to spend enough time thinking about what kind of paid services would be the most beneficial for their users to bring in enough revenue. How long did it take Red Hat to come up with such an obvious moneymaker as their Red Hat network?! A lot of companies using dozens of Linux boxes would love to pay for a unified automated way of tracking upgrades for all the Linux boxes on their network.
Same with Eazel and Ximian. Their business plans are very blurry about what services exactly they plan to make money on.
I do think that Eazel is positioned better than others to make Linux useable by your average PC user, which in turn would advance Linux position in server market as well, as more people become comfortable with using it.
It is readily apparent that Eazel and most other Linux related products (Ximian, RedHat, etc.) follow the CueCat business model of "give away the product and try to make money off the product by indirect means." In this case, it's give away the product and try to get people to pay for services. This business model is doomed to fail in every instance.
What I don't understand is the reasoning here on Slashdot. I hate to paint this community with a broad brush, but the editors inundated us with article after article on the CueCat. Granted, most of it was about how Digital Convergence was trying to enforce licensing on hardware and how they were issuing "Cease and Desist" orders to anyone writing alternative software for it. However, there was quite a bit of commentary from this community about how flawed DC's business model was, and how no company has a right to make a profit or survive for that matter. It appears that this is the same business model a lot of the so-called "Linux Companies" are following, yet the editors here feel we should make donations via PayPal to keep this company afloat. Does this mean that these rules are only supposed to apply to non-Linux related companies?
I apologise for the long-winded, Jon Katz style editorial, but this seems to be an issue that not only affects Eazel, but most other "commercial" Linux companies. I fully expect this post to be modded down as a "Troll" by the blind Linux faithful, but hopefully enough people will read it before it finds -1 to spark some discussion on this problem.
IBM seems to be marketting itself as the Linux hero. Well, in responce to the Windows desktop war, IBM was more than willing to dump alot of money into the looser desktop formally known as CDE. Now, it is clear after MS and Apple got done reading their customer surveys and doing their marketting research that the Explorer/Finder is the key factor to a successful desktop. It seems clear that Eazel knows how to provide the best possible Explorer/Finder ever created. Now, will IBM be willing to provide the same sort of $backing$ that they provided to CDE? Or is IBM only coming to their own rescue when they run their Linux ads?
It just seems to me that both Gnome and KDE are missing out on an important niche as they go striving for usability for the mass market. At this point in time the *nix desktops simply don't offer much to either the system admin, or to the web developer. Considering that these are the folks most likely using *nix now.
Eazel has tossed the bulk of their effort into making a file manager and putting gobs of ease of use features in and around it. The problem is, that's not where the holes are! Both Gnome and KDE are quite user friendly on their own merits today. Both are making great strides in this realm without venture capital.
To my earlier point of what is missing, for admins I'm referring to good, solid GUI based apps for configuring the basic services. A small suite to deal with Apache, Sendmail, Inn, and other daemons. Today folks would rather tweak on the text files directly then use those few apps that are out there because they aren't nearly as good as they should be yet. Neither GUI environment today provides much for admins.
As to my point about the web developer, there's simply nothing I've seen in the *nix world that compares to Dreamweaver and HomeSite for development. I just have to imagine there are a lot of web developers that would like to work on the platform that Apache runs best on. Neither of those apps are perfect, but telling someone who has been working on a Mac or Windows that they need to take a month out to learn EMACS is just silly. In all fairness, there are some projects looking to provide some of HomeSite's uses, but there's nothing even coming close to Dreamweaver in the way of a GUI HTML editor.
Bottom line, if Eazel does crash and burn I really don't feel that this is an indication of some kind of open source failure. On the contrary, it might go to prove that the environments already in place are plenty user friendly. What is needed are the apps for those folks most likely to be looking to work with Linux or a BSD and expand upon that.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
The problem with both these companies is that
they don't even try to make money, they give
away all their best product for free.
If they wanted to pull in some cash they should
move to a model where they give away source code
for free, and make people pay for their easy
1-2-3 binary installer. After all why would
anyone bother with buying their CDs if it's
easier to download ximian for free off their web
site.
They both pay lip service to the idea of selling
services, but ximian even gives that away in
redcarpet!
Not that I'm complaining, but I do want both of
these companies to stick around, and they have
to make money to do that.
This sucks that Eazel might go under. But I would like to point out a big benefit of Free Software. For example if a company like MS or Apple were to go under. The current owners of their software would be screwed as all updates etc would stop. Free software is different in the fact that if Eazel dies, a group of people will take over. The advantage is that Free Software will never die as long as there is someone to keep it alive. That is also a disadvantage as you cannot really make money from it.
I think a solution to Eazel would be to consolidate with Red Hat or Mandrake, that way they would have a financial backing to continue.
Arathres
I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
stainless steel
Ximian, as I understand it, still has money. In addition, Ximian is highly dependant of Eazel's work, and has competing business strategies (services). How about Ximian buying out Eazel, thus keeping them alive, and merging Eazels services-strategies with their own. I suspect this would have been the better option from the beginning, as newbies won't like the idea of several different entities from which they are supposed to get help.
Every time Eazel releases a new version of Nautilus, I gleefully download and install the latest and greatest patch or release hoping to have come across something that I can actually use. Every time, I'm disappointed. Here's why.
It's not Eazel's fault. I believe that their part of the application is pretty solid. From what I've seen, it's that dang Mozilla browser that's embedded that renders the application unusable. Without fail (and I've run it on a myriad of boxen with fairly heterogeneous configurations), within a few hours something will snap and Nautilus will choke, requiring me to switch to a text console and remove it with kill. Considering the fact that I've had similar luck with many of the Mozilla releases, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Eazel and placing the blame on Mozilla instead, though I admit to having never set out to research the phenomenon.
Conclusion: Eazel has a good thing going for them. They're making my favorite desktop more enjoyable. Mozilla also has a good thing going for them. Finally a browser that adhires to the standards set by the W3C. But in my opinion, Mozilla needs far more work than Eazel does, and Eazel can't survive without a bulletproof Mozilla (it's embedded... there's no way around it). Therefore, I say that before we can hope for Eazel to fulfill all our hopes and dreams, we're going to have to finally build a browser that rivals IE in stability.