Slashdot Mirror
PC Magazine (online) on Linux & Linuxworld
PC Magazine Online has published some
articles about Open Source, Linux world and reviews of Slackware, Caldera, Debian,
Redhat, Gecko, and Apache. Worth a read. Those articles will be published on the
next issue of PC Magazine in the March 23rd issue. (thanks to Eli Marmor for telling
me about it).
It's very simple. With the mainstreaming of computers and software, "techie" (*gag*) magazines like PC World are running the risk of losing advertising dollars. It's coming.
So, the smart thing for computer magazines to do is hop on the Linux bandwagon. Linux needs a *lot* of explaining to Microsoft-addled end-users - they could spend years explaining the ins and outs of Unix. No conspiracy theories are necessary to explain what's going on. They're just looking after their own best interests.
Nothing daft about it. Windows users would have NO CONCEPTION that one could even do this. Windows users aren't stupid. They know the windows online help is completely, totally, probably irrevocably useless for any purpose, most especially for learning how to do something. Even my wife knows that windows online help is worthless, and she thinks that NT := MS Office! Why would they think that any other system has accurate and freely avaliable documentation? Especially since all they hear is that Unix is "hard", only good for "gurus".
/etc/printcap that frankly bores me stiff. On the other hand, Windows makes it hard for me to do what I want to do for _any_ (reasonable) amount of time or money. (Ha ha the choice is simple: debian. Since rex.) I believe that many windows users are ready to switch. But they are in for a shock: they don't even know what they don't know. They have no conception of just how big the world of computing really is. As I said at the beginning, they are blind and know it not.
Windows users have been "trained" this way. Just as they have been conditioned to expect that computers crash a lot.
I would actually prefer a system that would allow me to USE the computer to get my stuff (numerical and engineering programming) done, with minimal hassles for installation, setup, maintenance, whatever. Sysadm I am not, and don't want to be. As it turns out, linux lets me get my stuff done. The price is having to learn about junk like
Yes it does matter. The name IS NOT X Windows. Do a man X sometime. Under this argument, we could call Linux gnulix, which is stupid as hell.
This actually, nitpicking aside, seems like a half-way decent and accurate set of articles. This will be nice when it goes into print.
I will answer your question with a question. How long did it take you to learn to read?
I mean to really read and comprehend. First you read the first sentence, then you look up unfamiliar terminology, the reread, then on to the next sentence, etc. until you comprehend the whole thing. One thing I have learned about computer courses is that they have succeeded in their objective if they teach you how to read and understand the manuals/documentation.
Once you have read and comprehended the relevant documentation the rest is relatively easy.
Hi, I'm Leonard, and I'm a windows user.
I'm also an alcoholic, but that's another story...
Although these aren't Unix/Linux mags, they are useful for us techno-peasants because they expand our knowledge of our (microsoft) technical world.
Anyway, does anyone know if they are going to include linux in the magazine? If they do, does anyone know which distribution?
-leo
Look, these pc magazines NEVER talk about linux/unix. They haven't built respect.
The author of that article was pretty well-informed. I was surprised that the X Window System was referred to correctly, instead of as X Windows, and how it was said that it was the base for a GUI, instead of the GUI itself. Also, it was nice how the non redhat distributions were not written off just because they're NOT redhat. The reviews were actually GOOD for once. The biggest objection I have is how KDE is made out to just be a windows clone, and how gnome is the only one using CORBA, and that somehow makes it better. Anyhow, a well researched article, in my opinion. Of course, to the paranoid, it just makes it look like microsoft is less of a monopoly.. :)
:)
Forgot my password and I'm not at home...
hi arielb, Linux with a commercial x server and kde? There could be a Linux with a commercial X Window System and KDE 1.1 :) as you say that is not GNU/linux while it might be Linux and GNU maybe Linux/GNU? :) e.g to include GNU software, like gcc, gmake, man, emacs...along with other..
http://www.xigraphics.com/
Does it really matter whether one says "X Windows"
instead of "The X Window System" ? Where's the
difference ? Since most people know what is meant,
it's not that important, IMHO.
Linux install (on Redhat anyway) is as easy as it can reasonably be asked to be, considering that most Linux installs go over and after a WIndows pre-install. If you can't handle the steps required to prepare your drive to install Linux, then you are truly too stupid to use anything but Windows or Mac. No insult intended to Apple or Apple-people. Configuration of some of the more abstruse details on a Linux box requires some planning, some reading, and some forethought. But then there's so much more that you can do with Linux, no apologies are needed.
Industry reviewers and magazine contributors habitually and instinctively assume and encourage sloth and stupidity in their readers. And it's really no big mystery: that is what they depend on in order to have a job.
Linux --For people who need to do things with computers
Both Linux installs began with opening the cover and *carefully* identifying every hardware component.
so actually knowing whats inside your computer is a bad thing?
One of the most important step at distributing linux....they didn't give out a Linux cd with the mag. *sigh*....or did I miss a Linux cd? (it could be a collector item, imagine, a zdnet mocrosoft loving mag. actually distribute a Linux cd)
>Imagine: An entire generation of computer users trained to believe that using a computer doesn't require thinking. ..." Yep, the've caught it. I haven't seen anything like this since DOS.
Oddly enough, I've just had the first kind thought about Microsoft in over a year. It is a mixed bag. Computers are hard, so nobody uses them. Computers are easy, everybody uses them, but nobody knows what is going on. You can try to make it easy, but it doesn't really work. You can get a sense of the frustration from www.microshaft.com which is clueless that any help is even possible.
Make a system idiot proof, and only an idiot would want to use it. You can't win, you can't even quit the game.
Nevertheless, these are exciting times. ZD seems to have caught some sense of it. The "Before Microsoft" is a bit harsh, but it does make a catchy headline. Looking at zdnet, they seem to be carrying a lot of linux including an article on compiling 2.2 kernel "... offering a tantalizing glimpse into the strange yet true world of how things actually work. That's a rare and beautiful thing, even for those of us who don't really understand all that technical stuff. You still can't help but sense the pride and fun that are so intrinsic to Linux.
consider the following...
There is now a generation of computer "experts" that has grown up on MS products, to complete exclusion of anything else. They have no basis for comparison. They are, quite literally, blind.
We need to help those who want to "see". Of course linux is hard to use, is hard to install, etc etc etc. From a windows point of view this is true. It works something like this:
Windows install problem: point click point click (two-three hours) point click download drivers not shipped by OEM (never again will I buy from micron) point click point click, then magically everything happens at once. Elapsed time: usually hours.
linux install problem: print configuration file and man page or HOWTO. Make cup of coffee/tea/whatever while docs are printing. Find highlighter. Kick back in EZ Boy. Determine that line `foo' should be changed to `bar'. Highlight. Make change. Store dead tree record in useful place. Elapsed time: up to one cup of coffee. Maybe.
We, the "enlightened", have learned something. They, the windows user, has not. Yet windows is "easier". It is easier since there is no thinking involved. In this article, I found statements from pc _technical_ experts that were profoundly disconcerting. At many places, it was evident that the author really had NO CONCEPTION of the issues. It wasn't fud. They slammed MS way too hard for it to be dismissed as simply fud. They were simply out of their league, face to face with an actual operating system. At any rate, as much as some passages really made me wince, I rather enjoyed the article, and have to credit zd with making a sincere effort.
Imagine: An entire generation of computer users trained to believe that using a computer doesn't require thinking. Note well: I pass no judgement on whether this is intrinsically good or bad, it's just an observation.
I'm looking forward to more good articles of this nature from Sm@art Reseller. The last suite of articles about Linux vs. NT performance benchmarks, The Best Windows File Server: Linux! , was terrific.
One request: now that you've compared performance, how about comparing the licensing costs to deploy Linux and NT?
From PC Magazine's intro to the story:
"In the pre-Microsoft days, software and the code behind it were freely distributed. Here we go again."
That is a ridiculous simplification, and the implication that Microsoft invented closed source is utterly wrong. But it is a pleasant irony to see Microsoft skewered by revisionist history.
The article says that for linux, "Customer support--at least in the formal sense--is limited."
MS of course has wonderful tech support for Windows 9x and NT.
"Linux install problem: print configuration file and man page or HOWTO. Make cup of coffee/tea/whatever while docs are printing. Find highlighter. Kick back in EZ Boy. Determine that line `foo' should be changed to `bar'. Highlight. Make change. Store dead tree record in useful place. Elapsed time: up to one cup of coffee. Maybe. "
Don't be daft. How many years of being a geek does it take to learn all this?
At least, by PC Magazine standards. They actually acknowledged the existence of an "alternative" Linux distro (Slackware), they got a lot of their background right, they even mentioned that before the Microsoft days, open-source was common - not quite accurate, but they've got the idea.
Don't flame 'em, just take the opportunity to correct them. Bear in mind that tech journalists spend a lot of time on slashdot these days. The most sensible place to post your corrections is right here on slashdot.org.
Hi,
I'm getting really tired of all the fluffy articles I read. I saw _one_ somewhere that actually did some benchmarking between distributions/NT. (NT got it's doors blown off, big surprise to us)
Instead of just saying the same thing I've read in pretty much every article I've seen lately, I was hoping for some real benchmarks/data. Oh well.
Nice "open source time line" or whatever. They still forgot a bunch of stuff, but atleast they had a sense of history.
Funny how the press keeps on publishing wrong information. Corba is KDE's future, and KDE has had Corba plans from the start, way before GNOME even existed. If you all have doubts take a look at the GNOME mailing lists and look at koffice.kde.org
I still use a neat little DR.COM (c) 1987 ZD, not quite as useful with long filenames under windoze, but still quite often the tool of choice. I think we get our computers back!
Thought. Does the Windoze "My Computer" classify as "Big Lie"?
Another. Linux priceless, Windoze worthless.
Why don't you spend a few moments grepping through /usr/man for "Raymond"...
Someone said they did not dismiss other distros
just because `they are not RedHat'. I guess they
dismissed SuSE because
a. It's not American
b. It's _better_ than RedHat, so they could
not make RH their top choice (how about
equating Linux to the RH logo??)
Typical blindfolded self-centered nazi American behavior.
Hehe, the Linux-IL mafia does well. :-)
And since when has GNU fallen short of its goals?
And when did RMS and the FSF promote open source? I could swear he dislikes that term. Would be nice if the press would learn the difference between free software and open source...
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Indeed,
on the March 23rd issue - it will be on PC Magazine.
Hetz
Hetz (Heunique)
BTW, quick slashdot mention on page 168..
" Server busy or unable to fulfill request. The server is unable to fulfill your request due to extremely high traffic or an unexpected internal error. Please attempt your request again (if you are repeatedly unsuccessful you should notify the site administrator).
(Location Code: 25)"
Craig
It was the first time I've used Windows NT, and I was suprised how primitive the NT UI is. The "DOS window" doesn't scroll back, it uses an ugly system font, and it doesn't even resize. MS has got some catching up to do if they're going to compete with KDE and GNOME!
TedC
To install Linux and NT on the same box you have to used the NT boot manager and keep lilo off the MBR. You also have to make a Linux boot image for NT. I've never actually tried it, so there may be more to it than that. I think I saw a mini HOWTO on the LDP that covers it pretty well.
TedC
It's simply _not_ true.
For one thing, they're always installing Linux on a system with an existing windows installation, which means that they have to repartition the hard drive and set up some sort of boot manager (lilo or otherwise).
If they had to do that with windows they'd really have something to whine about.
TedC
I wonder what happened to SuSE and TurboLinux in their review?
Okay, it's _slightly_ harder to install, but my point is most of the difficulty arises from having to repartition the hard drive. People who have trouble with Linux fdisk would have trouble with Windows fdisk, it just happens that Windows is already on the drive when they get the computer so most people never have to deal with it.
There's no easy way fix this either, since partitioning disks requires at least some knowledge of hard drives. I think Red Had Disk Druid does a good a job of this as anyone does. In fact, if someone were to install Red Hat on a raw drive (without Windows), all they have to do is select the canned workstation install and the drive is partitioned for them.
X is another matter, but there is some progress being made there too. SuSE's SaX is pretty good.
TedC
In case you're interested, vim is available for win32, also. Check out www.vim.org. The command to remove all quote marks in the file there is:
:%s/\"//g
which translates to:
: enter ed mode
% operate on all lines of the file
/ begin reglular expression
\" quotation mark (escaped w/ a \, so it's taken literally)
/ end regex
/ end replacement text
g do it for every occurence on a line
Since there is no text in the replacement text area in this example, the "'s are removed.
In the early days of MS Bill wrote an essay on how Closed source and paying money for software was better than the current trend of Universities to give away their s/w. I can't recall a reference but I assure you it's true.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
FWIW, I believe my OS is officially named Debian GNU/Linux. :-)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Good point. Actually, my UNIX install problem usually is a lot simpler and involves doing my math homework on the other side of the room while my computer installs stuff. (and don't even ask about upgrading. :-) ) I would've liked to have seen more research on what a package manager is..there's really nothing like them in Windows (well there is but it's completely useless. :-) )
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I did. So...
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Excellent article. But:
:-) On the one hand..they have a clue about GNU and its importance. On the other hand...GNU can't be said to have fallen short of its goals until it is complete. Oh well. In 5 years when the strange new kernel is the Hurd instead of Linux, maybe they'll correct this extremely minor point. :-)
GNU fell short of its goals, but...
I have mixed feelings here.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
And nevertheless, these are good articles. They understand well what open source is and what's the difference between it and freeware. I was quite delighted to see them after reading all this "linux freeware" bullshit that you see everywhere. They got a few points wrong but most the important stuff is set straight.
im very suprised on this article being published on the web. i received my issue of "PC Magazine" on Friday and immedially read the open source article. it is approx. 11 pages long, out of a 262 page magazine. but what suprised me even more was that they put the entire article online for everyone to see. most magazine websites you have to pay or be a subscriber. nice work pc mag!
--
scott miga
This is a wealth of articles from zdnet and is reading for a whole weekend. I must say I am impressed! Will they put this in the print mags for the masses?
What about linux with a commercial x server and kde? That's not gnu/linux but that's the linux I'd like to see
---
I don't think he came anywhere near making a statement like that. He was speaking to the relative difficulty of correctly installing Linux on a computer. From the sounds of it, he's done it on a machine he didn't put together himself.
He's also stated he likes Linux and has fun with it.
I've had the luxury, now that I think about it, of having done my installs on a box that has nothing left of the original purchase but the power supply and the floppy drive. Popping the hood hasn't been necessary thanks to that. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary, anyhow, because I don't buy hardware on the bleeding edge. I buy stuff that was new technology over a year ago.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
Slack was my first distro. I didn't do anything "serious" with it, but it just required some reading to install, and it worked the first time.
Debates these days about the relative difficulty of each distro strike me as ludicrous. I've installed Debian, two releases of Slack, and 3 releases of Red Hat, and I'm a 98 pound weakling when it comes to this stuff. The worst trouble I ever had was forgetting to mark a bootable partition from Disk Druid under RH.
The IT people at work snicker at me behind my back because I never remember how to mount a network drive under Win95 and think I'm insane for insisting that installing the Novell Netware 32 bit client and then removing it but leaving the dll's it put there behind improves the Microsoft Netware client.
If I'm saying "it ain't that hard," it ain't that hard.
Of course, consider this about my IT people at work:
IT Guy: I need the quote marks stripped from that file. Could you fire up Word and do that before you send me the file?
Me: I'm sick of Word. I think I've got perl on this machine. I'll write something and have it to you.
IT Guy: Perl...? That's... a...?
Me: Oh, it's for stripping the quotation marks from text files.
IT Guy: Oh. Cool.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
It's always good to see my favorite distro reviewed, as it seems to get left out of a lot of other reviews. SW is one of the very oldest, and in some way, hoariest of the Linux distros, but it does remain the favorite of Linux hackers. But there are some nits to pick about the review:
:-)
1) The kernel in SW 3.6 is only at the 35th patchlevel, not the 36th. SW, however, has been the easiest to bring up to even the most recent kernels, even over RedHat.
2) While you can buy it from Walnut Creek for $40, there is the subscription rate which is pretty reduced. However LinuxMall has it for $15.Great price: great mailorder firm...
3) SW -will- install with 4megs of memory and can be made to live in as little as 20megs of disk space. The posted minimums are just more sane.
4) SW has always been panned for the bootdisk issue: gawd why are there so many?! For an important reason. As Linux people (and Unix people) you should -know- your computer, inside and out. You should know all about your cards, their IRQs, your video ram, everything. Then try to install and run Linux. I don't know how many times RedHat's one size fits all kernel has failed on older or "different" equipment. SW hails back to the day (during the early kernels) when you and your friends would compile specials kernels for each other based on knowing the insides of your computer. Get one box going and the rest would follow. Have fun and learn. Drink beer afterwards.
As always, good job! to Pat V and the Walnut Creek group.
-> I dislike sigs...
I was never able to get WinNT to install on top of Linux; it always choked (and destroyed my boot manager in the process, requiring me to break out a boot disk). In the end, I had to toast everything and then install Linux on top of NT. Admittedly, I know even less about how NT works than I do Linux (which isn't much), but...
I agree; shouldn't someone be giving Linux some credit just for being willing to coexist with Microsoft products? I'd like to see a review sometime that says "Windows 2000 is great, but we're still waiting to see the ext2fs support." "The new Win95 user interface looks impressive, but I couldn't find out where the 'grep' command on the Start menu." "The new IIS4.0 interface is great, but I couldn't figure out how to administer it from my RedHat machine." Oh, and my favorite -- "SQL server 7.0 works well, but unfortunately it failed to ship with development tools for any of the Unix variants."
One more quibble (while I have a captive audience) -- they kept calling KDE the "Kool Desktop Environment." From the KDE FAQ:
2.2 What does the K in KDE stand for?
Nothing -- it is simply the K Desktop Environment, just as the X in the X window system.
Eh? Who's right here?
There will be more articles coming from Sm@rt Reseller (http://www.zdnet.com/sr) in the next few weeks with hard numbers on Linux performance.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Quite a bit of research was obviously done for this article - and not nearly enough. For ZD, this is a torrent of articles on Linux. They're actually starting to get a clue. Starting to. The mistakes in these articles are amusing. I won't even bother to give examples - I'm sure by the time this discussion comes to an end today, that will have been done more than adequately.
One thing I hope they'll do is develop and publish more benchmarks for Linux, like they did with that Samba vs. NT article a while back. This is actually something ZD might be useful for; then we can look at the charts and numbers and how they were obtained, and ignore their judgements, expositions, and Editor's Choices.
Call me paranoid, or a conspiricy theorist, but up untill the MS trial, no one ever said a thing about linux (except on very rare instances or special events). Now suddenly every publication (including ones MS owns or has there hooks in) is praising linux as the next revolution (okay, so I'm exagerating, but you get the point).
I'm telling you, this is all a ploy by MS to make them look like there is compotition.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Hey, i just installed Linux on two machines. the first one i did from scratch RedHat 5.2 over RedHat 4.2 and that install (over a year ago) was overtop of Win95 blowing it away completely. This second install of Linux i did was on a virgin hard drive. NONE are dual boot machines.
I also did three installs of Win98 in December on virgin machines. all I did was feed a CD into the machine and click boxes. I learnt nothing in the process.
I worked a *lot* harder on the Linux installs than the Winblows installs.
Both Linux installs began with opening the cover and *carefully* identifying every hardware component. Knowing *exactly* which video card, sound card, network card and even some of the key chips thereon. Only after that did I do the RedHat 5.2 install. (i had painful memories of many 4.2 false starts.) Autoprobing really helped a lot. It took me a *lot* longer because i *had* to add my knowledge to the process. Knowledge i had to learn along the way. RedHat has the easiest install for the semi-clueless like me.
Oh, but RedHat didn't support the Matrox G200 in 5.2 & I had to d/l updated rpms. The first time i got X working (on that other machine with a supported video card, and a noname monitor i had to guess about) I spent an all-nighter getting X working. Do you know *any* one who didn't scratch his head once getting X going?
Now, during these two installs of Linux, I've made becoming a Linux guru my hobby. its more fun than using Windows. its also hard work. It was a lot more work than my Win98 game boxes going. Next time I install Win98 and Linux on separate machines, the Linux install will go faster *ONLY* BECAUSE NOW I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING.
I couldn't install Linux without learning; with Windows, i could.
if cave man grog go to Best Buy, point to the glowing thing & adjacent box, & buy, it come with Win98 preinstalled. perceived installation effort for cave man grog is zero.
If cave man grog's brother in law who is "into computers" does a Win98 system upgrade it means feeding a CDROM and clicking buttons in a half-clueful way. This installation effort is epsilon.
until cave man grog can buy Linux preinstalled, or his half-clueful brother-in-law can mindlessly click on wizards, the Microserfs will have a credible claim that Linux is harder to install.
Come on. They make it sound like Linux is going to scatter hundreds of unextractable and often increadable redundant pieces of code all over your machine by installing libc5 and glibc. Lets face it. UN*X got it right by centralizing interaction w/ the OS. My Lose95 box has so much useless code that has no chance of getting cleaned up that I had to buy another drive to store it. At least that money isn't going into BG's pocket. But then again...
RMS is an interesting personality. I don't think he wants the GNU in there for personal reasons. I think, really, he couldn't care less if noone knew who HE was. But he's right in wanting GNU in there, for the reasons he says. People _need_ to be exposed to what the Free Software Foundation stands for. People are really getting the wrong idea from people who advocate Open Source (TM), I think people need to see and understand free software. _freedom_ is what it's about really, not openness -- openness is just a part of freedom. While I love Linux and Linus as much as the next guy (probably more than most ;) and I see nothing wrong with commercialization, I'd like to see the GNU in there. For several reasons.
Firstly, to give credit where credit is due! The free software movement is often enough about ego and contributions from the masses, and it's _very_ important to give credit to the people who provide a certain service. While there are definitely other parts to my system than GNU and Linux, they are by far the MAIN parts that we can all agree on.
Secondly, to expose people to GNU. I know a lot of people who USE Linux-kerneled systems who haven't heard of GNU or if they have, don't really know what it is. The FSF is the most important free software organization.
Thirdly, it provides an understanding of how what some people call 'Linux' really works. I run WindowMaker. Often enough non-geeks will ask me 'Is that Linux?' I don't know what to say to this question. If I say no, I have to go through a pretty long explanation they won't understand. If I say yes, I feel as if I'm lying to them. If we call the system GNU/Linux it'll make things a little more understandable.
Just as a note, perhaps we should refer to our systems as 'Debian' or 'Red Hat'.. since that's really the name of an entire OS.
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow...