Slashdot Mirror
Linux on CNN
Red sent us a link to a Linux article on CNN.
Take it with a grain of salt- the author makes some good
points and tries to slice through the hype. Dwells on
a trying to explain what source code is. He basically
dismisses Linux as hype and buzzwords.
Oxygen is good, Competition is bad, I like Jello..
Oh yeah rob/hemos/slashdot sucks..
There, I am now a journalist...
Windows is all Marketing and Buzzwords.
i read this earlier, and i just spent my entire lunch break writing him a letter explaining to him what was innacurate about the article. it was non-confrontational and non-aggressive and didn't use words like "idiot","moron",etc (even though i wanted to..:) ) but not being a writer, i hope i made my point clear (and i used a spell checker) hopefully, others will write to him making points that i missed, and perhaps be more clear than i was. it would be nice if he realizes the errors of his ways and prints a retraction. there is nothing wrong with critcism and pointing out the shortcoming of Linux, but this guy made absolutly no sense and was innaccurate in most of his points.
Al Gore did!
I liked the part where he said
"Linux isn't even free - not for corporate IT shops, anyhow. Add up the costs of installation, testing,support, training and the political infighting that comes with any new technology in an IT shop, and your total cost of running Linux is about the same as NT, Unix or anything else. The "free" sticker price is a tiny fraction of that cost."
It is quit obvious he has never looked at the price tag for WinNT multiplied by hundreds or thousands of workstations, it may be a fraction of the cost, but its still a lot of money that could have been spent on R&D or something similar. Also most companies these days have profit sharing, which would be impacted as well.
he's not trashing linux.
among other things, he says that if you object to an OS written by thousands of random people, you should object to windows 2000, too.
most of what he's saying is that linux isn't all that different, in most practical terms, from other OS's. that is not "dismissing" linux; it is IMHO *underestimating* linux a bit, but it's not a dismissal. he's saying that linux is as good as anything else out there in terms of several arbitrary parameters. of course, he doesn't mention the reliability thing, the speed-of-bug-fixes thing, or the tendency to support open standards.
yeah, if you want to say that he's framing the discussion so as to avoid mentioning linux' greatest strengths, you'd have a strong point. but in terms of its lesser strengths it's still impressive.
the only real distinction he admits between linux and NT or whatever, is that when you have the source, vendors can't force you to upgrade just to get a bug fix. this is a point very strongly in favor of free software.
the only part that got on my nerves was where he kept making fun of people who try to explain what "source code" is. i thought that the impression he gave was "linux advocates are used-car salesmen", rather than "the journalists who showed up were ignorant" -- or more accurately, "it's very hard to explain programming to non-technical people, and i didn't see any journalists getting it right at LinuxWorld".
The paradigm shift is an entire operating
environment being devloped by a large
non-structured volunteer community instead
of a single commercial company. It is the
information sharing technology called
the Internet which made this possible.
Linux is a mojor piece of software created
by a human collective using the Internet.
It is grand example of what the Internet
is capable of -- there's your paradigm
shift -- shithead!
"People say the United States is free - except most people pay about $80-200k for their houses"
Bad analogy. The US isn't about freedom. It's about stupid politicians taking as much freedom as possible away to make money.
I read this article and thought it was for the most part accurate. Linux is after all - just another piece of software. It is not the holy grail - and it will never do everything.
:) I often run into dead ends - due I think to the majority of Linux users being students, etc. (See the recent /. poll - 32% students). Many of my questions (posted to mailing lists or newsgroups) go unanswered because I think use of Linux in real working enviroments (outside of academia) is still minimal. I constantly talk to peers and colleages and few if any have had the time (time is $$) to even begin experimenting with Linux. Others are like me - slowing trying things out in our spare (hah) time.
Before you flame-on: let me say right off the bat - I loath Microsoft -
I work in a mixed enviroment shop - WinNT, 95, Novell, Linux. I deal with Microsoft crap daily - Office, 95/98 - and it's just getting worse. I dread the upcoming Office/Windows 2000(?) migration path - that we will eventually have to make.
I've been slowing trying to integrate Linux into our office - using it to do things it excels at - right now I use it for out net gateway, and DHCP. Cheap, reliable - minimum maintenance req'd.
I have noticed however, in my frequent search for help and advice
My boss doesn't care about anything but $$$ - that's the real world - so while I could probably replace my Novell and NT boxes with Linux - the cost of doing so would in fact be extensive - we already own NT and Novell - so factor that in and we would be essentially throwing away that software - then I would have to be trained (possible certified) on Linux - or we would have to hire someone to do admin - this all costs $$$ - so where the author says that the cost are equal - they really are- if not more so for Linux. Maybe if a shop were setting up from scratch - then they could build their network from the ground up using Linux.
I think Linux has great potential - and I would love to see them make inroads against Microsoft - I think the server area is already happening and I have good feelings for the desktop area as well (GNOME is very cool), but lets remember that it is just software.
I guess this is the proof that all other
versions of Unix have failed and are not even
intresting.
I guesss that says more about how good
Microsoft is than anything else.
And for those ppl with more than one year on
their back, they might remember that MS is
actually pretty cheap, compared to what
Sun, Oracle etc used to charge.
He said "bafflegab". heh heh. heh heh.
He writes from the perspective of commercial IT people, and from what I hear it's accurate. The ongoing costs he mentions (with the possible exception of the political infighting 8^) dwarf the cost of the computer and the OS.
Reliability is a good selling point, but IMHO the advantage he most underrates is the complete freedom from onerous IP restrictions. You don't have to go out and negotiate a new license to install Linux on more servers. Linux will never refuse NFS service because you "ran out of client licenses on your server".
Finally, I'm all for anyone busting the publicity bubble that's blown up around Linux. One of the major dangers of Linux faces today is overhype. In a left-handed way, he's probably done Linux a greater favor than most editorials: the sooner commercial users realize Linux is just software, the sooner they can get around to using it.
...on their article.
;)
Cowards.
-ihopius
'Not AC to hide, AC 'cause I'm lazy'
the reason why this version control crack came into being is that people think that they have to horde fixes because it gives them a business advantage of some kind.
I have yet to find a mainstream media source with an article proving that the "get it"
Linux isn't meant to be revolutionary, feature-wise. It's meant to do a job and do that job well. It wasn't meant to be a windows killer and it wasn't designed to lower TCO. Those 3 are the only "glamour" stories left in the OS world.
One of the things that people don't get is their implicit defense of a monopoly. They think that having an OS monopoly is good because it allows developers to create programs that work on the majority of operating systems (because there's only 1). Then explain to me why every piece of software that I download and compile will compile and work on dozens of operating systems. Now everyone is stuck using windows because the cost of switching is too high (although what are the long term costs?)
Another one of those topics that just shouldn't get started...
Lay off the crack. Microsoft is good at marketing, nothing more.
Bottom Line: "Why use Linux when NT is just as good?"
A large percentage of the population doesn't care whether their software comes from an internet based social movement, an overly zealous software house, or 100 monkeys typing on 100 typewriters.
They want to turn on their computers and have usable software. All the magic of the open software movement is irrelevant to these people and doesn't factor into their perspective of Linux or other open software children.
It's a good point.
Really. There's a lot of half-educated journalists out there writing technology stories, but Slashdot is hardly clue city. If you want to flame journalists who are supposedly spreading disinformation (and who doesn't around here), it's ironic that more people don't flame their fellow Slashdotters for spreading anti-MS FUD. Oh, that's right, anytime someone says anything good about Linux, it's The Truth, but anytime someone tries to present a balanced view from all angles, well, it's just another FUD-spreading MS "shill". I guess folks around here define objective reasoning as "whatever I happen to agree with". For what it's worth, I'm fairly anti-MS and more or less pro-{Linux, free software}. It's just getting harder and harder to stomach the level of discourse in the online forums. It used to be that the Linux community was something that drew people to Linux, not something that people use Linux in spite of. *sigh* Sorry for ranting...
First off, 40$ is way over priced unless they are buying seperate CD's for all the computers at cheapbytes..
I think that this study blows ass..if I am rolling out a new server it *never* goes into production until I have beaten the hell out of it first. I still would have to purchase NT server for 800$ and then waste all my time testing it to ensure it will play well in the production environment.
If this was Linux, I would pay *nothing* and still have to test it out. Now that is just as complex as this study needs to be. Bottom line... I saved 800$.
I also think that companies could really care less about how much they spend on software.. its a tax writeoff anyway, I think the major selling point for linux is Stability.
If they really want to do a study to show cost savings they should make two networks that are handling the same load.. one NT one Linux, and check your support costs over 6 months...
that will be your cost savings...
This guy's idea of free must be that someone has to come out to his office or house, then install and configure the software for him, then give him a turotial on how to use it, then explain to him what source code is.
Then he probably wants a phone number to call so someone will come to him to fix things whenever he has any problems.
ABSURD!
I've seen that quote... but I wonder - it applies to Windows as well. How much time does rebooting take? And - how long did it take for you to learn Windows the first time? People forget that there was a time, before Microsoft's mass-hypnosis, when windows wasn't "easy" either.
...it's ironic that more people don't flame their fellow Slashdotters for spreading anti-MS FUD. Oh, that's right, anytime someone says anything good about Linux, it's The Truth, but anytime someone tries to present a balanced view from all angles, well, it's just another FUD-spreading MS "shill".
I wouldn't mind seeing something good about Microsoft posted here. Its that I have to use their crap at work and it would be nice to read something about NT that would give me the warm fuzzies. If someone could post something good about NT, I might learn something. I have been using NT for a few years and I'm losing my mind.
I was about to do the same. I made points about the whole thing. Kernel, install, software, security. Considering I have been with linux since the beginning it pissed me off. but then again we see it all the time...I didn't rail him either since that would propbably be used to vent his anger on another column.
We should all write him and tell him his error.
(in a no flame way). Then maybe he will correct his error. If we slam him, he'll ignore it.
I guess including my letter would have been helpful!!!
/boot
here it is:
I just finished reading your article on CNN's web site titled "The secret of Linux". I am curious about how research you actually did for the article.
Calling Linux another piece of software is like calling the Space Shuttle just another rocket ship. The reason for the focus on Linux in the IT world is it's amazing stability, robustness and scalability compared to NT. Look up articles on CNN, Infoworld and others to see a vast amount of technical information on why Linux is superior as an OS compared to Windows NT.
Linux is free. Period. Yes, you can buy RedHat or Suse for $50, but you failed to mention that where you have to buy a $400+ license for each NT
installed on servers and desktops, which could add up $100Ks of dollars. You can install Linux on every workstation and server from the same $50 CD with having to buy an extra dime. Or if you have experienced IS people (which any corporation should) you can download any distro for free....You forgot to also mention Linux is very well known (again, refer to the articles you hopefully will now research) for amazing stability and it's ability to handling large loads without ever blinking....something the no NT benchmark can claim....If you use Linux, you need fewer actually machines, barely any reboots, and a code base that is so stable that you can basically setup your machine and forget that it is even there. Something NT can't even touch. Fewer reboots, fewer machines, higher stabilty...I think you can save a lot money that way.....
There is a huge amount of benefits to having the source code, some direct and indirect, some obvious, some not so obvious. Many people
have recompiled the kernel to fit certain tasks. And to recompile the kernel, you do not have to touch a line have code. Our NAT server's kernel has just what it needs to do ip-masquerading and port forwarding, so it runs on an old 486. It is so efficient that you can't even tell it's there. Our web servers, db servers and workstations are all customized to what the needs are. Unlike NT, you do not need the latest and most powerful machines to do it's job.. With the new
2.2 kernel, changing from a single processor kernel to a 16 SMP kernel is just a recompile away. Just so you know, this is how you recompile the kernel
type: make xconfig
select the options you want.
type: make; make_modules; make modules_install
copy the new kernel to
restart your machine.
Don't think you can do that with a closed source kernel. Having an open
source kernel allows public scrutiny, which is very important. If a bug is found, once the path is verified, a fix is usually posted within a
few days, no matter who found it or fixed it. Because ANYONE who wants can try to fix it. You do not have to want for Microsoft to publish it's Service Pack 4000 to have a debugged kernel. Also, you do not have
to worry about someone sneaking something into the kernel or patches if
you get it from a reputable source (any distro site, metalab.unc.edu,
linuxhq...) Using Linux, you are sure that no one is going to sneak in something where your personal information and a digital trail is being purposely leaked from your machine (kind of like the
whole Windows 98 problem...) Yes, if you get patches and fixes from Joe Shmoe Hacker, there can be problems, but if you just go to a reputable
site,as mentioned before, they will have the official patches that were verified
or written by those who are leading Linux.
Most people I know who use linux, do not recompile or even touch a line of code. But having the source code available guaranties that any bugs are open to be fixed, nothing can be sneaked into
the kernel and that thousands of programmers are out there making the kernel even
better because they love what they are doing because they themselves are
using Linux for real world situations, not just
fulfilling a marketing requirement. And the software is not written in an archaic piecemeal
fashion. Actually, it's just the opposite. Kernel releases, patches, bug fixes, etc. go through a very strict rigorous process before it is considered a stable release.
The core of Linux, the kernel, is not being controlled by some marketing
machine. Kernel 2.2 came out when Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and a few others felt it was ready. And the devel kernel 2.1, was beta tested and
debugged thousands of times over buy those bleeding edge Linux hackers who are doing this not for money, not for power, but to
finally have an incredible stable and robust OS. If takes months or years for the 2.4 kernel to come out, it's not because marketing has a plan, or they have to beat some other company with a new feature, it's because 2.4 will not be released to it ready to be released.
Constructive critisism is a good thing. Discussing the shortcomings of something is a good thing. Spewing forth non-sensical and downright inaccurate information is a harmful and irresponsible thing for a journalist to do. Not understanding something does not give you the
right to bash it. Next time take the time to actually research your article before showing it to the world and bringing you crediblity
down. You compeletly miss what the whole Open Source movement is
about. It's about not having your hands tied to the whims of giant corporation. It's not allowing companies like Micrrosoft shoving standards stuff in our face with out anyone really knowing whats going on. It's about allowing the community controlling what it's needs our and not letting one corporation control the digital world.
As i stated in the first paragraph, they are plenty of article from non-biased sources prasing Linux. If you want, i can find them for you
and email you the URLs.
Ease of installation is crucial for Linux. Here is why. (This presumes we want all non-Linux users to use Linux. :) )
:) They will have to be able to take Linux for a test drive first. And, of course, that means they have to install it on their computer to test drive it. And if that is hard to do (who cares if Windows is just as hard to install, we are talking about them having to install Linux, not Windows) they won't even try it.
Currently, there are what, 280 million Windows users, and lets say 20 million Linux users. That's roughly 92%+ using Windows, and the rest using Linux for this example (which is probably somewhat realistic.)
Now, you want those 280 million users to use Linux. But, of course, it's silly to expect them to just do a "format c: ; install Linux"
So, saying that "Linux being too hard to install is irrelevant" is stupid. It is relevant to exactly the goals of "World Domination 101" currently. A few years from now, it may not matter nearly as much. But, right now, Linux being even a little difficult to install is a big deal.
i did the same. the author actually asked real questions as to what the deal is with the recent linux hype. the tone of the writing was skeptical, but then it should be - people who are interested in the phenomena should know why it's revolutionary (opensource), instead of just getting on the bandwagon as the flavor of the month.
linux is not revolutionary cuz it's so superior to windows (linux is not alone in that), but because linux, as well as many other important software, are opensource. hype around linux should help people to understand the benefit of opensource.
He/she did not say it was not time well spent, however Linux and *nix systems are not the norm. It takes a heck of a lot of work to start tweaking your machines. Microsoft has with windows dumbed down the population considerably. Linux forces you to get envolved and learn about the processes running on your system. So I agree with him the the Linux operating system is not free if you consider all the time you have to invest.
Not knocking Linux, just pointing out the time investment that needs to be made to shift away from windows. As Linux develops better support and ease of use increases within the community Linux will become a better and better investment of time.
One of the nice things about Linux is the fact that it gets the software into the hands of people that cannot afford mainstream operating systems, thus providing system administrators and power users for the next generation.
I can resonably expect to set up a windows system with few technical difficulties, point and click anyone, which costs me far less because of the time involved. I choose to run Linux at home because of the fact that I have a stable system and problems can be resolved myself.
Linux costs me a lot more of my most valuable resource, Time, than windows does. Yeah, I believe it is worth it, but the fact is that I could buy a heck of a lot of proprietary software with the time I have invested hacking Linux.
Lando (Too lazy to look up my password)
Bottom Line: "Why use Linux when NT is just as good?"
I honestly think that's what he's hinting at, and that's really sad.
People like that never take into consideration what Gnu/Linux can do for organizations where money is a limiting factor (eg. schools in poor communities, non-profit orgs etc.), before writing it off as a fad.
Looks like it's up to us to let them know.
Boy are you naive! This journalist cares about as much for your "nice" letter as Santa Claus does for the letters you write him, before your mommy tucks you in for the night.
Ah, for the innocence of youth.
No, Linux is a conspiracy by good programmers to make good software that actually works and this will show the world that software suppost to work and you don't have to reboot once a day. Then us bad programmers will all lose our jobs. Dammit! Down with linux!
"Boy are you naive! This journalist cares about as much for your "nice" letter as Santa Claus does for the letters you write him, before your
;-)
mommy tucks you in for the night.
Ah, for the innocence of youth."
nor do i care for your kind, dim wit. since you do squat, give your terminal (if you own it) to someone who will make a good use out of it, and stop breathing. you are wasting oxygen and electrons that could otherwise be put to some use.
(yeah, i feel better now
I suggest all you true believers send this guy a box preinstalled with RedHat and Gnome 1.0. Let it boot right into Gnome!
If all these misinformed mainstream journalists had the experience of using Linux's most advanced desktop they would understand why Linux is such a stable, flexible and useful system on which real work can be done - not like Windows which only crashes once a day. No cost my foot!
I can't wait till these vampires get the scoop and exploit the Gnome catastrophe to the hilt! Yet, the true believers will keep right on believing, disregarding the evidence of their own experience,
so they can be politically correct.
It's coming. Save yourselves before it's too late by taking the conical red dunce-cap off Tux and pray for forgiveness.
There was wailing and gnashing of teeth in Linux Land.
Remember than there are also costs involved in supporting and administering the complex model of client access licences for NT.
This may well exceede the "face value" both in terms of someone's time and in lost work if there prove to be too few, or the system dosn't count things correctly. (Thus you need extra ones.)
This guy's idea of free must be that someone has to come out to his office or house,then install and configure the software for him, then give him a turotial on how to use it, then explain to him what source code is.
Then he probably wants a phone number to call so someone will come to him to fix things whenever he has any problems.
ABSURD!
>Linux isn't meant to be revolutionary, feature- >wise. It's meant to do a job and do that job >well.
Oh yeah? And what kind of job does linux do well? Load BitchX?
>One of the things that people don't get is their >implicit defense of a monopoly. They think that >having an OS monopoly is good because it allows >developers to create programs that work on the >majority of operating systems (because there's >only 1). Then explain to me why every piece of >software that I download and compile will >compile and work on dozens of operating systems. >Now everyone is stuck using windows because the >cost of switching is too high (although what are >the long term costs?)
It's also easier to hire MCSE goonies than to hire UNIX sysadmins these days since MCSEs are 10 for $1 so the long term costs of SUPPORTING a Linux environment such as finding people that will write code to mirror the tasks that NT is used for, finding people to support the enterprise, educating the user community, loss time due to rollover (this can be really expensive), etc...
well, i'm jewish, so i never wrote a letter to santa claus, so you are wrong there.
second, trying to make a point with sarcasm and condenscention really falls on deaf ears
so if someone does something which is wrong, just ignore it? he publicly made available wrong and dangerous information to linux, and we should just sit there and twiddle our thumbs? i think if enough people emailed him and explained to him where he was wrong, he has no choice but to listen to hundreds, maybe if thousands of letters....i for one will not sit back....
i think if the world was full of people like you, change would never happen....
ahh, for the luxury of complaisance, laziness and arrogance
Linux - you can't give it away.
NT - happy customers willing to pay.
Live with it!
... year?
If idiots like this guy can't make simple economic judgements based on the billions that corporations are sending to MS, then why even bother with him?
If you don't think Compaq or other companies are looking at Linux and seeing $$$$ all over their quarterly statements, then again this guy has the reasoning power of a freakin' newt.
Gnome is alpha quality. It is a disgrace to the open source community.
Send the next Caldera that has a graphical install, KDE, and Star Office
Or SuSe with Sax, Yast, KDE, and Applix
RedHat is a desktop computing nightmare
When did Windows become "easy"? It's a highly complicated system. Made even more complicated by the use of binary configuration files and the need to have a large chunk working before you can even attempt to fix anything else. (Other than by such crude methods as reinstalling)
I like the way this person just glosses over the fact that the source code is available. "Yeah, the source code is available, but that really isn't too big a deal". In my opinion, this is the biggest, most important difference between Linux and any M$ product. I know I don't need to go into specifics as to why source code is important (I believe another thread is already doing that).
Maybe this is just another FUD attack? "Source code, smource code. Big deal."
Then why do you work for commercial IT people?
I assume that you do - and your observations are pretty accurate, though only in most cases. Not all. Quite a few corporate IT people are quite
knowledgeable about technical issues, and many have been excellent programmers or developers during thier careers.
Well, what are you doing to change things? I assume you want to. First thing you can do is to get a job doing something you can respect yourself for instead of serving masters you don't respect if you do work for such people. So what if such jobs don't pay as well as corporate IT.
From the tone of your letter it seems that you are quite angry about the situation. I may be wrong but I also get very tired of over-paid sysadmins, etc., who use Linux at home and perhaps sometimes on the job who are not happy with their lives. Panhandling would be more honorable.
The amount of money you make or your "geek" status can never make you happy, or free.
all answers, i think, relates to control/freedom. i bought the thingy, i should be able to use it any way i can.
if software typically is of high quality, this may not be an issue. for example, TV. most tvs work, and people don't have the need to have the "source" (circuit diagram). but you know how it is with software - it never really work the way it is supposed to, and without source, you are at the mercy of the vendor. and i don't think i should be - i mean, i already paid for it, didn't i?
perhaps, if people started to sue software companies for fraud when their products don't work according to doc/spec, things may change (do you think?)...
The article was really not so bad and was more damaging to Windows 2000 in one short sentence than the rest was to Linux.
Linux got a lot of exposure and should now be mature enough to have a sense of humor about the hype and buzzwords which the press has picked up on, but which the faituful also use to prove their own correctness to each other while denying that they do just that.
If I knew nothing about Linux, after reading this article I'd come away with the impression that Linux is a viable alternative to MS and is running a good race. This would cause me to check out Linux if I were in a position to make decisions for a corporate IT department or even to use on my home computer.
The hype and buzzwords are real. Linux is also real as an excellent system and the focus of a lot of good in the world.
Such movements are always surrounded by hype and buzzwords if they are at all successful. Anyone with a grain of sense will not mistake the shadow for the substance. The hype may even help because many people are attracted to it at first.
No wonder, though, that Linix still remains mostly imprisioned in the nerd community as a system for home usrs and small business. When true believers like you react so negatively to such articles which really help Linux then many people get the feeling that it's only a system for people with computer science or mathematics degrees like yourself, who seem to always be on the defensive even when you don't need to be. That's geeks for you.
Sadly, it appears that Linux will reach the "average" computer user through the corporate world first, including Linux on the desktop, and this vastly increases the odds that Linux will somehow be hijacked by corporate interests, regardless of GLP. There are ways around that. If Linux had a solid user base among non-techies then I'd be much happier with its future as a really free operating system designed by a home user for other home users, not for corporate suits.
Let's see.
"Hey you ignorant moron, toot toot! The clue ship sailed and YOU MISSED IT! Where do you get your inane theories from, anyhow? They oughta lock you
back up in the looney bin before you infect any more minds with your garbage, you fifth-rate hack.
You couldn't even cover a bed."
versus
"While I appreciate your trying to demystify the
appeal of Linux for posterity, your attempt was a bit flawed, in my opinion (blah blah Free vs free blah blah source code blah blah)."
Hmm.
Guess which one is more likely to be read and taken seriously by said fifth-rate journalistic hack (who probably couldn't cover a bed)?
Just for fun, I could say that what I pour into
;))
'myproject.c' are my personal thoughts and ideas.
:)
(But I DO know the difference...just beware of
someone else saying that who doesn't.
If you'd posted this there, I'd still have laughed ;)
as much.
Gnome is not a disgrace. It is not as advanced as KDE, but it is quite stable, lately.
We as a community shouldn't be bickering about which one KDE, gnome on E, whoc cares! Its a prefernce thing. We should try to open our mouths to the people without a clue like in CNN and others so we get more positive feeback. The more we do that instead of whining at newsgroups the more software and support we can have from different companies..ie games and newer drivers like DVD..
If you don't like GNOME you shouldn't whine about it then good for you. And try to contribute to KDE and the movement. I haven't contributed to gnome yet. but I will soon.
stop being a dick with what is good and bad and help the community. Besides Rhat got all the hype going or there wouldn't be half the stuff there was 6 yrs ago -we should give them credit.
I don't agree with you.
for a corporate IT dept, each license costs money.
for 1000 NT licenses how much do you pay? Thats alot of money. for linux you don't need a license.
(of course some will say you don't get support if you don't do a per license way, but honestly a company's IT dept should be trained for linux and provide the support - not RH or anyone else. If you want it can be a per incident thing. Then your talking saving $ in the licenses..but still its best trainign your people first.)
The next part support. I do agreee with you. but look at it this way to train most IT people who have UNIX experience, the transistion is far less painful to them..
You hit the nail on that one buddy. Hayes is clued out of the whole Linux thing...
He is a liberal microsoft supporter. He has no unbiased journalism when he writes like he knows something about linux. I bet some IT linux person pissed him off and he wrote for spite the article... nahh he is just plain clueless...
Seems good to me... A lot of the problems I have found, as the only reason people won't even look at it, is, as they say "the lack of a way to ensure the core programming is competent." Now, while I am perfectly happy to allow those who use Win98 or NT to continue, it does get to me a little that something so silly would stop them from considering it. Oh well... there is a reason why they say the mass of humanity is only slighty more intelligent than a herd of .
M. Simon (who is too lazy to bother logging in... =)
/* have noticed however, in my frequent search for help and advice :) I often run into dead ends - due I think to /. poll - 32% students). */
the majority of Linux users being students, etc. (See the recent
32% is not most.
/*My boss doesn't care about anything but $$$ - that's the real world - so while I could probably replace my
Novell and NT boxes with Linux - the cost of doing so would in fact be extensive - we already own NT and
Novell - so factor that in and we would be essentially throwing away that software - then I would have to be
trained (possible certified) on Linux - or we would have to hire someone to do admin - this all costs $$$ - so
where the author says that the cost are equal - they really are- if not more so for Linux. */
The larger your enterprise, the lower the cost of Linux compared to NT. Linux can replace multiple NT servers because it is more scalable and reliable. Furthermore, Linux can reduce the cost of administration because better uptimes mean a better admin to machine ratio (although Linux admins may cost more than NT admins). So, the more machines, the more services, and the longer the time period, the better the TCO for Linux over NT.
OK, so the author doesn't really "get it". The important thing is that he essentially encourages IT managers to try Linux. If they do, the benefits will be obvious. I sent him this note:
I'm sure your mail box is stuffed with Linux related notes by now.
Hopefully most are not unduly profane.
In your article you wrote:
"In practice, it's still just software. IT
customers will kick the tires, run it through
evaluations and try it on pilot projects
just as we would with any other product. "
I would like to encourage you to do this. What you will find is that
the total cost of ownership for Linux is not somewhat similar to that of
NT. You will find that as the size of the enterprise increases, the
disparity between the TCO of Linux and that of NT becomes greater. The
reason is that each Linux server can replace several NT servers. Linux
is capable of supporting more concurrent users and running more
concurrent services than NT on the same hardware. This means that not
only do licensing fees evaporate, hardware costs shrink. Furthermore,
administration costs are less because not only do you need fewer Linux
boxes, they are more reliable. While a good Linux admin may cost more
than an NT admin, you don't need as many. Headcount may, in fact, be
the biggest cost reduction realized from Linux deployment in large
enterprises. The biggest costs of Linux deployment are initial costs,
but it is an investment with a long-term cost reduction payoff.
But don't just believe me. Kick the tires.
Will Stockdell
... whatever marketing bullshit that Red Hat feeds you.
Gnome is a unstable piece of shit. There is nothing you can say to change the fact that Red Hat pushed it out the door to an incredulous open source community who knows it for what it is: a
It's fairly trivial of course but source code is invaluable for the programmer. Especially if you live in some contry in the third world or in Europe's back yard like in my case and everything you learn is from books because there aren't many people around that do programming.
I'll never forget the feeling when I first got my hands on the source code of Borland's libraries. I think that wasn't very common in the PC world back then (BC++ 3.10)
I'm the poster of the "convince him" to which you are indirectly respondiong.
This is not about Gnome vs. Kde but about all the hype which has surrounded Gnome which will certainly backfire and damage us all.
It is not just a few bugs but a system or subsystem built on an unsound foundation - themability, rather than functionality. Corporate America and Joe user will not be impressed by "themability". They need desktops that work. Gnome only works sort of if everything else is sacrificed to make it so, wrecking most distributions and breaking other apps, including many gtk non-gnome apps, in the process. For a very impartial review by a knowledgeable writer read the recent review of Gnome 1.0 in the Mining Co.'s Linux section.
This is shamefull. Gnome is marketing hype supported by the sheepishness of true believiers who try to outdo each other in being politically correct and having the "geekiest" looking desktops.
In my opinion as a software designer, which I have done for a living on some large projects, Gnome cannot be salvaged without starting over from scratch. Fixes and patches can be applied, but these just create more bugs and disfunctionality. The foundation and the way the whole thing is put together is not modular as claimed, but insists on dozens of libraries and support files being installed just so. Nothing works without taking along the kitchen sink. This can be corrected, somewhat, but better to just start over.
God. Windows is far more modular. You don't need to have sound libraries installed to copy a file!
True believers don't relate to reality. They only want to consider themselves among the elect.
Gnome is not, and was never intended to be, a subsystem for average users. It was and is a political statement and a marketing strategy.
RedHat thinks it can get away with this while hyping Gnome as the first desktop system which will make it easy for average computer users to appreciate Linux on the desktop. Has RedHat done anything to correct such misinformation. Forget Kde for a moment. Linux has had a very viable desktop for years. All most users really need is a common drag and drop protocol which most apps use - and more apps for non-technical people.
Maybe RedHat can get away with this, within elitist Linux geek circles. It can't get away with this in the business community or with non-technical people who have other things to do than try to play a game of one-upmanship over silly geek status symbols. There is no reason for such people to deny reality as the true believers are doing.
Read the Village Voice article just posted AFTER my initial post if you need convincing. Expect more and more of this in the very near future. Thank God the writer didn't get Linux installed and try to install and use Gnome. That would have turned an embarassment into something far worse.
At the very least, an apology from RedHat is in order. Don't hand me more stuff about RedHat having done so much for Linux, or about Gnome being independent from RedHat. People can read between the lines. Even clueless mainstream computer journalists.
The Big problem is that all those guis
that look like crap compared to MacOS
or BeOS.
Operating systems built with the gui in mind.
Unix never had a thoguht for the GUI, X is a
huge waste of time in some many ways. And then
patching on top of X to make it more like MacOS?
hehe give me a break.
Just shows how old and lame Unix is.
Go for MacOs, BeoS, or NextStep.
Just try to get out of the 70's and into the 90's ppl
some wiseguy wrote:
;-) responded *to the poster*:
"Boy are you naive! This journalist cares about as much for your "nice" letter as Santa Claus does for the letters you write him, before your mommy tucks you in for the night.
Ah, for the innocence of youth."
so i (an AC, so possibly the same person?
"nor do i care for your kind, dim wit. since you do squat, give your terminal (if you own it) to someone who will make a good use out of it, and stop breathing. you are wasting oxygen and electrons that could otherwise be put to some use."
the "dim wit" I was refering to was the original poster who obviously was too smart to write to the CNN author.
not that it matters, as i posted as AC...
This is funny most of the you all yell that
Linux is so much better than other commercial
things lke Solaris or NT.
And when soeone points out part of the popular
stuff is crap you all whine and say
"Hey its free, dont critizise it."
Well if you wanna play with the big boys
learn to take it.
Its CRAP.
KDE is a really bad rip off off of windows 3.1
and that sucked rocks.
I have had a better GUI on my AtariST for soo
many years.
Talk about bending over backwards to give the clueless journalist the benefit of the doubt. Even if true, such an interpretation does not prove anything. So what if he thinks the media coverage is inane? He has not demonstrated that he understands the concept either. If he did understand it he should have done his job and educated his readership. Either way he is a crappy tech journalist.
I read the article and was wondering if the guy even knew what the hell he was talking about. It appeared to me that all of his research consisted of headline and caption skimming.
Good letter. I hope he takes that into consideration next time he decides to write an article or column.
Xyverz@iansweb.com
The time you spend learning Linux will be
gained when you get experience because it
boosts your own eficiency.
Hear! Hear!
It's amazing to me how all of these Johnny-Come-Lately Journalists are suddenly self-anointed experts on Linux. I think the 'author' needs to be recompiled with the following header files:
#include
#include
#include Linux has been around long before the so-called hype...and it will be around long after
the hype dies down and people are actually using it for their day to day computing needs.h>
#include
T. Parker (B.S.C.S, M.S.S.E)
(Proud Linux user since 1992)
(Proud UNIX user since 1985)
(Gagging NT user since 1994)
Hear! Hear!
It's amazing to me how all of these Johnny-Come-Lately Journalists are suddenly self-anointed experts on Linux. I think the 'author' needs to be recompiled with the following header files:
#include "clue.h"
#include "Why dont you actually do some proper research and testing (using) the OS yourself instead of taking the easy way out via exerpts of previous linux articles...It'll do wonders for your credibility.h"
#include "Linux has been around long before the so-called hype...and it will be around long after
the hype dies down and people are actually using it for their day to day computing needs.h"
#include "I guess lacking clue.h seperates the business/marketing/journalism major weenies from
us actual technical/hacker/sysadmin/programming
types who not only have the clue.h library, but
also have an #ifdef...#define...#endif for multiple OSes.h"
T. Parker (B.S.C.S, M.S.S.E)
(Proud Linux user since 1992)
(Proud UNIX user since 1985)
(Gagging NT user since 1994)
Anyone else smell a whiff of nerve gas in the air down CNN way? I refer of course to their "Operation Tailwind" fiasco. CNN is hardly the most reliable source, but then most journalists are lazy and insulated from reality. We've come a long way from the days when reporters were high school grads who worked their way up through the newspaper or other news organization. Now they all have degrees, think the world owes them a living, and only have contact with their own kind. No need for reality to intrude into their comfortable lives; no need to be good generalists and to research and learn something new. Much easier to take the path of least resistance.
How should we characterize a journalist/IT? How should we characterize the one that wrote the article, especially considering he fits Ripps description pretty well?
:)
If everyone changed jobs they didn't like, there would be no retail workers. Actually considering the inteligence and knowledge of sales people in stores like Circuit City, Frys, and CompUSA, I'd say people do take jobs they prefer. You won't find a leet geek on the sales floor (at least for long).
Is it an expression..... or an implementation.
For example to build a tool, is that an expression or an implementation? Programming in its self seems to be more of an implementation of ideas and thoughts, then an expression of them, but the act of giving it away for free, or giving it the code to other programmers at the very least is an expression, you are communicating it. Another example if you draw it exactly as you see it, is not an expression, if you draw it as you feel it, is an expression.
These are things to think about, I feel though that you are all wrong but right, it in a way is both, and strongly depends on how you look at it and how things are implemented.
hmmm, I'll give it a go...
Having the source code is like looking at the engine of your car, if you don't know anything
about mechanics it's not going to help you much.
But you can learn, or ask a friend, or take it
to the garage.
Of course if you couldn't get at the engine - but that would be absurd...
The future and OpenPhilosophy.
:) ). What this means is system specific code will be rare, you can have any kind of CPU you want, x86, K7, merced, DEC Alpha, etcetera, etcetera, and be able to run any program on any system, you can take a copy of your favorite spread sheet program and install it on a DEC Alpha system, a x86 system, a PowerPC system, a Sun system, or any other system that has the right OS, and it will be compiled optimully for that system, as distributed with the OS is a special compiler for that system. This seems to be a system that is on par with java, if there is anything similar to a java OS, its an open source system, except at some point software maybe made in a more universal assembly language, which source code distribution would be a seperate part all together.
:) ), wisdom comes from experience, the quickest way to experience is to see how others before you accomplished something, it teaches you how others handled a situation, it also helps you see what mistakes they made, or helps you blend 2 peoples ideas to create a much more effecient idea. Think of this, an idea can be thought up by any one, the implementation of an idea is from an inventor, the mixing of ideas comes from a genius. Or so I've heard.
Hopefully in the future, software will be distributed as source code, and when you install the software you are actually compiling the source code for your system ( hell in many ways this is already being implemented
The other thing I mentioned is OpenPhilosophy, good programming come from wisdom, wisdom is to know what to do (as opposed to knowledge, which is to know what something is, ex. knowledge says that rain is H2O, wisdom says to step out of the rain or you'll be soaking in H2O
Gnome is a unstable piece of shit. There is nothing you can say to change the fact that Red Hat pushed it out the door to an incredulous open source community who knows it for what it is: a .5 or .6 release. RedHat hasn't even released it, and the articles if you even care to read, mostly say gnome is new and not ready. RedHat hasn't even released a new version of its distribution of linux yet, they have only included gnome .30 on the RH 5.2 CD. Also is the problem gnome or the applications released with gnome? if it was a problem with gnome, gnome would crash, gnome has never crashed on me. You want to know what an unstable piece of shit is, look in the mirror, you got mental problems. Nothing has been or ever will be perfect, deal with it. Or can't you handle that concept? Are you looking for a solution to the simpton, or a cure? A solution to a simpton is to stop someone from sneezing, but is that a cure for the cold? No, it is not. In the same way, you can whine, bicker, and even cry till people start using 1.0 to mean bugless, but is this why they do it open source, so that you can whine and complain for others to do it for you???? No, the reason its open source is so you can contribute, to move towards a cure, and not a temporary solution. If you want 1.0 to have some type of perfectionist meaning then do something more constructive then being a bitch.
This is not about Gnome vs. Kde but about all the hype which has surrounded Gnome which will certainly backfire and damage us all.
What hype, show me where redhat or gnome.org, has ever said anything them selves that was hype? They discussed their plans. If you have read anything that was hype you must of read it from someone else, if you read a few lines in an article or post and misinterpreted it in your excitement of the prospects, then you are the one feeling this hype. I for one read the information about it, and didn't expect much from it now, when I tried it out I was not disappointed, and I found the interface comfortable, that is something I have not said about another X, that is something I have only felt on a windows system. so far gnome it self had no problems as far as my usage came.
Also all your bull shit about the supposed users that are going to flock to it because of the supposed hype? Where are they? They are playing video games in windows, since Linux is not the prime place for gamers, they are also employees who are forced to use windows, employees who have bosses that have fallen for MSs HYPE, which BTW has billions of dollars behind it.
Gnome cannot be salvaged without starting over from scratch
Alright now I think you are throwing your experience around like an icon, sure I could brag about my experience, but I would rather use my experience then brag about it. The element your missing here is gnome is not the problem, its the software running in gnome, try out other x window software, that was not made for gnome. Why would they start over if they are still at the beginning? Most of the problems I have seen are in the applications, and some are even in install, but most other problems I have seen are not in gnome itself.
God. Windows is far more modular. You don't need to have sound libraries installed to copy a file!
God, Windows has been more modular then Linux for a long time now. Windows has had a better gui for a long time now. Windows has been around for many years, gnome has only been around for approx 2. Unix has been around for a long time as well and that is why its better then windows in diffrent fields.
True believers don't relate to reality.
HELLO REALITY SPEAKING, you have not said what you trully believe in yet, and yet you fit this to a T.
They only want to consider themselves among the elect.
Gnome is not, and was never intended to be, a subsystem for average users. It was and is a political statement and a marketing strategy.
OK, what is windows and linux? Windows a marketing strategy, linux a political statement. I have not seen this gnome hype, it also depend on what you mean by hype, do you think hype is telling people what your goals are, or lieing what your features are.
All most users really need is a common drag and drop protocol which most apps use - and more apps for non-technical people.
Not exactly we need a lot more then that to be what we call in the field "productive", of course we could always say "forget the user interface entirely" go back to typing in a command prompt, sure we would be less productive but that would be all that we need. How do you know what people need, you know all that you need (or at least you think you do), sometimes we don't realize something had turned from a special extra feature into a necesity until we lose it, try using the command prompt only for a week, and tell me you don't miss a few things, or things you thought were cool but not necesary all of a sudden you miss them. I have this feeling every time I go into X, gnome is the closest I have tried to windows, BUT its not finished, but you see I have something special in me (I guess), something you don't have, its called patients.
So where have they said that it is currently for non-technical users, as oposed to them saying they are targeting non technical users?
There is no reason for such people to deny reality as the true believers are doing.
So tell me what are these "true believers" saying that is pissing you off? What are they saying that is not realistic? I have heard nothing but demands from people like you, expecting the world to be handed to you in a day. Thinking that saying what the goals of a project are, is hype. Maybe your problem isn't impatients maybe you need to learn to read.
Your the one looking for something to believe in. Be more realistic, be informed, do your homework and make sure your not just blasting your mouth off because you "thought" wrong, you misinterpretted what is being said as what is currently there.
Source code is the humanly readable script of a program that is translated into a language that only the computer hardware understands.
One sentence should be enough for anyone but a dullard.
HiP
The ordinary moe doesn't make decisions about 1,000s of PCs, the bigwigs do after they get the advice of their techies.
Those WEBTV fucks don't change the world. Colleges and big busines do. M$ didn't get where it is because of Win 3.1 and 95. It was NT and office and their supoprt services that make the company so powerful.
Linux is a potential NT slayer. All that is needed is an Office slayer(no small task) and Linux is a serious contender.
Lord Kano(Too lazy to log in)
>>Linux - you can't give it away.
NT - happy customers willing to pay.
Live with it!
Fee Fie Foe Fum, I smell a M$ employee troll.
NT is unstable, slow, and a security nightmare. The "happy" NT customers are just happy that they've only had 4 crashes this week, and they're willing to pay for fixes and support.
The internet was built on the back of Linux's father(no help from Al Gore), Linux is the natural successor.
Lord Kano(Too lazy to log in)
Frank,
a t-5.2/i386/
a t-5.2/i386/doc/HOWTO/
. This may help you to understand the reasons why Microsoft has cause for concern. The pages at http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html should make this clear to you.
...
..."
I work for the network operations center at a very large academic institution and I also teach several computer classes including beginner and advanced unix. I think that there are some corrections in order for your article. I don't intend to be mean or impolite but I really feel that I could 'nt leave this article alone with out comment. Some of the notes that I make are clarifications/corrections and others are just comments.
You said, "According to the experts I heard, Linux is free -- except most people pay about $50 for it."
Clarification:
Linux is free. You can download it from many websites on the internet without paying a dime. Here is a link to one website where you may download it for free for any PC with a motherboard that is a 386 or above:
ftp://ftp.cis.ohio-state.edu/mirror/redhat/redh
The complete documentation is free also and is located at
ftp://ftp.cis.ohio-state.edu/mirror/redhat/redh
There are many other sites across the world where one may download Linux as well.
Although Linux is free, the installation is typically about 300-500Megs. This download is easy if you have a direct connection to the internet. But, because most people have nothing more than a 56K modem to use to connect to the internet, the download of Linux can take a very long time using this means of connection. This is not impossible though, I've done it before.
Since the download is so large, a few companies have started selling their own distrubution of the Linux operating system on a CD. This makes it so that one can obtain the software without having to wait for hours through what can be a punishing download ( if you're doing the download via modem, and I don't mean cable modem ). Typically the company will sell to the buyer documentation for their distribution which will include the Linux operating system on a CD. One thing to note is that some companies that sell their distribution for a fee also make the same product available for free from their own website.
Example:
RedHat ( www.redhat.com )sells their distribution of Linux for about $50. They also have their product available for download for free ( ftp.redhat.com). The idea here is that the companies that sell the operating system ( with documentation ) for a fee are selling the buyer convience. $50 for an operating system is also a very strong selling point considering what any large university would pay for an operating system ( such as Windows98/NT ). We need to purchase a license FOR EACH computer that we install Windows95/98/NT on. Just for kicks, assume that a license for a Windows95 machine costs $50 ( the same as a Linux distrubition ). Now multiply $50 times the number of Windows95 clients that we have in our labs alone ( not counting the fact that most of the falculty and staff have Windows ) and you're talking several thousand dollars.
You said, "And it was written by one guy from Finland -- and also a few thousand other people."
Clarification:
Linux was first begun by one person who started his effort as a school project. Sometime thereafter he posted mail and asked if anyone wanted to help with writing and development.
the assistance came from persons around the globe who have contributed their experience and expertise. Understand also that some of the contributions to Linux have come from persons who work as programmers
as their full time occupation as well as persons from the academic community.
You said,"And they're all working for free -- except the ones making money from it."
Comment:
Your writing style at this point would befuddle most since you're just contradicting everything you say. Yes, there are programmers that contribute their time and effort for free but make sure that you understand WHO is making money - not the programmers. The distribution
companies are the ones selling a convience and they are the ones who are making money as a result of their product - convience.
You said, "Best of all, the Linux source code is freely available.
What's source code? Well, it's sort of like a blueprint, or a set of plans, or a diagram, or -- hey, we're out of time! "
Clarification:
Source code is the human readable instructions that tell a computer what to do. Remember that computers don't speak in English or French,
they speak in zero's and one's. Source code is a set of instructions that a human being writes down that will tell a computer what to do. The human readable instructions are then translated into a form that the compuer can understand. Once the human readable instructions are translated into a form that the computer can understand, the computer can then execute those instructions.
You said, "The mass media did a pretty good job describing the Internet and even Java for ordinary businesspeople. But Linux baffled them. Maybe that's because there's a dirty little secret hidden beneath Linux's souurce, group-developed, hacker-philosophy, buzzword-happy surface."
Correction:
There are no secrets. That's the whole point! When you download the operating system you get the human readable instructions that tell the computer what to do as well ( ie, source code ). Although many poeple won't know what to do with source code, the idea is that it is there if you ever decide that you DO want to look at it or have the company tech people alter the operating system in some way that benefits the company. This is part of the opensource ideaology
( www.opensource.org/intro.html ).
Also, when the source code is available for anyone to see, the software benefits from what is called 'peer review'. Peer review is typically what happens when an academian submits a work (paper/thesis ) for review by his colleagues. Peer review allows the work to be held up for examination by persons who are the most qualified to judge the quality and/or correctness of the submission. If a work has had a long period of peer review and has still held up, only then is the work deemed valid ( or until proven otherwise ). Linux was begun almost 10 years ago and only now is coming to be known outside of the 'computer techie' community. Since that time the operating system has been tested in various ways by thousands of people from all ranges of programming competency. And, if one wanted to, they could submit changes/corrections/comments to the creator himself (torvalds@transmeta.com).
Some college professors use Linux as an operating system for study in computer science courses, but there's also the 15 year olds and the corporate IT people who study Linux as well.
You said, "Linux is just software.Not a revolutionary paradigm shift. Not the end of the software industry or even Microsoft. Not a religion, at least not for corporate IT people. Just another piece of software."
Linux is just software and it is free, such as are some other versions of operating systems(FreeBSD, NetBSD, Minix to name a few ). These free operating systems do make up a shift in thinking that begun a while ago. You may want to read some pages from the GNU web site (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html)
You said, "Giveaway software isn't exactly a radical idea these days. Just ask those wild-eyed anarchists at Netscape, Sun, Microsoft and IBM. And providing source code isn't just an old notion, it's positively ancient -- IBM did it routinely until the 1980s."
Comment:
Wild-eyed anarchists? Really
Give away software isn't radical, but the idea that you can obtain an entire computing environment for free is different from what most Windows95 users would probably be accustomed to. Free versions of unix have been around for years, but what is radical is the response from outside of the Linux community. Since the os has gained popularity,
companies such as Oracle (http://technet.oracle.com)
and Corel (http://linux.corel.com/linux8/download.htm ) have begun to offer their products for free for the Linux os.
You said, "Linux isn't even free -- not for corporate IT shops
Correction:
This statement is completely wrong. Linux is free for anyone.
You said, "That's all. Not exactly revolutionary."
Comment:
Linux is not revolutionary. What it represents is revolutionary. Due to the popularity of Linux, it has been placed in a position to
possibly challenge Microsoft in their own market. What makes this all the more interesting is that the challenger, Linux, is free.
You said, "Should you pay for outside support? (Probably, unless you want to be in the operating system business.) Should you let your in-house developers make changes to the source code? (Probably not, unless you love version-control hell.) Is there any real benefit to having source code?"
Comment:
Documentation for Linux is much easier to find than for any windows os.
Finally, I would suggest that you do more reading before your next submission on Linux. You could even try to install it on your own computer. This would allow you to have first hand experience and would also allow you to be able to separate fact from hype.
-Manny
it's going to be an uphill battle
The problem you site is part of the damage done by the Microsoft.Madison_Avenue crowd and their "computer as toaster" hype. Instead of promoting computer literacy, Windows and other "point-n-clickers" have dumbed down users. There will always be folks who will refuse to learn to do things the right way. However, the net effect of widespread adoption of Linux and the BSDs is going to be an overall increase in computing proficiency. The next generation of programmers and admins are going to hit the marketplace with a much better understanding of what makes systems work and how to solve problems. Corporate IT departments are going to begin to expect more from IT workers, be they programmers, admins or users. Knowing VB/VBA (or whatever MS replaces it with) isn't going to count for much five years from now.
slashdot broke my sig
Exactly right, "they" want a computer that works like a freakin' toaster, only a computer isn't a freakin' toaster. Microsoft have been selling this brain-dead myth for years and they have yet to deliver it. They never will deliver it--their time has expired--we're moving on.
We're overlooking the most important aspect of all this: take the average chucklehead Ziff-Davis "writer" who whines about how hard it is to install Linux and plunk him down in front of a brand spankin' new PC with a clean hard drive, no partitions. Hand him a Windows CD and tell him to call you when he's finished installing it. You'd better hand him a fifty-cent piece before you leave, because by the time he gets it installed a phone call will cost fifty cents.
The point is, Linux is no more difficult to install than Windows. If PCs with Linux pre-installed were readily available, installation issues wouldn't even be on the radar. Give the average Windows user a PC with any Linux distro and KDE or GNOME installed and he'll have no problem learning to use it. Maybe we should spend more time trying to figure out ways to get PC vendors to start shipping pre-installed boxes instead of worrying about how hard Linux is to install.
slashdot broke my sig
I have windows and I want to try linux...
I go buy a copy of SuSE.....
Insert boot floppy......
Insert live filesystem CD......
Power up.....
Select option to run filesystem off CD...
Get login prompt.........
Pass out from exhaustion/frustration......
The main thing people freak over is disk partitioning. SuSE and IIRC, RedHat current disto's can automagically partition the drive for you. Some enterprising vendor should bundle linux CD's with purchase of new HD.
Nice analogy...
I often use the automobile industry one myself, but that addresses a different aspect of what's happening.
Part of the reason that DIY became mainstream for homeowners was TV shows like "this old house" et al which gave people information about construction thereby demystifying it. There's plenty of people who'd rather pay a contractor to do the work but there are also plenty of people who can _afford_ to pay a contractor but still prefer to get down and dirty.
I'd also like to suggest that more important for Joe User is the availability of documentation than source code. Sure, sometimes the HOW-TO's are a little dated, but the info contained therein is still _useful_. Contrast this with the value of the "manual" that comes with, oh, lets say MS Exchange server, which fits more into the category of "brochure". In order to get any real info you need to spend $$ on a support contract and even then it's painfully time consuming to get answers that at best provide a course of action without any reason as to how or why things work (or don't work as the case may be)
"Linux is only free if your time is worthless"
,I might point out, is a programmer not an admin...
As stated, with regard to system administration, by Jamie Zawinski of mozilla fame, who
He was talking gratis there, not libre. Nothing is free in that sense. Everytime I see that quote I wonder how long ago he said it.
put spam in a toaster but I didn't know that you could get porn outta one.
Posted by The ULTIMATE Crippler:
You mean, I can't change anything at all about it that my heart desires?
I cannot legally copy it onto any medium and distribute it to my friends?
I don't have to pay a license fee every time I load a new machine?
OEM's don't have to sign ANY agreements with ANYBODY to preload it on systems?
This guy is very much hung up on the concept of "free" as meaning "free beer" and not "free speech".
You'd think a couple of minutes of actual research would have gone into this article.
Posted by The ULTIMATE Crippler:
Don't see how.
The expressions of my thoughts, opinions, and ideas are not comparable to sharing source code to software.
Apples and oranges, Ted.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
...all the money you have to fork over for third-party tools to do basic things like file system quotas or real login scripts under NT.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Inadept journalists will be part of this country's downfall. Due to the mass media there are still people who believe that this country banned "assault weapons" in 1994.
There are still people who believe that Bill Clinton's failed impeachment was "all about sex".
There are still people who believe that the American civil war was just about slavery.
There are still people who believe that the police are the "good guys".
This moron compared source code to blueprints or a movie script. Source code is more like bricks and mortar. A compiler and linker put it together.
Does he not know that in many situations where software is custom developed, a part of the agreement is that a neutral third party must hold a copy of all of the source code in case the supplier goes belly up?
Source code is more important than the compiled executables in terms of the big picture. If someone could decompile all of M$' source code to Win2K and format it in a readable fashion, M$ would sue everyone from that person's kindergarten teacher to the clerk at Starbucks who served French Mocha Blend to him/her that week.
Just like every other shift in the computing paradigm, Linux will take time to mature. 30 years ago you would have been laugned at if you said that eventually every home (or close to it) in te US would have a computer. Where are we today?
20 years ago you'd have been laughed at if you told someone that the richest man in the world would be the CEO of a software company instead of the chairman of some media/movie/oil company. Where are we today?
A decade ago you'd have been laughed at if you told someone that you could buy off of the shelf PCs for $150,000 and link them together and match the performance of a 5.5 million dollar supercomputer. Where are we today?
Why do so many people seem in-fucking-capable of getting it?
LK
Posted by patg:
He didn't really say anything bad (except about windows 2000)...
Posted by Ominous the Foreboding:
Hmmm...
Maybe Linux is the final nail in the coffin of Windows -- the guiding light that will show the world that it doesn't have to blindly follow Microsoft into the depths of despair. Perhaps, as more and more Open Source software makes headlines, the world will slip away from the all-encompassing marketing-monster that is Bill, and into a world of better software by better authors...
Or, maybe Linux is just a fad -- the zealous obsession of a bunch of college nerds who think that squeezing every last drop of performance out of their aging hardware will somehow make up for the fact that they aren't gettin' any...
Or, maybe Linux is the unified alternative for the new age. Perhaps, as it is ported to more and more hardware platforms, and as desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome develop, Linux will succeed in uniting the second-stringers (who are currently using OS/2, Macs, Amigas, BeOS, etc.) into a force that can stand toe-to-toe and head-to-head against the Gates of Hell...
Or, maybe Linux is a plot by a pinko-commie bastard from Finland to convince red-blooded American programmers that they shouldn't expect to be paid for their hard work, and to instead code "for the good of all mankind", all in an attempt to begin the transition to the New World Order...
Personally, I tend to agree that it's just software...
... but, unlike Windows, it's damn good software.
Posted by pennacook:
well this actually showed up in Computer World from one of the "editorial staff" that can't keep his mind straight on anything anyways... I think they still don't understand the linux community and are getting on that "bandwagon" tooo late from most other weekly news mags anyways... heck CNN is a buzzword and hype afterall isn't it? heh...
pennacook
Posted by Elvis27:
If linux is to become 'the next BIG OS' like many people are saying it will be, people like this guy are going to be most people's only source of information. The average user doesn't read slashdot but does watch CNN, so let's not be too hard on him. We should try to convince him of the greatness of Linux, but if we flame him, he'll probably fight us and the last this Linux needs is bad press.
Posted by Kastern:
Those Idiots. That "Journalist" probably didn't even take himself to Linux Expo or whatever.
All he said was junk. if he really actually used it he would probably change his mind.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>Read in this context, the article doesn't say a bad thing about Linux.
He does severely downplay Linux's importance and potential. Linux has already started to change the way people think about software and computing.
Do you think that Windoze CE will ever power a car MP3 player?
So I ask my question again.
LK
So you're making proprietory comments about free software? that's funny!
TedC
Well, I don't know about opinions, but it should be obvious that a person's thoughts and ideas are expressed in the software they write.
TedC
Bad analogy. (Just like all analogies.)
The people who have Car X also cannot unlock the door to the car. They have to break the window to get out. The thing is, they don't want to get out. To get out would deprive them of the gloves (data) they have stuck in the glovebox. Until the Car Y people come up with keys to the Car X car and a way to convert the gloves in the Car X glovebox, to a Car Y glovebox, Car X will always dominate.
(Anyway, data is the key. Until, MS Office 97/2000 documents can be handled easily in Linux/BSD/whatever, there will always be Car X.)
And, he has quite the consumer mentality. Every time I've sent a patch upstream, the author has incorporated it into the next version...
Funny how what has become 1st quarter 2000 release of W*ndows 2000 is regarded as the future of the world by all businesses big and small yet Linux which is here today is all hype and buzzwords.
While there were definite flaws to some of his premises, I think his overall argument is sound: the mass media can't describe "what source code is and why it's good when it's open" in a three-minute sound bite.
In other words: the mainstream has a chronic case of Attention Deficit Disorder.
...and that my friends, is the (potentially) major limiting factor to the open source trend: It expects mainstream programmers to become *more* competent.
Put another way, open source is partially an attempt to reverse a bad trend: instead of making programming easier for baboons, make programming easier for competent people who want to collaborate.
Think it will work? We live in a world where Visual Basic is the #1-used language and VB programmers outnumber UNIX programmers. Conservatively, (imho) 1/2 of those VB programmers are hopelessly incompetent.... it's going to be an uphill battle, but it sure is fun!
-Stu
I'm surprised that Linux is hype and buzzwords. I've used it for five years and gotten lots of work done with it including using it for homework for my math and computer science degrees.
I had no idea it was just hype. Someone should tell Linus and Alan so they can give it up.
Maybe I should quit using it and use Windows 2000. Ooops, that's just hype, too. I could get an IMac---no, that's hype. Okay, I'll get an Amiga, no, there's hype about their comeback. WAIT! An Apple IIGS, no one gives a shit about those anymore. I can no go live in a world free of hype. Where can I get a IIGS?
Uh, free software is copyrighted.
If it wasn't copyrighted, it'd be public domain, which would allow anyone to take the source, make proprietary changes, and sell it 100% closed.
Read the GPL, and see for yourself.
--
One good core point he made (after missing the point of "free"; "my plumber is a free man, yet I have to pay him -- how odd") was that the media has not found a quick way to tell the reader what source code *is*.
"Blueprint" is the closest they've come, which just doesn't make the point well enough.
So; who can summarise what source code is in the fewest words, without making it unclear?
--
I'll say first that Gnome should never have been released so early. But I can't let some of these comments stand: .debs that didn't install cleanly. (although in this case the software would be broken and incomplete when the install finished)
- themability vs functionality. Which functionality is missing in Gnome (as opposed to simply being broken in your install or not-yet-implemented? I already said: Gnome is unfinished. I contend that it is not, however, fundamentally flawed.)
- Gnome wrecks most distributions and breaks other apps. Most of Gnome's dependencies were satisfied by libs in my distribution! (libpng and friends). I've been running with zillions of different GTK+ versions on my system for months with no ill effects. Heck, I've been running with ten or fifteen versions of the Gnome libraries (generated from a compile script that compiles stuff overnight) In addition, I could now install debs of Gnome. I haven't, just because my CVS compile works perfectly well for me. This is much more significant than RPMs being available, since (as has been observed) RPMs generally consist of a bunch of random files thrown together into an archive. I can't think of any
- Modularity. First of all--AFAIK, you can configure gnome-libs to not link against esd if you so please. Again as far as I know, the same goes for other libraries. If you don't want to install libjpeg, don't.
Given the tone of your post, though, I suspect you're a 'true believer' and attempting to bring up anything so crass and propogandistic as facts is useless, so I won't even mention anything about all the Gnome developers who don't get RedHat paychecks. Oh well.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Perhaps they *prefer* writing English to C? Money isn't everything!
Steve (who writes reviews of Linux applications for his web site, despite being perfectly capable of writing code)
It seems pointless to write an article on a topic you don't understand. Unless the point is too say "i'm too ignorant to try and understand". It's people like this that confuse the masses, not the programmers or sysadmins who talk computer jargen. If he's going to take the time to write an article, he should take the time to research his topic. It's easy to understand why he's been trying to understand source code "for 20 years"... i'm trying to figure out how he got a job writing computer columns!
"Give me liberty, or give me death, Zogwarg Queen!" - Spiff.
What exactly was the purpose of that stupid article by Hayes from CNN? The secret is that Linux is just "software"????
Hey you dumbass!!!
The secret to Linux/Open Source is that there are no secrets. Secrets are something that those mf's at Microsoft bundle up and sell. Yes, nothing more than a secret. Good software can be written buy Internet communities and not be a secret. I suspect that his motivation for writing the article is more than an unbiased point of view.
The up-front costs of an operating system are still considerable. We're currently using Wincenter here to serve out MS-Windows apps to our X-Terminals. The cost of "upgrading" to MS-Windows Terminal Server is astronomical; it'd eat up our entire IT budget. The cost of licensing is considerable, and the cost of support is overblown.
As far as support personell go, a hospital in Anchorage, AK is looking at moving to Network Computers because they can no longer afford to support 1300 PC desktops. They're coming to look at our setup, since X-Terminals are just NCs. (Our X-Terminals have their own JVM.) In a network environment, it takes more people to handle a distributed NT network than it does a comparably-priced Unix or Linux network. So your support costs are greater for NT, as well as your upfront costs.
Plus, he underestimates how different Free (Open Source) Software is as a development model from the other models that came before. Sure, IBM distributed source code; but it wasn't available to just *any*one. And nobody could contribute back to the source. Frank Hayes shows his lack of imagination; he's a stodgy Big Iron man who's followed the growth of PCs from a Microsoft perspective. He's a decent enough reporter; he just lacks imagination and understanding.
*I* am a commercial IT person, and Linux is more than just software; it is freedom. I am in a position to make my own decisions, because my business superiors realize they pay me big bucks to make the correct decisions for them. Because of that, I use Linux where possible, because it *is* less expensive in both support and direct costs.
- Tony
I just finished installing SuSE 5.2. VERY advanced, and relatively easy. (Easier than Red Hat 5.2, in my opinion.) And 6.0 is rumoured to be *extremely* simple.
My point? The "difficult to install" myth is now just that-- it's a myth. "Difficult to use" may still be true, but the install is painless. My S.O. could do it, and she *hates* computers.
I sill wouldn't expect her to set up Gnome or anything, but the next Red Hat distribution should solve that problem. And I'm working on the "lack of applications" myth. Are you?
And I think this takes care of another myth-- that "the computer elite" that develops Linux doesn't care about ease-of-use. We do. We've been working on an easy-to-use and powerful desktop; the KDE team is already there. (Personally, I think Gnome has more potential; that's why I develop for Gnome. But KDE is already easy-to-use, and well along the development path.)
So. Linux is now easy-to-install; we have lots of applications; and now we turn our attention to easy-to-use applications, which is the *only* Linux shortcoming in the personal-use sphere. (In server space, we still need a journalling filesystem, and a transparent clustering technology. Beowolf is not transparent, though it is powerful.)
so you're all claiming that Linux isn't just software now? Man. It sure seemed like software to me. I must have been using it wrong all these years.
Computers and Houses
Back in the old days, if you wanted to build a house, you gathered up all the stuff yourself
and built the thing. As communities formed, houses got built by enlisting the help of all your
neighbors "barn-raising" style. Then mass market set in and "cookie-cutter" houses became the norm.
The pendulum eventually swung back, semi-custom homes became all the rage and fix-er-upers became
a booming business. Home Depot, Home Base, and Builder's Square became a booming multi-billion
dollar business providing home buyers with free advice to lure people into purchasing the raw
materials for houses from them. Upgrading your house became both a hobby and a national obsession.
Back in the old days, if you wanted to build a computer, you gathered up all the stuff yourself
and built the thing. As communities formed, computers got built by enlisting the help of all
your neighbors "plug-board" style. Then mass market set in and "cookie-cutter" computers became
the norm. The pendulum eventually swung back, build-to-order computers became all the rage and
upgrades and free-software became a booming business. Red Hat, Cygnus, and VA research became
a booming multi-million dollar business providing computer buyers with free advice to lure people
into purchasing the raw materials for computers from them... to be continued...
They quoted the MS party line almost verbatim! That's uncanny!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Exactly right, "they" want a computer that works like a freakin' toaster, only a computer isn't a freakin' toaster. Microsoft have been selling this brain-dead myth for years and they have yet to deliver it. They never will deliver it--their time has expired--we're moving on.
Then Linux is as good as dead already.
People must have a sufficient reason for learning how to use a new tool. Those of us who particpate in these forums take for granted this drive inside of us. We'll spend all day, all week, or all month to get something to work. For the average Joe, if he can't figure it out within a few minutes, it ain't worth it. Average Joe doesn't know how to set the time on his VCR but knows how to insert a tape and press play.
That's where the ultimate utility of a computer has always been dreamed about and will continue to be steered toward. Why is the web browser the most revolutionary piece of software in the past 10 years? Because you don't need an e-mail client, FTP client, or gopher, or WAIS, or any of the other rubbish. You point and click in what has become a fairly consistant interface across different implementations. That's a huge step forward from the hodge-podge of solutions that were around before.
Microsoft can be villified for a great many things, but for promoting the "myth" that a computer can be as easy to use as a toaster? They're doing nothing more elaborate than parroting back what people say they want. And despite the caws and screeches from the peanut gallery, they do a decent job of inching ever so slowly toward that goal.
"Open Source" and "free" are quaint and cosy buzz-words for the new hacker community, but they don't go far in a world that wants the results from a product that allows them to do what they want to do in the easiest and most painless way possible. At this moment, only Microsoft (and possibly Apple) come close to catering to the consumer market on THEIR terms.
If the Linux community ever decides to do that, then there'll be real reason for Microsoft to be scared. In a big way.
Well, some members of the audience actually saw the parenthetical note the author put after that comment, which was
but I guess not everybody did.I couldn't have said it better myself. (aside from a few grammer missteps.)
These *pop* writers who casually throw around words like 'wild-eyed' and 'anarchist' without really expaining themselves, don't deserve much respect anyway. But I guess the target audience for CNN are the clueless masses who couldn't think critically if their life depended on it.
I guess he now has a whole pile of mail in his box, but this is what I just sent him:
--
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:27:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Bert Lindner
To: Frank Hayes of ComputerWorld/CNN
Subject: Source: the recipe
Hi Frank,
I strongly diagree on your 'no-big-deal' opinion of Linux and Open Source,
I think it's one of the most interesting phenomena in the history of
computing, comparable only with things like the Internet. But then I would
probably qualify as a 'techie' so I'm in the wrong camp, I would
'obviously' think so. I don't think the hype (there _is_ hype) is
necessary, but that doesn't make it less important.
A good way to explain computer source code I think is as
a recipe
for making a computer program. Just that. I didn't make that up myself, I
recently saw that on a web site.
Regards,
-Bert Lindner, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PS Linux _is_ free even for corporate IT shops, but they may _choose_ to
pay somebody to provide support for them. Anyone may download and use
Linux, for personal _and_ business use.
First, most business-oriented people I talk to in the Real World don't care whether they have to spend $X to get a system running, don't care about the nobility of the FSF, and don't care that the end-user is happy or not (if they did, LinuxPPC would be hell on wheels). What they want is what all the other kids want: Microsoft.
Bill is the sort of guy they can relate to, or at least think they can relate to: a tough-as-nails, suit-wearing, golf-playing, short-haired WASP who looks good in annual reports, and clawed his way up from the bottom to make it to where he is. No one ever points out to them that he never wrote anything worthwhile, much less Windows, has almost no status (except as flamebait) in the hacker (in the RMS sense) community, and is probably given large doses of Valium before interviews so he doesn't start rocking, mumbling, or scratching himself. It's only Big Government who doesn't like him, (like the IRS, right?) and all the other guys really just wish they had that kind of money. (As if a couple more billion would buy Steve Jobs a better wardrobe, or Scott Mc Neely a nicer collar for Network, right?)
CNN caters to these people.
Linus and Richard and Eric are people they can't understand: they like working, for chrissake! So of course they're going to think, if it's free, it's not worth anything, and even if it was, it carries a hidden pricetag. The abovementioned aren't exactly starving: so they're doing it for the money, after all. They act like the hippies they stopped being fifteen years ago and dismissed as being incompetants: so of course anything they do is just MTV hype and hot air.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with them without a drink in my hand.
teleny, friend of cats.
okay, let me see if i can understand this.
There are two cars on the market, car X, and car Y. car X costs an arm and a leg. car Y is free if you are willing to go to the factory and pick up the parts and assemble it in your garage (the instructions to do so are also free and comes with it.) You can also purchase car Y for a small fee from car dealers who assembled it themsselves and provide some basic support.
Car X needs alot of gas to even get out of the driveway, not to mention you constantly pay the manufacture to fix (upgraded) problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place, plus it can't drive for long periods of time without suddenly going off the road and killing who ever is in the passenger seat. You also need alot of mechanics at hand to fix it when things go wrong. It can only drive on certain roads, and tend to not see or ignore other cars on the road. It comes without some of the parts that you need to make the car work, but its okay cause there are tons of stores that will sell those parts to you for a "small fee."
Car Y needs very little gas to run on, and comes with all the parts and tools that the car can ever need. there are few stores that sell parts for the car, but you can order parts from other car owners who will give it to you for free. It can drive for long distances without having to pull over and give its system a rest, and can drive on almost any road, and if it can't, someone somewhere is working on a way to get it to go down that road. when it does breakdown, it can be fixed remotely, hell, you can even drive the thing remotly. It gets along with all the other cars on the road, and does not try to run them off the road (like some other car that i shall not mention).
Now, because alot of people already own Car X, and they wasted a ton of money in buying and maintaining car x, it will actually cost them more over a period of time to stick with car x than to switch to car y. If they cannot see this fact, then they have been riding in the passenger seat of that car for too long.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
I thought it was the coffee flavor of the month at dunkin donuts.....
Thanks Captain Obvious
Perhaps you could refer to yourself as "Gnu-ledgeable"
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It seems that he does not know what the concepts of source code, open source and free mean. Perhaps we can inform him... he has hisemail at the bottom of the page.
pronoblem
It seems like anyone who knew enough about Linux to write a decent article would know enough to get a better paying job as a sysadmin or programmer. This sometimes goes for technical documentation and Q/A departments too. If you want to read good technology articles from the "mainstream" press, check out The Economist.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
I find myself asking the question you just asked all the time.
logan
Damn it, people shouldn't view the text so fast. He was just explaining why the media can't quite grasp what's so great about free software.
:)
I liked the article quite a bit. Critical, pointing out it's just software. It is considered good or bad by its quality as such.
As for myself, I've done some of that kicking of a bunch of Linux tires and haven't yet found too big lacks. That doesn't say the system as a whole wouldn't have its weaknesses - one still can't honestly tell ordinary dummies to use it.
As for the total cost of upkeep being the same as for NT, I do disagree, but that can be argued upon. Endlessly, so far.
Well, quite a long "me too"
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
Wow, you're one of the few who actually read and understood =) I'm just about fed up with /.ers who refuse to think. Even CmdrTaco missed something, for some reason he thought the author was dwelling on an explanation of source code. Perhaps I should review..
"...The mass media did a pretty good job describing the Internet and even Java for ordinary businesspeople. But Linux baffled them..."
His closing statement makes it even more obvious that he has a clue. He wants Linux supporters to explain to the suits why they should give Linux any attention. Don't confuse them by showing them how to compile a kernel. They don't care. Money talks. If they can save some, they'll love Linux.
Linux is only free if your time is worthless
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Free software isn't new, it's just breaking into the mainstream. The concepts behind Linux aren't new, it is just software. But when Apache consistently wipes the floor with IIS, people suddenly realize that those so-called "business solutions" are also "just software". Free software has rubbed off a lot of the magic dust that used to collect on proprietary software.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
If you hope others will make points that you missed, it would help if you posted a copy of your letter. :)
He raises points like the fact that Linux is free and that the source code is available but to Joe User, does this really matter? Does he understand that this "feature" of Linux makes it better than other OS's because of all those knowledgeable persons that contributed to it? A lot of non-tech type friends I talked to are convinced that they are the ones who should write kernel patches.
There is a lot of media coverage of Linux lately, and a lot of it focuses on the fact that everybody can modify the source code.
Our mission: education! Let people know that they DON'T HAVE to tweak the source code.
M.
Man, this article got me hot at first... I thought it came straight out of M$'s PR department, but by the end of the article I realized that it's actually pretty good journalism, Bottom line: it makes the case that people need to learn more about Linux, and have it explained better. Hmm. Kinda cool.
This part in particular looked just like something I've seen mentioned frequently in anti-linux FUD stuff:
Linux isn't even free -- not for
corporate IT shops, anyhow. Add
up the costs of installation,
testing, support, training and the
political infighting that comes
with any new technology in an IT
shop, and your total cost of
running Linux is about the same
as NT, Unix or anything else. The
"free" sticker price is a tiny
fraction of that cost.
Well, true... kinda. I don't know about you, but the price makes a big difference to me... can't beat free. For corporate shops, I just plain don't agree that the price of owning linux will be anywhere near the price of owning NT.. you've got big licences to pay, and getting bigger all the time. Plus you've got a lot more downtime, that's gotta cost. Well.... hmm, ok, so I guess the best thing to do is try'n educate this guy, and clear up some of his.... confusion
(Oops, I just read the advice about not starting new threads, but, oh well, it's my first time soo...)
-----------
I'm supposed to write something clever here but I couldn't think of anything clever so I wrote this
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
If I recall, nothing perpetuates faster than a misquote. You should know better than to assume a quote that came from Bill Gates is accurate.
It was more along the lines of "...I can envision a day when every that can be patented will have been." Not much better, but less egregious than what's being thrown around.
pooptruck
Wow. Thats probably one of the truest things I've ever heard said. Thank you, dear AC, for helping me to SEE THE LIGHT! I have been enlightened! (and I use e too)
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
Actually,
For workstations in the corporate environment I prefer NT workstations to anything else availible. It's easier to hire some Joe Schmoe off the street who knows his way around the NT interface than it is to find someone who knows one of the 30 different X windows interfaces we have out there.
I say, Unix for backoffice, NT for workstations. Lock them down and chain the users to their desks. Choice is bad. Conformity is good! Resistance is Futile! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTER...
Oh... sorry...
Man Linux is getting so much coverage lately. I hope all of this does alot of good for Linux.
Natas
www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Natas of
-=Pedophagia=-
http://www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Also Admin of
http://loki.linuxgames.com
From a developer's standpoint, I think the importance of source code can be summed up fairly succinctly:
And they're all working for free - except the ones making money from it.
Great great.
Linux is only free if your time is worthless
By that same logic, then if my time has value, Windows is very, very expensive since it is more frustratingly time consuming than Linux by far. Linux works and works well, whereas it is a chore to reliably do anything with Windows.
Linux - you can't give it away.
NT - happy customers willing to pay.
Live with it!
Troll breath. Red Hat and SuSE seem to be able to find a lot of people willing to pay for Linux. Not all NT customers are happy (or I should say a lot of NT customers I know are unhappy. And even those that are happy. Well, the "Who's on crack?" might fit -- a lot of crack customers are happy as long as they are getting their stuff.
The good thing is I don't have to live with it, so deal with the fact that more and more of us are opting against Microsoft every day.
The source code is important so that you can compile and install the modules and devices with the optimizations that you need rather than have a one-size fits all kernel. But no one has to install the source if they don't want to do this. {insert your favorite distribution} will install functional, precompiled modules. It's valuable just having the option even if you don't choose to take advantage of it.
In the long run, the source code is crucial so that Linux will continue to exist and be supported. How many good commercial products have died an ignoble death just because the company that bought the code didn't want to enhance or support it any more? How many good products have been bought and buried so that an inferior product would be preserved from competition? This *can't* happen with Linux or with GNU.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This sorta thing was sure to pop up amid all the good press... Media freaks are always trying to pop hype balloons. It's the way they see to get noticed by the likes of slashdotters. Of course, maybe the author of that article should read Cathedral vs. Bazaar again...
-- Game over man, game over!
Here you go:
frank_hayes@computerworld.com
Bowie J. Poag
Commercial IT people are, generally speaking, a bunch of clueless half-wits whose credentials are a business school MIS degree and a piece of paper saying they passed their CNA test.
A command line to these folks is like showing them something written in Chinese (unless you happen to read Chinese...) They live by their point n click "zero-admin" tools, auto-run CD's, and couldn't code a simple binary search algorithm in old MS-BASIC.
Speaking from experience, I've had to explain to heads of IT deptartments that a "server" is not a $10000 computer, but a stupid little IP-aware program.
They live off buzzwords like "deployment" "business-critical" "infrastructure" and can't install a screensaver without it first having to go through the corporate software evalution procedure.
If they'd quit kneeling and kow-towing at the throne of Mr. Gate's Empire, listening to the latest marketing PR as if it were the gospel....
The truth is, if they'd install tools that basically run themselves once set up properly (i.e. Linux) they'd all be out of jobs. Bob the rebooter would have to go back to the mail-room.
Corporate BS vs. Common Sense.
Blech. Signatures.
...of a quote from the head of the U.S. Patent Office back in the late 1800's:
"Everything that can be invented, has been invented."
This columnist should read more history. He might develop an education.
---
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom."
"Add up the costs of installation, testing, support, training and the political infighting that comes with any new technology in an IT shop, and your total cost of running Linux is about the same as NT, Unix or anything else."
Excuse me? Maybe add up all the support costs and the SUPPORT COSTS are the same as anything else, but I didn't see any $600 copies of server software or absurd licensing costs in Linux. When was the last time somebody rolled out 200 copies of NT for $40?
Since when did the perspective of commercial IT people make a difference in a price/performance analysis of OSs? The last company I [net]worked at was running an almost complete linux backend production setup on low-end (133-200 mhz/64-128M ram) systems.
Price/performance comparisons of the linux and NT hardware and software in this shop were at least 10 to 1 in favor of linux systems. We didn't have to pay massive licenses for the software, and it would run on hardware that NT would choke before it managed to boot. We didn't have to drive in in the middle of the night to reboot the linux boxes. We could accomplish four or five times as much on half the hardware with linux. Seems like a fucking cheap os to me.
When was the last time somebody rolled out 200 copies of NT for $40?
I did but don't call 1-800-RU-LEGIT...
I don't want them to know!
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
I don't get it.
...because people understand it instantly. Hearing something like that will immediately get even a total non-techie to realize that the "free" in "people say Linux is free" has nothing to do with monetary cost.
Of course, the real cynical ones may disagree with the assertion, but by that point, they already understand the point of the analogy.
Besides, people do say that the U.S. is free. Whether they're right or not has little to do with the validity of the analogy.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
I like that.
"Linux is just software".
To it, I'll add: "Windows is unjust software"
Oops, the justice department beat me to it.
ARGGGH!
This guy is very much hung up on the concept of "free" as meaning "free beer" and not "free speech".
heh. Absolutely.
hmm... mebbe whe should get him together in an enclosed space with RMS!
Now there'd be a good use for the guy!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Now I'm not a "fifth-rate journalistic hack," I know for sure which one I'd be more likely ro read and take seriously.
While I may not do much either way in response to the second one ("While I appreciate your trying to demystify [...]"), I know that any letter that started off with, "Hey you ignorant moron, toot toot!" would be instantly chucked in the trash without my reading another word of it.
It may make the sender feel better, but would probably never even be read, let alone paid attention to by the recipient.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
What? You think a journalist should let "facts" get in the way of a good story?
After all, truth is what the media say it is.
*BSD wants YOU!
Seriously, though, S:N is better in those camps.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Mmm... GNUCERT - Certification of Programming Competence by Peer Review.
Heheheh... hmm... not half-jokingly, I wonder if a professional certification could be set up along these lines? It'd be a few more letters to add behind your name, and would be a clue, if professionally handled, as to the competence of a hacker.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Much like those who would add an 'o' to the word genius?
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
nuff said?
-- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
This guy's article has absolutely no point. But, at least he said the word "Linux" a bunch of times.
The more everyone says the word, the more confidence people will have in it.
-----
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
http://www.Windows2Linux.org (Submit your Links)
Everything y
Security. With, say, a Windows IRC client, you can't just grep through the source code for any tricks or trojans. It'd be awfully hard to sneak in some code to, say, upload your /etc/passwd to some hotmail.com account without anyone noticing. With, say, Windows software, it'd be quite possible to just send your registry info, your name, etc, etc. Oh wait. Microsoft already _did_ that. Oh, wait. So did Blizzard... Hmm. Having the source code makes it relatively easy to grep for things like strcpy() and other security holes along those lines.
.h files to find obscure #defines and the like. Lots faster than reading 400k of documentation when you're just looking for one thing. (which comes to mind mostly because I finally got around to playing with libggi last night.)
Source code is also a really handy way to learn programming. Download a library, compile it, flip through some of the example programs, grep through some
I must be reading a different article, but what I see is a reporter poking sarcastic fun at the other reporters that couldn't figure out exactly what type of "spin" to put on the Linux phenom as they reported it to their viewers/readers.
He is actually very unbiased in the article from a serious point and simply points out issues that we are all aware of (Linux is free, but a Red Hat CD costs $50 - nothing new or misleading there).
My suggestion, take two deep breaths, close one eye, and re-read the article completely.
Tim Jones BRUmeister - the keeper of the BRU
I don't think many of the posters understand where this article is coming from. Rather than being another clueless journalist, he's really referring all the clueless journalists. That first paragraph, about "free...but 50 bucks" isn't his confusion, but rather an example of the confusion already rampant.
I think he's trying to say that Linux supporters haven't done a very good job explaining why Linux is so great. For instance, its great that Linux can be modified in-house, but not every site needs that. He does point out the advantage when talking about vendor-forced upgrades, so I think he does have some clue.
The bit about costs is valid, consider the price of the computer, operating room and, most of all, IT personnel and the difference between 0 and a thousand dollars is quite insignificant.
He was trying to cut through the hype and see exactly what Linux brings to the table. Linux isn't a revolution, it's software. Open-source development may yet quality as a revolution, but I think its still early to declare victory.
Instead of seeing this as a attack, look at it as an opportunity. He is telling us where Linux advocacy is failing, lets use this to spread the word more effectively.
>of the computer, operating room and, most of all,
>IT personnel and the difference between 0 and a
>thousand dollars is quite insignificant.
Very good point. Maybe we should try to fill in some details, i.e. most of the folks here don't run big server farms for a living.
To run an office of a decent size, you should have the following server room facilities:
In an environment like this, another few grand for the OS isn't a show stopper. That's why Solaris and SCO and AIX and HPUX etc haven't been blown away by the various free *nix's.
Don't confuse the Linux workstation/firewall/router in your apartment with the email server for 10,000 people, these are two totally different worlds with totally different rules.
In big shops, folks have been moving to Free Software/Open Source because it works, not because they save a handfull of $$$ on server licenses.
However, the major focus of his article was how media coverage had a huge Hype/Info ratio. I missed this and attempted to clarify RH Linux pricing for him. (New rule for me--always read an article twice before responding).
Mr. Hayes' response was courteous and detailed. He is not Linux clue-impaired. He made the point that my success with Linux was due to accurately evaluating, then using Linux.
He noted the article on CNN was a modified version of his original on the Computerworld site. Computerworld is IT-focused. Overall, he did a good job cautioning those who woud dismiss (or blindly embrace) Linux to use common sense.
I e-mailed him and he responded very quickly.
Basically he said that he wrote that article
for compuworld or whatever, and was upset to
see CNN edit it and release it to the mainstream
because he knew it would be taken wrong by
audiences other than IT departments.
He claims it was mostly to make fun of the main
stream press and hype, but after re-reading his
article, I still have a hard time believing that.
I always thought that journalists were expected to do a few minutes of research before writing stories. Guess I was wrong.
Agreed. Unfortunatelly lots of people without
a brain of their own start flamming Windows and
promoting Linux just because it's the c00l thing to do.
Well I like and use Linux (slackware), and I don't like
Microsoft nor their tactics, but I don't like seeing people
trash MS just because they are MS. e.g. Windows crashes: Everybody trashes MS
Linux crashes: not even a word. Yes, and Linux can also crash.
What is diferent is the philosophy (see Cathedral & Bazar by ESR)
So Make Code not War!
Take some of your own advice, scrytch.
free!=worthless, get a dictionary.
It took me a while to pick up speed with my NT -> Linux switchout. However, it's saved me megabucks in uptime, stability, and flexibility. The least cost in the equation is the NT licences I didn't need (@$8000 for my 5 WAN servers). Running NT just cost too damn much, and it's hard to look good with server crashes. Our NT guys still have one crash a week.....
I don't know if this is why the source code is "important", but I sure find it handy when I can compile modules into a project - a la Apache.
You have to love being able to add mod_perl, php or whatever to the server after the fact.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Whether it's related to science, firearms, foreign affairs, software, or anything else that require intellect, these self appointed experts just never seem to get it. A little research would help, but that would be work and avoiding work seems to be why these guys got into journalism in the first place.
Al Gore recently claimed to have invented the internet.
If Linux is just hype and buzzwords, what is
Windows?
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
From experience, running an NT network requires way more support. For example, we have two NT servers serving approx 25 clients PCs needing all of about 2 fulltime sysadmins' time. In contrast, the UNIX network in the department (1 Sun server + about 50 workstations and Xterminals) is run by a researcher in his spare time.
Additionally, the NT setup seems to be perpetually broken, while the UNIX network supports world-class research.
D.
Sorry, I couldn't tell if you were doing a Borg impression or a Dalek impression. Actually, it always seemed to me that the Borg dialogue was lifted straight from the Daleks dialogue with "exterminated" replaced with "assimilated".
I'm not going to cover the same points that others have about how the time spent on Linux is more of an investment than a waste. I am going to point out, for the thousandth time (honest, really, I'm counting, would I lie?) that the "Free" in free software does not mean gratis. There's an often used analogy: Free Speech vs. Free Beer. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Which is not to say that Linux is not also available gratis. That the software is available gratis (Free Beer) is a side effect inseperable from the fact that it is free (as in free speech). Some people claim that since you don't get the net bandwidth or the cd, or whatever other medium you use to obtain Linux, for free, Linux is therefore not gratis. That's ridiculous. As an example, let's say that someone is giving away free christmas trees. Just because they don't also transport the tree to your home, set it up, decorate it, and then come back after Christmas and remove it for you doesn't mean that the tree was not gratis. The same thing applies to time spent on Linux as well, it may be that you can add it to total cost of ownership, but that doesn't make it non-free.
Not surprising it comes from CNN-- almost all journalists are very poor, but CNN has some that are very, very, very poor. But you must have known this already, no?
They're not writing for you, anyway. You only read it 'cause it was linked on /. Funny:
Peace.
"Linux isn't even free ... Add up the costs of installation, testing, support, training and the political infighting that comes with any new technology in an IT shop, and your total cost of running Linux is about the same as NT ..."
:)
Uh, okay. Last time I checked, Windows NT and other OS's also required installation, testing, support, training, ON TOP OF a hefty price tag. I believe that it definately DOES save money, and quite a bit too.
"Should you let your in-house developers make changes to the source code? (Probably not, unless you love version-control hell.) "
I don't see this as a negative, if you have competent programmers at work
"Should I really consider software written piecemeal by thousands of programmers in an anarchic development setting?"
This is funny. The author would rather run software developed by power-hungry, greedy, market orientated software giants that care little for the end user, than software written BY the end user for the end user and tested on thousands of different machines under thousands of different real-life scenarios. Go ahead, be my guest..! I'll trust Linus's decision making over the "how much richer can I be today" Gates any day.
"Linux simply isn't something TV and radio can explain to a mainstream audience in three minutes of sound bites."
Linux is not for the mainstream audience. It is for A) The techincal hacker who enjoys a complete control and customization of his/her machine. B) The moderately skilled user who WANTS to know more, and C) The network IT professionals who want to run a stable and secure network. All three of these types of people know what's going on, they are not the "mainstream home user". For the average Joe, that's what Windows is designed for.
"Frank Hayes...has been looking for a good way to explain source code for 20 years."
And this guy is writing a column on Linux? Geez!
The time I've spent on Linux, learning the insides of the operating system, how everything works, ect. has been anything but worthless. In fact, It's been quite enjoyable, and from the knowledge I've gained, actually lead to higher paying salaries and job advancements.
I would be interested to know what you consider to be "time well spent"...
Yes, you are correct. I also believe it was said during the last decade or so of the 19th century (please correct me if I'm wrong...:-)
Interesting point. But you did leave out one major point. Rebooting doesn't take long (on my 460MHz P2 :) ), but there is a possibily of damage to the filesystem (especially the flaky FAT16/32) that can corrupt drivers/system files/ect if they were in use when Windows croaked. I've had the registry get wacked because of a blue-screen reboot, which caused me to reinstall all of Win95 over again. How much time was REALLY wasted there!
Instead of or in addition to "open source," a good label is "peer-reviewed software." The concept would be far easier to explain to non-programmers, and would resonate better with people interested in quality but who aren't ever likely to muck with the source themselves.
$0.02 from a journalist who runs Linux.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left Zulus
Today, when you want to build or fix some contemporary (free) software, you go to the source code directory and look...
(...)
...And that's how free software like Linux grew to what it is today. Thanks to the Internet and the freedom of spirit.
Dear Journalist, maybe you got the point now.
>Everything that can be invented, has been invented."
If I recall, wasn't this quote in reference to why they wanted to close the patent office (not kidding)
Y'see, y'see it's because these kids todayyayyyy. They have the
Brain
Damage
Because CNN is competing with MTV for viewers. Yo! Wolf Blitzer Raps!
In all seriousness, trying to explain source code to non-techie people is going to go over about as well as trying to explain the finer points of microeconomics. Nobody will understand, and even if they did they wouldn't care.
I have my own ideas of why, but I would like to hear some other good answers.
IMHO, there are several reasons, but I think the media always makes the mistake of saying that "The source code is freely available so that anyone can modify it." I've never modified the kernel or any other open source software, but having it open source does allow others to do so, but even this is normally only relevant if their changes end up in the next version of the software.
Additionally, I like the idea of "peer approval". If I write spaghetti code, I can't hide it from the general public.
Anyone else have thoughts?
Unless you want to write short little programs that will never end up in the hands of "real" end-users, VB is sorely lacking.
We use Delphi for our consumer products. I can't imagine using VB. We tried, but eventually wound up with an unusable, unmodifiable program, with code duplicated all over the place. We abandoned the project.