Slashdot Mirror
Cendant Putting Linux in 4,000 Hotels
sean dreilinger writes "Hotel franchisor eyes low cost, stability of Linux, but says the OS has its drawbacks.
Cendant Corp., the world's largest franchisor of hotels, is rolling out Linux servers at about 4,000 hotels to run the company's hotel management software.
" It's on the server side, but still a large rollout, nonetheless...
finally some good news.. i was getting bitter about all the fud
I hope you are not saying that bad news is only FUD. I assume I was just reading your statement incorrectly.
Some bad news is true. Wintendo 95 does have more drivers than Linux, but I would not call that FUD.
Sean Farley
Which means that the only reason they still use
Win95 is due to legacy apps.
Or it is concerning the driver issue with IBM desktops. Is that particular chipset supported in XFree86?
Sean Farley
less-mature?? whoever wrote this can bite me and every person that ever used unix.. windows setup is immature... it's designed so that the 3year old mentality that a MCSE has can configure it.. Linux is designed so that intilligent people can use it. There's the key.. Smart, intilligent, not the fodder that this country calls IT professionals... Hey hotel chain! hire a Linux geek and you wont hear your Systems department whine at every config file they have to edit!
"After IBM switched the video card in its PC300GL line of PCs, for example, Cendant couldn't find a Linux driver that would make the display work
properly."
Not much different than a manufacturer coming out with a new video card and the drivers being pretty much beta.[1] Same end effect.
"Linux is flexible in some areas and archaic in other areas," Covey said. "Until we can do the same things on Linux as we can on Windows 95 with relative ease of use, I'm not sure Linux will ever reach its full potential."
"Linux's less-mature setup infrastructure increases the up- front work required to deploy an application, said Andrew Allison, an independent analyst in Carmel, Calif."
Pay now, pay later. Sweat a little up front and have stability from that point forward.[2]
Or have up front ease of installation and grief putting out all the brush fires that spring up later.[1]
No such thing as a free lunch
[1]Windows platform
[2]Linux platform.
Sounds like if the consultant business doesn't work out they could become politicians.
*Spend,er.. vote on the politician who says what one wants to hear.
*Make play it safe don't rock the boat decisions.
the problem is that until very recently most consultants (I dispisingly use that term as they really are just yes-men) didn't know what linux was. and if they are certified as a MS solutions provider you are forced to shovel MS crap in fear of losing your certification as a MS sol prov. Consultants are usually worthless to begin with... they are always 3-8 months behind what is real so if they reccomend something your implimentation will be about 2 years behind your need. Engineers are just as bad, the network at my office was designed and upon installation management was informed that it needed immediate re-design as the origional design was too old and will not offer the performance we need, and I'll bet we will get the same sales pitch when that one is installed.... etc... Hell they quoted what pc's to get, so everyone has nice speedy Pentium 166's we got 3 months ago... they bought the crap over a year ago and let it sit.... Consutants told us to... Gotta love the idiots out there passing themselves off as computer professionals... next time hire a college student or a high school student... that way you get quality.
"And why can't it be both good and easy?"
Only if Microsoft goes first.
If you dont buy crap hardware Linux already supports it. Granted the SB live isnt supported but in reality it is CRAP! Most good Video cards are supported, Net cards, Serial boards, Hell I have a timeclock interface program, cashdrawer interface, Building automation/irrigation control interface, and a credit card reader all connected to linux working nicely :-) There is no DRIVER issue if you buy quality hardware, and research what you need to buy first.
Driver issue... that is non-existant FUD that ms likes to throw around... I never had a driver issue, I only buy linux capable hardware.
"and win95/98 auto-detect it for you."
And magic takes center stage.
Seriously if drivers were as plentiful on the Linux side as were the Windows side we would be auto-detecting with the best of them.
If one wants to place blame it shouldn't rest on Linuxes shoulders but with all the manufacturers
who suffer from a case of shortsightedness.
"..The Linux community has produced some really great software, but would anyone write such a goldmine and give it away?"
Umm..it's called Linux you may have heard of it?
Not every one is greedy (thank god).
Yes believe it or not throughout human history there are many examples of people doing unselfish things. Guess there's still hope for us.
"familiarity"
Like a warm bubble bath is nice..for awile.
But if left to persist for too long...
Just bought SuSE6, and SAX nicely configured my video. It might be a big buggy right now, but it sure kicks xf86setup for new users.
is it not?
linux is cool and all that, but
the reason NT is growing is because
any idiot can set it up and run it, and
overall it saves costs because its easier
for people to learn.
sure it crashes alot. unix can crash too.
slashdot has crashed several times. rootshell.org
has been cracked. im sure there are other examples of unix crashes due to people mis configuring them.
so 'de facto' who is to say that unix is any
more 'stable' than NT? if you have a bad
admin, like most places have, NT will probably
do more of their work for them and thus
effectively go down as much as unix might.
With what Bill Gates has been saying these days
:-(
and the newly publish test result from Mindcrap
(or is it Mindcraft?), they still choose Linux.
They must be out of their mind
It's true and so many people don't understand that. Windows has no more drivers than Linux. How often do you install Windows and you never have to insert a manufacturer disk? I bet not often. It will nearly always ask for the video driver disk, or the sound card or scanner disk.. Why is that, if Windows is so much better in device support?
I don't think Cendent is going to be around much longer. Its too bad there isn't a good linux package for hotel management. This is one of the problems with OSS. What use do I have for a hotel management package? None. Niether do the majority of most OSS people. So what isn't needed doesnt get coded. Then you only have a crappy comercial attempt. Oh well.
-AC
I've installed Redhat and Slack quite a number of times. I have installed Redhat while drunk, stoned, stoned and drunk... Personally I find it easier while intoxicated. Its really not that hard. NT Server install is probably a bit easier. However NT Server alone is not a system by any means. Unlike Linux, NT does not come with the ability to do fire-walling, forwarding, proxying, a compiler, an ftp server, etc etc etc. By the time you get all this crap installed, the resource kit installed, the service packs applied, re-applied (I often have to do this at least twice). NT is a giant pain in the ass. Now 95/98 aren't so bad, but they arent able to be server machines either. I do think Redhat could clean up their install scripts a bit however... The FTP install can get rather nasty if you lose connection.
-AC
end users aren't really stupid. they are often ignorant about computers and operating systems, and for good reason: the point of being an end user is that you don't want to know a damned thing about computers.
It is certainly true that computers could be easier to use. It is also certainly true that people could put in a little effort to learn something different. This is my main complaint with newbies, they expect it to be Just Like Windows, well if it was just like windows, why would we be running Linux?
Linux is a different beast with a different solution to the same problem. Rather than concentrating on making it easy to use, they have concentrated on making it powerful. There is a steep learning curve, but anybody that stuck it through and got over the hump will tell you it was worth it - at least if they use computers for a living. Linux will be made easier to use in the future, let's see if NT can be made stable in the future. Whoever finishes the race first may win the prize, and I think Linux is clearly ahead - at least for now.
What exactly does a hotel management system have to do? I'm planning on taking a complete cake job doing Javascript (it's a contract) and I was going to learn GNOME on the side (no KDE flames please - I'll get around to that too). Tell me what is required for the system. If it's small and simple, maybe I'll do it.
Remember, the I'm going to be doing JAVASCRIPT. I'm a real time embedded software engineer. I'm going to be sitting at a desk basically - it's a babysitting job. So give me some specs. I'll probably never finish it, but I might. It would look great on my resume. I'll GPL the software, and create a company if it has to be sold.
NT just looks like it's easy to setup but if it comes to more than a few domains it's quite hard. I'm working in the nt support of a company with 400+ nt servers and 30000+ nt clients. Even the concepts of MS consulting are illusions if the infrastructure is such large. ;-(((
Everey little design/configuration flaw pops up with catastrophic follows... and the MS-KB is huge
Bye
JS
(gave just notice...)
My understanding of the situation is that XFree86 version 4 (which is being worked on at the moment) will have modularised video support, and that will allow binary-only modules to be written by hardware manufacturers. Correct me of I'm wrong!
- Pete.
You're correct. XFree86 4.0 will support this. There have been a lot of delays in development, but it looks like we'll be getting it sometime this summer.
That's odd... At school, I installed RH5.2 on the systems which used matrox g200's. All I did was ftp to xfree86.org, d/l the XF86_SVGA "binary" and whola... X Windows up and running.
Is this what you mean? I guess the only problem is that the manufacturer of the video card has to write the X server from scratch. If they use part of xfree's code, wouldn't they have to release the code? Lots of manufacturers don't want this because it shows some of the video card's guts to competitors.
But hey, I've never written an X server before so I couldn't say how easy or hard it is...
NT is supported by a lot more hardware vendors. Unfortunately for NT a lot of those drivers aren't written very well. Your advice about researching the hardware you buy is a good on no matter what OS you run.
I write drivers for NT, and I actually think the kernel is stable and well designed. When NT crashes it's usually something wrong with my driver, or I just loaded the new Novell Client.
It seems to me, that most of NT's stability problems are related to poorly written drivers and apps.
--- Slashdot luser monitoring services ---
** UPDATE! ** UPDATE! ** UPDATE! ** UPDATE! **
We have just confirmed it, another Linux install, this time by my grandma Anny. She lives across town, and is finally making the move from Win95 to Debian GNU/Linux. The Slashdot community congratulates this new member, a party will be held at #linuxnow tonight, no malicious crackers allowed! CmdrTaco confirmed in a press release today that this puts the current ammount of Linux user
Come on! You call this news for nerds? I know.. I know.. Slashdot is free so I should stop complaining or get lost. But this news is just soo lame.
I'm only saying that I'm on paid vacation for 6-8 months because I'm working on Javascript. The language is cake, I need something to keep me sharp. I think I can get something partially there. The credit card readers and so on will have to be handled by somebody else, or somebody will have to send me specs.
The point is, though, that in linux an application crashing does not bring down the system. As to drivers, every driver in linux I have used doesn't bring down the system when it is buggy, just behaves a bit weird.
I make NO promises as to availibility. But I'm in.
wicksz@my-dejanews.com
I also insist on working with gtk++, not because I have anything against KDE, but because I want to learn gtk first. If there is a demand for KDE, perhaps we can work together to make a portable interface.
Actually, there are driver issues that cannot be ignored. Granted, evil things like winmodems are not supported and are crap hardware. But also, my DVD-decoder board, which is very good quality is not yet supported by linux, unfortunately. Also, most 3D chipsets with the exception of glide support do not have real drivers for the hardware 3d acceleration. I don't know about the SB live, I still have an awe64, but my experience with soundblaster cards lately has been that they have gone to crap (64V PCI I played with on gf's computer skipped under heavy load, which makes no sense if it was true hardware wavesynth.)
I might udnerstand some, but FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD is a bit difficult to dismiss, although not quite as easy, they are pretty good at what they do too, they have ceratin features which linux distributions still lack, OpenBSD's insane security & kerberos native, FreeBSD's kerberos and cool stuff like devfs and USM (which really surprised me)
If you never have done it before installation does seem hard... I've used everything from DOS to WIN98/NT, from macOS to AIX, and last semester I got RH5.1 and tried to install it myself. I finally got to a CLI, (it took me a while to figure out how many partitions you needed/were recomended) but I could never get X to work with my graphics card and I don't know anyone else who runs it, to help me.
now you might try to discount me as computer illeterate but I'm a junior in engineering, have built computers, made web pages, set up a 30 client network(NT) run off a cable modem and know more about computers than most CS majors at my college... but without experience installing unix before, or knowing someone who has it can be very time consuming and an exercise in frustration.
What I think would help first time installers is not telling about all the options you can change/set. Have some basic setup with few choices to make and then after they've been using it for a while start telling them about all the other things you can do/change. If you give people two many choices at once it can seem like an overwhelming amount of information to sort through, and it's harder to see which decision caused which outcome.
that's my two cents
I think they should network all the rooms with Netwinders and hook them up to the TV. Netwinders come with TV out and can have a customer specific daughter card installed. With a high speed network they might be able to integrate Movies on demand. Linux needs to conquer the Hotels then the suits will see the benefits! Just Linux It! ...Marko
If "behaves a bit weird" means that you have to bring down the system to get it working properly, or risk corrupting data, then it really doesn't matter that it didn't crash.
There's a guy working on a Linux driver two offices over from me who's locked up/crashed the system plenty of times. But that's in development. When the work is done both drivers should be stable.
As for applications bringing down the system, you are 100% correct. From what I've heard (I haven't used Linux enough to know myself), Linux (and Unix in general) is much better about this.
I've never personally written a Windows NT app that's brought down the system either, but I also don't write many user apps.
Stability from Windows has a long way to go, but it has been slowly getting better. Linux improves much faster, but some of that is due to the fact that there isn't as much 3rd party software out there to worry about breaking every time something changes.
I haven't taken much interest in writing Linux drivers because the hardware I use needs to move large blocks of data between user and kernel space, and it's hard to do that at 100MB a second when you have to double buffer the data. NT handles this nicely, and it's a nice, multithreaded kernel. There always seems to be a tradeoff though.
Consultants are usually worthless to begin with... they are always 3-8 months behind what is real so if they recommend something your implementation will be about 2 years behind your need.
Consultants told us to... Gotta love the idiots out there passing themselves off as computer professionals...
next time hire a college student or a high school student... that way you get quality.
B r i a n
You can do a lot of Linux installs by
1) Creating a floppy with networking and
a couple of scripts.
2) Creating partition images of the base system
(tar works fine)
3) Go to each machine, boot from floppy, pick
an IP address, partition the drives, nfs
mount the server, unpack the partations,
tweak the ip config and away you go.,
-- cary
"Linux's less-mature setup infrastructure increases the up- front work required to deploy an application..."
I read that and immediately said "BULL****!" Now, maybe he's got some particular case in mind. But my last job before my current one (which is DB engineering for a hotel franchisor, amusingly) was deploying an application for Windows NT. And do you know what it required? Having some poor slob (me, often as not) walk to every single desktop to do the install! My constant refrain was "Do you know how much easier this would be in a properly set-up UNIX environment?" (Admittedly, it would have been easier if NT had been set up better too, but NT _still_ doesn't allow the same ease of deployment. How do you remotely install software on NT boxen without aftermarket software?)
I've installed Win9x and NT maybe 50 times. Every single time, I have to go in and change the same things around to make the OS usable. (Apply these five Win95 patches, turn off "confirm on delete," turn off active desktop, turn on Xmouse, nuke the Microsoft Network / Online Services spam, etc.) It would be really nice if there were an easy way to automate this -- say a way to save all your setup options to a floppy. Without Microsoft's help, it would be really hard to implement such a thing.
With Linux, if you're doing really large-scale installs you have the ability to create your own custom distribution. If you're installing to lots of machines but don't want to go quite that far, you're at least free to script your installs with the options you want. (Red Hat supports this OOTB, for example.) And you can of course install once and then clone away without having to worry about licensing issues.
I think Linux installs are already cleaner than Windows installs, and they're improving a lot faster. Drivers are the real issue at this point. Until companies like IBM officially support Linux on all their computers, they'll continue to do things like swap video cards without taking Linux support into account. (NT has the same problem, to a lesser extent.)
No i'm saying that we shouldn't ask things of Linux that were unwilling to ask of NT.
Here's anecdotal evidence to the contrary:
Our office got an HP printer with builtin network card. I assigned
it an IP address, told my Linux box to use it as a remote printer
(using the RedHat GUI tool), and in 15 minutes I was happily
printing away.
Next, I tried to set up a coworker's Win95 box. The printer came
with a CD, so I figured it would be easy. I went through the install,
with its numerous "Wizard" steps. After 45 minutes, it appeared
to be done, and I told it to print a test page. Nothing came
out! And of course, where are the diagnostics?
Eventually, I got help from a sysadmin. She was quite
knowledgeable about the problem; made a whole slew of
changes to the system; and downloaded a couple updated
drivers from HP's web site, knowing exactly where to go. The
process took well over an hour.
I chuckled to think of a home user trying to go through that.
The quality of consultants varies greatly. I can't even remember the names of all the ones that have been hired/fire in our IS department the last couple of years. There's simpley a lot more jobs than there are qualified, skilled people. Unfortunatly, the people who are often hiring the consultants aren't technically current, and therefore they fall for the slick consultant that knows how to talk the talk, but not do the work. When you finally get somone skilled it can be hard to keep them. They often lack the personal skills, or don't try very hard to get along with management because the know they can always find work eleswhere. The also have to spend time and take the blame for the mistakes of the former consultants.
Good people are hard to find. It's also hard to find people with a good balance of experience and the most current knowledge.
The easiest way to install NT is through VMWARE, which
gives you a virtual machine under Linux. I'm not kidding!
VMWARE provides virtual peripherals that NT supports out-
of-the-box, so the whole process is almost automatic.
Exactly! People keep repeating the mantra that Linux is hard
to install, but what, exactly, is hard to install about RedHat?
The only tricky part that I can see is the disk repartitioning, but
that problem exists with any OS.
And I am most definitely *not* a Microsoft-Fan!
Crude is crude--no matter the target.
...getting enough people interested that will agree to work with a common set
:-(.
:-).)
of accepted packages. For example: I was thinking "hmmm... broken up and
managed properly, how hard could this be? This could be fun."
But you see, at this point *my* first C++/GUI project is going to be
done using FLTK. Period. So I'd be out right off
(And yes, I've examined the pros and cons of the various GUI-building kits.
That's why I chose FLTK!
That's the thing... as a Unix admin I DONT have a certification and I am very proud of the fact! MS certified morons give sysadmins a bad name with their inability to even understand hardware or how the computer really works! (NT runs on the boot partition and Boots from the System partition... No wonder the thing crashes almost every hour and the MCSE's are idiots.) Here's the neat part though... There ARE companies that want computer people that know something! and they will NOT hire anyone that is MicroSloth certified.. They are few, but their numbers are growing as the companies realize the scam that certification really is... Novell started this scam... now some morons want Linux certification... but it will all crash in the end when those with real admin skills start telling their bosses, friends, etc "I'll do that for $60.00 an hour with a minimum 2 hour charge" (I know it's low.. but if you cant live on 60.00 an hour you're a greedy bastard...) instead of doing them a favor or doing it free... and be sure to every minute you mess with that NT box you mention that Linux is sooo much better at this and wouldnt have crashed to begin with, and actually costs less to keep up as a Linux Guru is easy to find! just check your local HIGHSCHOOL!
"OMG not hire some idiot with a MCSE?? we'll all die if we give a kid a chance!" -- the mantra of the brain dead running our countries businesses.
Ok mr perfect :-)
Linux is as easy to use as any other OS!
It's what apps are installed and how the desktop is configured. My mom uses a nice linux Laptop I set up for her, it boots, log's her in, checks her email and pop's up her email client. she can browse the net.. etc.. and when done she closes X windows and the laptop runs through a shutdown and turns the laptop off. easy as pie and how I have it setup it cannot be done under windows95/nt/etc... it's almost a net appliance in it's current configuration with no possibility of the user mucking anything up!
Just a note - Debain scales fine with a few one liners:
Firs set up a reference system, using dselect or apt to install packages.
Then:
dpkg --get-selections | cut -f1 > package_list
And:
apt-get install package_list
Then sit back and wait. Apt of course can install straight out of an FTP or Webserver, or CD, or a Fileserver etc.
Kirk Ismay, MIS
The Net Idea Telecommunications Inc
I believe LodgeNet is using BSD and/or SCO for their in-room pay per view movie/nintendo service. I don't see why Linux couldn't do the same job. They had some custom device drivers that would probably need to be rewritten. I'm not sure how many hotels that they provide ppv service for, but it's for quite a few major chains.
I would dispute this statement. I would suggest that the reason NT is growing is because of marketing and FUD tactics used by Microsoft. By and large, the people making the purchase decision to go to NT is not aware of enough of the factors to make an educated decision.
The argument "UNIX can crash too" is no longer an acceptable argument. Yes UNIX can crash, but it is more likely that a problem manifests itself in only one process. It is QUITE rare that anything will bring a system to its knees requiring a reboot as on NT. When UNIX systems have problems, it is usually a case of a poorly configured system. The same can't necessarily be said for NT.
"who is to say that unix is any more 'stable' than NT?" A number of well conducted surveys. A great deal of anecdotal evidence. An understanding of how the operating systems work. If you care about stability, do your research. http://unix-vs-nt.org
Further, let's talk about maintenance. Have you ever applied a service release to fix a security hole to NT or Linux/*NIX? 1) You'll likely see the fix in around 1-2 days from first report for Linux. How long does M$ take? 2) On Linux you can apply the patch, so long as it isn't a kernel patch, without rebooting. I haven't yet seen a service pack on Window$ which doesn't require a reboot. So what is 5-15 minutes downtime for a reboot worth to you - if you're running a POS system? An e-commerce site? Any mission critical software? Fact is, yeah reboots aren't that big a deal on desktop client machines, but you have to reboot servers - that's unacceptable.
-- ???
I just love the way that people lump all consultants into the big yes-men, know-nothing pile. What do you people DO for a living? I am a consultant and quite proud of it. No I am not a M$ Solution Provider nor will I ever will be. I work on high-end Unix systems design. This includes Linux. I keep on the edge, and know a hell of a lot mor about how hardware works than most "techs". Since neither of the two previous posters bothered to list what they do I could as ignorant and assume they're tech support people or sys admins, and lable them as disgruntled, unrealistic people, who wonder why they don't get ahead. It's real simple. Tech people don't control the money, probably never will, and the reasons consultants are NEEDED is beacuse we've actually learned to speak and write to those that have the money and need IT help, without confusing them or belittleing them. Now next time you want to trash a segment of the IT industry, do some research, do just assmume, or at least only point to people that specifcally lived up to your expectations.
Sorry for the typos, I was really PO'd.
I only wanted to add that that ONLY reason that I'm doing Javascript is that I need a vacation, yet I'm too greedy to take a vacation.
Look at it from a business perspective:
Red Hat supports GNOME
Red Hat is the most recognized Linux vendor
I think it likely that GNOME will eventually outpace KDE, and personally, I like the idea of a totally free toolkit - this is a prejudice I realize. I have used KDE in the past, but engh, it's ok. I've never used GNOME but I think that in marketshare it is destined to win simply because it is GPL and for no other reason. See? I can think like a consumer too!
What the hell is FLTK? Any relation to Tcl/Tk?
Also, I would like to try GUIDE. It's been a while since I've owned a Linux WS (my last one was a Dx4-100 laptop that is now a paperweight - HP-UX is used at my current job which is about to end). Any recommendations? I was thinking along the lines of an AMD K6-2 400 even though I'm told they suck for games.
Fast, Light Tool Kit. Originally developed by someone at Digital Domain.
DD disowned it, but since it was already GPL'd, others picked it up. Version
1.x was released 1999-03-11.
You can go to The FLTK Home Page to find out more.
I think they are still using Windows clients because that's what the guy at the front desk is used to, re-training can be expensive. That is one of several main reasons Microsoft will remain a dominant user OS for sometime, familiarity.
----Maybe someday people will fall to there knees and say, "Teach me something new and superior to that which I already know!". Then again they'll probably say, "Get Lost!".--- Anonymous Coward
Really? That's funny. I turned up almost 8000 results. Did you try clicking on the little button labeled "Submit"?
A few minutes searching on the real internet turned up http://ati.veiled.net/ and http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~ins omnia/gatos/, sites which deal directly with support for the "ATI All-In-Wonder, All-In-Wonder Pro or Rage II/Pro with ATI-TV tuner card". Yes, under Linux.
I can just imagine a linux junky saying to a hapless newbie linux user who's new video card isn't supported "don't buy crap hardware!".
If you would care to show me a video card which has _no_ support under linux, then I will listen to you. Until then, you are just babbling.
Not having kernel level routines to implement UltraHyper8DQuakotronicRenderomatic instructions does not count as being "unsupported". If you have an "unsupported" video card, and bought it without bothering to spend a few minutes checking to see if it had support (an act comparable in stupidity to buying software labeled "DOS/Win95" to run on your Mac), then just run it in VGA or SVGA mode until the new drivers come out.
Ignoring a problem by having the user research for 2 weeks trying to find hardware that both performs at the expected level, has the required features, and is fully supported in linux isn't going to fix anything.
*cough cough* So you're saying that buying a new computer should be as simple as, say, buying a car or choosing a school to send your children to -- Just take whatever comes along first and expect that it will naturally meet all of your needs. Does it really take you two weeks to read the Hardware Compatibility Howto and then follow up to see if your hardware is or is not supported by the latest releases?
-D
dcross@cryogen.com
Is anyone else bothered that ComputerWorld felt it necessary to say right off basically that no one has/will ever do anything this crazy ever (third paragraph). Sure crazy fringe organizations like the USPS, retail outlets like Burlington Coat Factory, NASA, countless ISPs and web sites use it. But remember it's just for a band of radical, hippy college kids using word processors and spreadsheets.
With press like this, what's there to complain about? Oh wait...
Ultimately you get what you pay for. If a company doesn't want to hire a decent Linux guru to set up servers at 4000 of it's outlets that basically will be responsible for the chain's income, then use NT and suffer. Sure a $60k admin and a free OS may be a little more than a $30k mouse admin and $800 OS (what's the user limit on the basic NT server, like 25?). When it BSODs, reboot. If that fails, mail it back and be without a server for a week. In which case, you better have an old system on hand. So you'll have to pay to upkeep two whole systems. Yeah, I can see why NT should be used in every corporation.
I have a relative that does just this at his workplace. Four mediocre windows people can't operate that NT "firewall" they have. I've had to stop taking free calls on it. They don't know what they're doing, and they refuse to pay for a real admin like myself. Such is life...
I believe they're talking about the newer P2/400 IBM 300GLs which use a S3Trio3D chipset. In XFree86, there is only support via the VGA16 server (so basically useless). Oddly, they don't even put an AGP slot in there, so you're stuck with just a couple PCI slots to put a video card in.
Why these oems always choose such crappy on-board stuff is beyond me. Well, it's because it's cheap, but still can't they get mediocre and supported chipsets? Sheesh.
That question really falls under the research part of preparation for Linux installation. What do you want out of Linux? If you're just installing it to be cool, or because someone said it was cool, sure you'll end up at a futile command prompt.
If you really want to look into what all Linux has, your best bet would be to pick up a book, RedHat comes with one and it's even available on their web site, or any of the $30-40 ones at a decent bookstore. They are written to take you step by step through navigating the command line, setting up X, setting up PPP, etc.
Without the proper help along these lines, you'd be just as stuck at a command line as I would be at Povray. Sure there's some cool pictures people make with it, but with no artistic talent, I'm pretty much helpless.
My latest experience with RedHat 5.2 is that for server installs the only problem is the partition thing. X is a bit more complicated although it's getting easier. KDE is super easy because of the scripts and GNOME is a bit more complicated but wasn't difficult either.
;-)
My brother which has no Linux experience at all and isn't a power user (although a bit more than the average person) was really surprised at how easy it was to do it.
After having lots of problems with NT (on a new preinstalled IBM Netfinity) working with an accounting app (DOS based) and about same problems with NetWare, I suggested he try Linux. I installed the first machine which is a P166 with 16MB RAM and a big HD. We put on Samba and after a week of testing removed the NT server. It's been a month now with no problems whatsoever. He is really amazed. Even the speed with 14 users doing heavy work is acceptable (although not great - it was the simplest machine we could find). So now he's moving the Netfinity to Linux and he is doing it himself!
He's planning deploying Linux on the other stores he owns. Having the server up for a month without a single reboot or problem conviced him
I don't know about Caldera, but installation of Redhat is easier than Windows 95/98/NT all rolled together.
Here, we have someone with the same complaints, but when it came time to put the money down, which way did it go? I think this is more along the lines of reality; people who are seriously considering Linux for it's benefits (performance and stability) aren't likely to be put off by the install process.
As for the video driver thing, you can blame that on Linux if you want to, but someone should have insured that they could deliver all the machines with a known (compatible) configuration ahead of time. Changing hardware midstream is asking for trouble. I realize it happens, but maybe I shouldn't be blaming my hammer when I run out of nails.
Are these things more complex now? Do they do more, or is the programming more complex because of GUI issues? Or is it just that we're talking about a much bigger market, and therefore much bigger systems?
Well, if you want a Linux box with a GUI running, it's still not that great. XF86Setup has improved, but it still auto-detects very little. You have to give it very specific information about your video card and monitor and what video modes it supports. Most users don't know that information, and win95/98 auto-detect it for you.
That, and USB support, are probably the two biggest problems.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I have worked in several hotels in various capacities, and I have experience with several different hotel management systems. IMHO, a hotel management system *done right* would take a lot more than Javascript. It would require a complete client-server design/implementation, with the ability to interface with credit card systems, on-demand TV systems, telephone accounting systems (this usually means phone switch access), point of sale support (for restaurant and conference stuff), extensive accounting/report generation capabilities, scheduling systems, reservation software, encryption capabilities, and possibly even IVR support. In short, a good hotel management system is one hell of a big package!!
I believe Linux would make an excellent platform for such a system, but it would take a lot of effort and thought to create a best-of-breed system for Linux. On the other hand, a quality, low-downtime system would be a big ticket item in terms of what hotels would pay in support and maintenance contracts (I'm guessing $10-20 grand per site per annum EASILY).
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I misinterpreted the second part of your comment. I didn't intend to discourage you from writing such a system, only that you wouldn't want try it in Javascript . If you do decide to take on this project, I wish you the best of luck. =)
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Do not forget scaling issues. It may be okay for you to install a single system, including software download and recompilation. But read that article again: They are talking about a rollout of 4000 systems. You do not download Debian 4000 times and you do not want to compile 4000 kernels.
To get such a rollout out of the door without many problems, you have to create installation servers. If you setup is a distributed setup, you may want to install a software distribution infrastructure for later software upgrades. You don't want compilers on systems deployed remotely, but you want to have a centralized testing and packaging center, where upgrade packages are being made, tested on reference hardware and then systematically installed and deployed - of course you have to keep an inventory database so that you know what version has been shipped to which system and if the install worked correctly or if it failed.
The article cited a single major problem with hardware support, caused by a video hardware change introduced by IBM. This, of course, can kill your NT rollout as well, because NT video driver setup isn't that rosy, too.
It did not talk about software distribution and maintenance issues, which I view as the major problem in a distributed rollout that size. I think that this is a good sign: While Linux has no tools that can manage and automatize such problems per se, you can surely build your own set of tools to manage such problems without to much hassle.
Of course it would be better if the distribution of your choice provided such enterprise scale deployment and maintenance tools instead of requiring that you hack them up yourself.
Free Tivoli, anyone?
The driver criticism is legit (and will probably remain a problem for at least a year) but the installation comment puzzles me.
I thought Red Hat and Caldera were really easy to install nowadays. Is it really harder than Win98? Does anybody have some recent new-user stories that illustrate the problems?
I'm wondering if the perceived difficulty in installation is simply because most users have been through the Windows install more often and it's just more familiar.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Just bought SuSE6, and SAX nicely configured my video. It might be a big buggy right now, but it sure kicks xf86setup for new users.
SAX will probably be incorporated into XFree86 for the 4.0 version.
And on a related note, DDC support will take care of the monitor timings for most people (at least those with newer monitors). Also, the new driver module infrastructure will mean supporting new chipsets just requires downloading a small easy-to-install driver, rather than the whole X distribution.
After losing the arguement vis a vie using NT vs. Linux as an internal mail server. The IS boss said that he wanted an os that he could support internally, and I'm the only one that knows Linux/Unix. Sigh. The thing is, I had Linux/qmail setup and configured - even ran successful email tests on my dual-boot Linux/NT box in a bout 1/2 a day total. Linux works, but the "We would need a Linux/Unix guru to support it and what do we do when you're gone" blues do have an impact. I'm getting depressed again just writing this.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Since they mention using terminal emulators somewhere in the article, NT probably wasn't even a serious contendor. Since x86 hardware is dirt cheap, they probably looked at UnixWare, Solaris x86 and Linux (maybe FreeBSD). That's not a difficult choice :)
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
Mathijs
Please don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD a lot. I use it at work, actually.
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
What I meant was that in some twisted future, Linux might be more popular than Windows. Microsoft would have to add Linux support to keep Windows a viable alternative. FreeBSD on the other hand runs Linux programs just nicely. And why FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative? I see the commercialisation of Linux with mixed feelings. The competence of users is droping (a lot of Redhat and OpenLinux users can't compile their own kernels), which I find, by lack of a betrer word, a bit sad. But I guess that's the price we have to pay for more mainstream acceptance. A couple of years ago you were weird of you used Linux, now your cool!
Excuse the typos. And for those Redhat (I use Redhat) and OpenLinux users out there, start your flametrowers, but do it to my email adres and not this forum.
Mathijs
.. it's called Mac OS X Server.
If you want a free OS I really think SuSE has an easy setup - easier than Redhat's, actually.
-Stu
I'm talking about Good and Easy.
NeXTStep was Good and Easy.
MacOS X is the next generation of NeXTStep.
Furthmore, I find your argument to be rather flawed. What does it MATTER if graphics slow things down? As in all things with engineering, it is a TRADE OFF between asthetics and performance.
You're also toeing the line dangerously close to Godwin's law, with your silly rants about "Sovietism". Grow up, please.
I like FreeBSD. However, your "several years ahead" of the old BSD 4.4 system argument is flawed, considering MacOS X uses FreeBSD (and NetBSD) code, plus its own enhancements drawn from almost TEN YEARS of experience with Mach (the NeXT boys DO work at Apple now, remember?)
Judging things on technical grounds must be seperate from religious grounds. Don't like the proprietary GUI? fine. But don't start telling me that "it's not easy to use", or it's technically inferior. You have already shattered your credibility in claiming that FreeBSD is as easy to use as MacOS - it plainly isn't.
I'm not going to get into a Mac vs. PC debate, either. I've never owned a Mac.
-Stu
The tone of my reply was patronizing precicely because I felt that your initial post was rather immature. Since you've posted a rather coherent, thought out responce, I misjudged the person behind the post, I suppose. Please ignore the "grow up" and "Get a clue" remarks... they were made out of frustration.
:)
The NetBSD and FreeBSD source code stuff comes from what I recall being discussed on the MacOS X developer list by an Apple employee, and what Apple has mentioned at last year's WWDC. I don't have any concrete source for you, sorry, but I guess the only way to find out is if we download Darwin and check.
As for Mach, it is more like Mach 2.5++++. MacOS X final (the consumer version) will be on an extended 3.0 kernel. My sources here again, are informal mailing list discussions.
Regarding the Scoville analogy: I remember when that essay first came out, and enjoyed it immensely, however I believe that GUI interfaces can be made powerful enough to parallel the creativity available with the CLI - it just hasn't been done yet. Furthermore, the whole event-driven nature of WIMP-based gui interfaces does provide a degree of flexibility above the traditional model of "green screen" applications that businesses have traditionally used.
Note that I don't recall in your original rant you focusing on the power of the CLI vs. the GUI - it was more about the "proprietary, bloated nature" of the GUI. I understand fully the power of the CLI, and am not questioning that. Right now, it IS the tool for power users. However, augmenting that with a GUI as consistent as the MacOS's, no matter how propretary, seems to be a Good Thing, which is why I'm looking forward to using MacOS X Server.
It's about good and easy. Easy GUI's for the routine stuff, powerful CLI's for the hard stuff. And perhaps eventually, we'll figure away to get the expressiveness of a CLI into a GUI.
-Stu
Intelligent people don't say intilligent.
But once an app is installed, you don't really need to worry about it any more.
When I worked in tech support hell the biggest problems I faced were when users had installed something new:
Me: Good morning companyname, Joe speaking
User: Hi. I just installed the internet my mainframe. Now your program won't print.
Me: That sound odd. Will any other programs print?
User: I don't know. I can't start them. There's no mousey thingy on the screen.
Me: Can you tell me what is on the screen sir?
User: Just the normal screen. But it's blue and it's got all this white text on it
Me: (on mute) Bugger. (to customer) Have you got your NT rescuse disk handy?
User: I don't know. Where do I keep it? Can't you just dial in a fix this...
How often do you hear of Linux users reinstalling their OS for anything other than sheer enjoyment?
With Linux how often does upgrading a piece of shareware render a real app useless because of some obscure file being overwitten?
With Windows it has to be done just because you install/remove a simple (well it should be) browser.
For power users Linux can be a joy. We get our hands dirty setting it up, marvel at it's stability then break out fdisk and start again.
For people like my Mum this is insane behaviour. Unfortunatley for Mum she has been through the process twice in the last year. And geek or not, reinstalling Windows just isn't fun.
my blog: good times, man, good times
Well said!
Most techies have a very short-sighted and narrow minded impression of their place in the universe. They think that just because that they know something well, everyone else should be equally familiar with the same topics. Wake up! The purpose of life is not to work on computers.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Every single hotel is different. Each one has a different number of rooms, room types, rates and rate schedules. Some may have resteraunts and/or catering facilities.
You also have to take into account the hundreds of different credit card platforms, in-room movie systems, call accounting systems, voice mail systems, in room game systems, etc...
There is no way to vanilla install these systems.
BTW, the install job is being done by Synergy. Strangly enough, they are located in the same building as Cendant in Phoenix, AZ.
This so called 'upgrade' was annouced about 2 years ago. the official label is 'Project PowerUp'. In reality, it is the biggest piece of horse-shit FUBAR'ed rollout I have ever had the displeasure of even being remotely involved in.
/. material. Suffice to say that if this was a vendor we had hired, we would have dragged them into the parking lot after the first day, tied them to a tree and beat them with a keyboard. An old IBM 5250 keyboard.
I am the lead analyst at a property management company that owns several hotels that are being
forced to perform this upgrade. I will not go into the down and dirty details of this since it is not appropriate
There are three different property management systems available. Each property is assigned a system based on the size of the hotel/motel. The three systems are:
1- Linux based system from HSS (well it was HSS about 18 months ago, its beeen bought out several times during this upgrade).
2- Win 95/Lantastic (no shit) system from MSI
3- Win NT system from Anasazi
The Linux system is the bottom of the line system for the smallest hotels. Virtually no support for call accounting, in-room movie, credit card, point of sale, catering or voice mail systems. This system is the pits. Its not the fault of Linux, its just a poor product from a mediocre (at best) software company.
The MSI system sucks as well. The fileserver is Windows 95 using Lantastic networking. What mental giant thought this up? These are critical systems that need to run 24x7. This is the system we've been stuck with and its actually semi-stable after massive tweaking.
The Anasazi system is not even being installed. After two years it still cannot pass quality control.
The bottom line....
This install IS NOT GOOD PRESS FOR LINUX!
Due the the crappy software installed on the linux system and the the total lack of ability of the Cendant and Synergy (who are doing the actual nstalls) installers, these installs are almost always complete failures. The small franchise owners who do not have a computer department and who are not familier with computers are litterally begging to be 'upgraded' to the MSI system.
Arrgh! My brain hurts just thinking about this (*^$%$@$! I need beers....
Good point...just look at all those people who didn't switch to win95 when it came out. People don't like to change their computer systems. Heck! If people were more willing to keep abreast with tech, we wouldn't have this stupid y2k mess
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Usually the suits hire consultants to tell them what they want to hear. If the suits want Linux,
/.-ers, but not all suits are M$FT backers. In a big company you will have some
they hire themselves a Linux consultant to tell them Linux is the best thing since sliced bread.
If the suits want M$FT, they hire a MS consultant to tell them the appropriate thing.
In the consultant biz, you are hired for what you'll say, not what you'll do. The suits want
to know what you'll say before they hire you. Consultants that spring surprises don't last very long.
In contrast, you are paid for what you'll do, not what you say you'll do. Consultants who forget
this often end up spending too much time on a project making their $$/hour drop like a rock.
If you want to be a consultant, be pretty sure you can do what you say you can do.
That's why many consultants still recommend M$FT. This is what the suits want you to say,
and the consultants know this is what they can do. Until the suits are convinced they want Linux,
consultants have no choice but to offer M$FT or they won't get hired in the first place.
It may surprise some
suits behind every possibility (no matter how wacky). It's just up to now, they were ignored.
However, it only takes a few converts before the tide switches the other way (as we have seen
lately).
-extecher
Win95/NT (as usually configured) just uses a more-or-less correct generic monitor setting. You still have to choose a specific one from the list for optimal settings. Of course Linux can just choose default standard monitor settings.
/proc/pci, see what the cards report, and match with the list of drivers to see what you think the user has:
:)
:)
:) This goes for many other community members. I bet a lot of people would add peripheral support if the manufacturers would send them samples/specs. Has certainly worked in the past for other classes of peripherals (TV cards -- alan sez he just got a new one in his diary -- NICs, etc).
Video cards are a bigger problem in Linux. In most cases you have to know and tell it. This is sometimes more,sometimes less friendly. Perhaps installs should make a more frequent habit of starting X in VGA16 (as windoze does) to provide a friendlier interface for continuing setup.
Isn't the solution to this to check
Bus 1, device 0, function 0:
VGA compatible controller: NVidia Unknown device (rev 4).
Vendor id=10de. Device id=20.
Medium devsel. Fast back-to-back capable. IRQ 10. Master Capable. Late
ncy=64. Min Gnt=5.Max Lat=1.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0xe4000000 [0xe4000000].
Prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0xe6000000 [0xe6000008].
"Looks to me like you have a RivaTNT!"
Or do many installs do this these days? I seem to recall redhat will (tho it didn't know about my permidia2 when i installed it last). How about YaST? Of course many who use Debian or Slack have no problem telling it without it trying any risky assumptions.
I think a big part of the perception problem is just that corporate guys seem to be looking at slightly outdated linux distro's, which lack many video cards. Video card support has improved a great deal recently, especially w/X 3.3.3.1 (adding G200, Permidia2, TNT support, amond others). But even RH5.2 doesn't come w/X 3.3.3.1, so many people will find their installs lacking drivers for their vid cards. It's a shame, really, tho I know it's hard for RH to keep up with zillions of rapidly advancing OS projects
---
On a different note: USB. Works on the iMac, the one linux platform so far that really needs it. Under PC...well...we got a USB gamepad from Gravis (they gave us an armful of assorted pads/sticks at GDC). It promised "1 step install". We plugged it into a W95 machine. Didn't work. Plugged it into a 98 machine. Worked. No advantage over old-fashioned version. And I'm afraid support for those far-out USB peripherals will always lag, since no one who writes linux drivers owns them (too bad...digital speakers...cool...).
Result:
- Linux: Limited USB support where _absolutely_ necessary. Some issues w/USB code base (current one is a bit complex & hard to approach. Linus has tried to remedy matter some...)
- Win95 "with USB Support": anecdotally, USB doesn't work.
- Win98: USB works, completely extraneous (well, i could make a case I do _need_ those speakers
- WinNT: No clue. Anyone?
BTW, Alan Cox being Alan Cox, if you send him some cool USB speakers I bet he'll make'em work
Mac OS X? You mean the BSD 4.4 based UNIX knockoff with the Mach Mircokernel running between the OS and hardware? The one that costs several hundered dollars as opposed to Linux or FreeBSD which are free? The one which is closed source, and has a bloated, superfluous GUI to slow down speed and operations? (For an example, just run FreeBSD with Afterstep, a non-graphically intense WM and Enlightenment...then watch your machine crawl and appreciate what the bloated MacOS GUI will do to UNIX).
FreeBSD is 3 versions and several years ahead in development of the old BSD 4.4 system. It's very easy, and you're not stuck in the Soviet world of the Macintosh Graphical User Interface. Sure, you can call up a command-line inteface in MacOS X, but if you're going to do that anyway, why pay for your OS, be stuck in a over-priced, proprietary architecture which shackles you to a particular and monopolistic OEM, and miss out on the benefit of several years of post-Berkely development by the *BSD community? Gimme a break.
You're also toeing the line dangerously close to Godwin's law, with your silly rants about "Sovietism". Grow up, please.
;) The GUI, like other media such as Television and Movies, promote the stiffling of thought. They garner a response mentality, where one reacts to situations; rather than a striving mentality, where one actively thinks about a problem and tries to solve it.
Alright, I admit I may have had rant switched on without realizing it, and for that I apologize. Godwin's Law is a good point, but I was attempting to make a point with the Soviet remark. My point was simply that by casting decision-making and problem-solving choices into dialog boxes, dropdown lists, radio boxes, OK buttons and so forth, the OS manufacturers rob the user/administrator of the option to make creative solutions to problems. It was actually an analogy I borrowed from Thomas Scoville's article "Elements of Style: UNIX as Literature". He was discussing NT, but if you'll read the article, you'll clearly see how I thought his analogy applied directly to OS X.
By the by, your calling me to the mat on Godwin's Law was quite appropriate, but let's bag phrases like "grow up". No reason to get personal just because someone feels passionate about something.
like FreeBSD. However, your "several years ahead" of the old BSD 4.4 system argument is flawed, considering MacOS X uses FreeBSD (and NetBSD) code, plus its own enhancements drawn from almost TEN YEARS of experience with Mach (the NeXT boys DO work at Apple now, remember?)
You'll pardon me good sir, but where did you get this information? Certainly not from Apple, in their white papers, they claim OS X to be based on BSD 4.4 and Mach 2.5, but make no claim to possessing Net or Free BSD code in their system. The terms "based on" to me say that their arcitecture is based largely on the old 4.4 release. I stand by my original statement, but would be happy to retract if you can find me a reliable source to prove me wrong.
The NeXT boys do work at Apple now, but NeXT flopped, if I may remind you. A friend of mine had a son who worked at NeXT, too. From what I heard, it was the classical Job's style of management that helped keep the company from going too far. It'll be interesting to see how his style affects Apple now that he's back.
Judging things on technical grounds must be seperate from religious grounds. Don't like the proprietary GUI? fine. But
don't start telling me that "it's not easy to use", or it's technically inferior. You have already shattered your credibility
in claiming that FreeBSD is as easy to use as MacOS - it plainly isn't.
I never claimed it was as easy to use as the Mac, I simply said it was easy. The first time I installed FreeBSD it took me the time to download it from the Internet, basically. To get X running took another hour, perhaps. I would never claim it was as easy to use as the Mac, because that level of simplicity does reduce usability and render a product "technically inferior", to use your words, not mine. Again, I reference you to the Scoville essay above.
In the end, there's a level of irreducible complexity to computers that makes a GUI into a waste of time. I used to be a GUI nut, but then I realized what power and flexibility the command line offers. It's the same reason when a book gets turned into a movie the people who loved the book kavetch that the movie was horrible, it was glossy, and it lacked depth. (ie the Tom Clancy books, the John Grisham books, an so forth). Don't get me wrong, I like movies...but a good book is far more rewarding and enriching. Thus the GUIONLY mentality of Mac people annoy me, and encite me to rant.
As to the title of your rebuttle, I think it says more than I could say about certain matters.
I'm glad we've come to a meeting of the minds. Your response was satisfying to read, you had many good points of your own. If the developers in a mailing list said they used that code, that's about as first-hand as you can get. I will qibble with you on one point, however.
...administrative tools [GUIs] are designed for routine operations under normal system conditions, and this assumption is interwoven into their structure, often down to the last detail. When the system is in trouble, and these assumptions no longer hold, the tools often break down completely. ...In the end, you need to know how things really work."
It's about good and easy. Easy GUI's for the routine stuff, powerful CLI's for the hard stuff. And perhaps eventually, we'll figure away to get the expressiveness of a CLI into a GUI.
Okay, your first statement I can believe, but the second? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Think about it. Piping, command-line flags, varying argument structures, outputs from executions as arguments, ASCII output/log files parsed and processed by Awk, Sed, and Perl...you'll never be able to wrap that kind of power into a GUI. In the end, a GUI will always amount to click,drag,&drop, select, unselect, etc. Its the flexibility, brevity, and arcane nature of the command line which gives it such power. If that wasn't the case, UNIX would never have evolved in the way that it did. Remember, this is an OS which has been around for 30 years, developed by thoughtful and introspective academics, inventive industrialist researchers, and various computer gods. Allow me to quote from The O'Reilly book "Essential System Administration", page 18, in the subsection Menus and Icons Aren't Enough, "Somebody has to know how things really work.
So I say it's not about good and easy. It's about Outstanding Quality and Knowing How Things Work. In UNIX, that's been the underlying design assumption, and attempting to merge that with the Macintosh philosophy of Everything Can Be Easy for Everyone is just doomed to disaster.
This is getting off topic, but Edmund tickled something that I've been thinking about for quite a while now. If this is already being worked on, brand me as a fool, but otherwise, please read on. Here goes (proceed laughing, if appropriate):
Why not write an X server that uses binary modules for just about everything? I mean the kernel does it right? Why not just have video/mouse/monitor/joystick/keyboard binary modules? There would be a base code that does the very basic framebuffer stuff and then you attach an output module for your specific video card/monitor combination. Then there would be another module for your keyboard layout/mouse type. This way video card manufacturers could publish binaries for their video cards. For that matter, monitor vendors could distribute binaries for their monitor specs. I think you get the idea about how far this could go though. This would also cut down on the amount of bloat that X has (face it, X isn't pretty) and allow video card manufacturers to publish drivers without having to give up their proprietary specs.
Think about it. It would be very lean and only have support for what is currently needed (just like a modularized kernel). Distributions could compile everything as a module (just like they do for the kernel) and during setup, write the config file that will load the appropriate drivers for the current configuration.
Gordon
PS I'd be interested in what people have to say about this idea. Please mail me with your thoughts. Heck, if there is enough interest, I might start a project.
SB64 has only 32 voice in H/W and simulates 64 voices with software. (Which explains what you experienced)... It is basically the same card as the SB32, but with proprietary expension ram, and the optional preamp connectors and such.
Claude Angers
Well, some of us don't get to dictate all the hardware we use, so we have to work with what is "approved hardware." Usually, in my organization, this means the hardware is a bit on the older side so I never had driver problems.
Then I was given the newer IBM PC300PL that was mentioned in the article (uses the trio 3d). I am running in X as I type, using the fb device and Xserver. There are performance losses compared to the NT drivers but at least I do not have to use just NT at work.
The article did not say if they got theirs working or if they switched hardware. A quick trip to the newsgroups would have told them to use the fb until the trio 3d drivers are finished. Of course using fb may not have been worth the work of upgrading their systems (what is required to bring their Caldera release up to 2.2 readiness?).
Red Hat 5 (at least, I dunno about Caldera) lets you create kickstart scripts that let you automate almost the whole shebang. I HOPE they used that.... :)
As for inferior software running on superior systems, this is sad but probably true, but from the sound of it the alternatives aren't that much better. I would assume that when you own a large chain of hotels you can probably commission someone to improve the thing for you though.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
I think their complaint against Linux was simply that after the card change, drivers for the new card were simply not available. Whereas presumably drivers for Micros~1 systems would have shipped with the system.
This is really the manufacturer's fault. They should (in an ideal world) make Linux (or XFree86) drivers available with hardware release.
I agree that they should have ensured hardware continuity accross the rollout. This is common practice on all rollouts. Sometimes you have no choice though.
Adrian
Getting a contract for 4000 servers is nothing to sneeze at. It speaks volumes for Linux's reputation for stability.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
"Linux's less-mature setup infrastructure increases the up- front work required to deploy an application, but companies find the struggle worthwhile because Linux is more stable than Windows NT."
- Andrew Allison
I don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I'd prefer to choose good over easy every time. This is an intelligence thing. The intelligent would rather struggle than accept inferior solutions.
... and today's pet project has
Why should I bend over backwards to get my OS to support something I want to use? With all the problems with the folks at ati, I seriously doubt that my all in wonder pro's video and tv functions are very supported. A search on altavista for the words "all in wonder pro linux driver" revealed nothing. That's very nice and all that linux supports cashdrawer interfaces. Next time I'm running one, I'll be sure to give linux a look.
The whole world domination thing that everyone throws around all the time won't happen any time soon until linux can blanket support a mass number of peripherals. I can just imagine a linux junky saying to a hapless newbie linux user who's new video card isn't supported "don't buy crap hardware!". THAT should turn him on to linux in the future.
Ignoring a problem by having the user research for 2 weeks trying to find hardware that both performs at the expected level, has the required features, and is fully supported in linux isn't going to fix anything. Did you ever dare to venture into blasphemous territory and say the problem might be that linux's hardware support isn't what it could be?
Well the people who work in these hotels
doubtless have wordprocessing, and payroll
and so on. It would be easier for me to
train people to use CRT or whatever than
to train them to use CRT, StarOffice, GnuMeric,
and whatever accounting packages that don't
even exist yet, they probably want to print,
they sure don't want to learn TeX... or even
what lpr is...
Okay, so bring it on... What full-charge accounting systems are available for linux?
Don't write to me about CBB. QuickBooks and
Peachtree probably work fine under VMWare, but
that doesn't count.
Point is, there is a whole world of software
that hasn't been touched by the free software
community, nor even developed *for* the free
platforms... Probably because it lacks interest
for technologists. We have a surfeit of
applications that are useful to technologists (various nerds) (you), but we are talking about
the desktop application market... So who's working on accounting, billing, ledger, payroll
and ics systems? These are things that really
do need to be mature before suits will buy them.
I don't think I'd base a real business' inventory
or trial balance on beta software. I'm not trying
to pull MS vs. AlternativeOS strings here, just
realizing out loud that the sort of computerization
desired in a business like a hotel might not be
provided in the current free software idiom.
The accounting software for Windows isn't that good either! (so don't take this comment the wrong way!)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Super 8 is using Open Linux 1.1, which is good. The program that we're forced to use though is worse then sitting in Los Angeles traffic at rush hour.
Michael, ex desk clerk.
Mike Scanlon
>...any idiot can set it up and run it [NT]...
>> I actually disagree with this point (although not the sentiment behind it!).
I think the point was, if any idiot can set it up and run it, why not hire an idiot?
NT has this facade of being easy to admin - what that means is, the few things that are easy are very easy. The many things that require slightly more intelligence are much harder. But that's ok, cos we can pay the guy less - after all, he doesn't need all those new-fangled fancy-dancy skills the UNIX folk have!
Good to see this company using a decent OS, though but, although as several others have pointed out, why use Windos~1 at all if all they are running are X-servers, which I bet cost at least as much per PC as Winfoze itself?
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
Since everyone in the industry is keen on comparing software to the car industry, I think I would like to add a bit of insight to the "ease" versus "stable" issue.
In the US, car purchasing (up until recently) has been a chore second only to buying a home. The dealers, the research, the test drives, etc. all take a long time and drain a person. However, someone who goes through all the steps gets exactly what they wanted to begin with: a new car that will be reliable and long lasting, while a person who walks in a pays "sticker" gets it in the end, if you know what I mean. (Now, someone might bring up the point that the web has made car purchasing easy. But that is after *how* many years since the car was made a commercial product?!)
I think the same holds true with enterprise computing decisions and roll-out. Furthermore, there is a tendency for people to remark about Windows' ease-of-installation. Let's do some logic here:
Windows is developed based on customer needs
Windows crashes
Customers *need* to reinstall/reconfigure Windows
Microsoft fulfills customer needs by making installation easier.
Time spent making the installation easier is time *not* spent making other parts of the system more stable.
Linux was developed with "do it right first" in mind
Linux is tough to install (I personally disagree, but I can't place my opinions on others' statements)
Once installed, however,Linux rarely requires reinstall
Linux was developed right in the first place
More time is spent on Linux reliability
Jesse
If a company decides on a Linux solution, it's VERY important that they choose hardware that is appropriate (read - easily installable with a large installed base). This means stick with a standard architecture that has a lot of the bugs worked out, and avoid hardware that is known to be not well supported under Linux.
This can be tricky; if a company is choosing Linux for the $, they may not be entirely focused on purchasing the best hardware. It's a fine line between being a hero 'cause you saved $100,000 on hardware, and a dolt because the hardware you got doesn't work.
If any hardware that is chosen is not WELL supported, there is a risk that if changes happen which break the driver for your hardware, they would not be as quickly fixed as they would had a larger number of people had the hardware. This is all common sense stuff. Most of these problems are easy to overcome, but they involve serious planning.
I'm not sure I buy the maturity of the install/setup infrastructure as anything. Does this mean software in general or the OS? Jump/kickstart installs allow for some pretty nifty stuff, they just aren't in a gui, and a make install is usually easily undone if you can read.
just my two cents
To make some kind of point as to how easy linux is to setup, in the past three days, I:
- Built a PC from spare parts I had (p60 MB, 16MB RAM, VGA, 2 ethernet cards, 150 & 250MB HDs, and fd0).
- Made 9 floppies for Debian install (first time using Debian was the same week.)
- Installed Debian base, manually configured DHCP to get my cable modem.
- Ran dselect, which ftp'd the rest of what I needed (GNU, etc.)
- Recompiled the kernel w/ IP masqing
- Setup ethernet & IP masqing
- Coming to you live right now off a IP masq'ed windows box with my very own web server in my closet running debian linux. Took me 2 1/2 days. Now I just have to put some web pages up
:)
This is the reason I get annoyed when technical competent people (like hotel sysadmins) complain about the hard installation of linux.--
Obviously, if the sysadmins at this company find Linux having more "up front workload", then they'll be hiring people who like Linux's "less mature infrastructure". Which is, in the end, a good thing, yes?
The servers, running Caldera Systems Inc.'s OpenLinux Version 1.1, will deliver the applications to Windows 95 desktops running a terminal-emulation program.
Sounds to me like they're running an X server on those Win95 boxes. Which means that the only reason they still use Win95 is due to legacy apps. Make something equivalent available on Linux, and they can wipe the Win95 boxes clean.
... 4,000 NT licenses down the drain, oh my...
Interesting that this fellow pointed this out which is an embaressing truth: even linux-friendly companies are slow to ensure driver support for the mouse-that-will-roar. Maybe it's something the big-boys will keep in mind if large-scale deployment of this type continues.
AC
Haha! I was interviewing for a job at an engineering company, and the IT Director said that they were getting rid of Unix in favor of NT. One of the reasons he cited was "...unix is so stable, that when it does crash, it's been so long since it last crashed that no one really knows how to fix it..."
I thought that was really amusing. They wanted to hire someone for the unstable operating enviornment so they could get rid of the stable one..
it seems to me that the elitist crap quotient around here is going up as fast as the FUD stuff.
e.g.: the INTELLIGENT [used as a collective noun, I might add, which just reeks of looking down your nose @ the rest of us, emph mine] will struggle [or whatever] rather than accept an inferior solution...
or: that's why I get annoyed when technically competent people...complain that Linux is hard to install...
gimmee a break.
end users aren't really stupid. they are often ignorant about computers and operating systems, and for good reason: the point of being an end user is that you don't want to know a damned thing about computers.
you don't. you want to know how to do something that involves the use of a computer. learning about computers is a waste of, say, a research librarian's valuable time. s/he doesn't want to use a computer, s/he just wants to find a bibliographic reference, or create a document, or....
just because our lives (i'm a slolaris admin) revolve around the things that go on inside the box doesn't mean that everone else's should. computers, within society at large, are a means to an end, not an end.
when you're buying 4000 computers, whether or not the hardware is supported by your operating system isn't your only consideration. the OS is just one component of a larger system, and if IBM provides good support and good hardware at reasonable prices (and they do, as hard as it is to believe that i'm saying that), then that is a major factor in your system design.
Linux has beautiful hardware support, but it's not any more perfect than anyone else's, and that an unsupported graphics card merited only a one-line comment is actually remarkable in a good way.
As for installation: I've installed linux at least as many times as I've installed WinXX, and I can tell you a few things:
1) WinXX installation is no picnic. You have to pretty much know what you're doing.
2) Linux (Slackware 2.0,96,3.x, Red Hat 5.0,5.1, SuSE 6.0) is worse.
3) It's not an issue with Linux. It's an issue with installation progs. YaST is kewl. sax didn't work for me, despite the fact that all my hardware was listed (and I selected it).
4) something else.
here's a clue: a lot of us obviously want to see an end to M$ world domination. if you *ever* want to see that, you're going to have to stop treating people like shit just because they don't want to screw with kernel source. because 99% of the world doesn't want to do that. EOS.
^D
-k. ^-^ ^D
XF4 should address this issue pretty well :)
-k. ^-^ ^D
And why can't it be both good and easy? Good and easy don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I think Andrew Allison's comment is certainly a valid criticism.
"Only if Microsoft goes first."
So you're saying Linux should stay behind MS.
Who does the install job for them anyway? Or mayby the hotel did all the job themselves? Anyone that is to put out 4000 identical servers, make the actual install and setup process only once. Noone would be so dumb that they would sit and manualy install this on 4000 machines? they install it once and make a install CD that does the job. Atleast thats how its done in the real world.
It just get's better every day
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
I don't get it. What legacy apps? These computers are supposed to be used just for running the hotel. All of that is done through the terminal application (which I read to be console, but it could be X). I guess they don't want to have to retrain all the workers to use Linux as the user-system. Windows doesn't seem to provide any advantage over Linux in this case (and plenty of disadvantages) except that it's what people know how to use. Surely they could just make them boot, give each person a login and a .bashrc that loads the ap. That, it seems, is mindnumbingly easy. Oh, but then they can't play minesweeper!
Yes, but the cost of retraining people for gnome-minesweeper and kmine or xmine would be astronomical!
You are right.
However, I have seen several places with UNIX and NT. And most of them are like the one I work for now:
There are 25+ UNIX Boxes (Servers + workstations), and 3 Admins (actually 2, with an open position). We easily keep up with the servers (most time being upgrades, not troubleshooting).
There are approx the same # of NT servers, and there are 6 Admins, (All MSCEs), and they have trouble keeping the boxes running and get support from our group AND Network services to maintain the boxes.
This doesn't include the extra groups for the desktops.
While the UNIX Admins cost a little more than the NT Admins (not much anymore, NT guys get extra $$ becuase their OS's owner has his face on TIME more often, which is more important to PHB's), we don't need nearly as many of them.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
I have to wonder who he is to have such influence to convince Cedant to use Linux, dispite the prevailing FUD and use of alternative solutions.
Maybe I'm wrong here; are there alternative solutions? What would have done if he couldn't convince the suits to use Linux? WindowsNT? Solaris? SCO?
If he had a tremendous struggle to get Linux accepted, perhaps he should write some sort of dissertation on how to fight FUD and what steps, what actions were necessary to win and get Linux installed as the OS of choice.
What do the suits want to hear? What do they need to be told? What convinces them the best?
Just curious, I guess
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
This is great! It takes huge sales such as this to get the oem's attention to write device drivers. The installation is more ``difficult'' than windows, but it can be done on all of the computers at once. Glad to see the stability sold. Hopefully within a couple of years he'll do this for the clients as well, when linux's client ability equals its server ability.
Let's look at the reason Windows has better driver support than Linux. How many video drivers has Microsoft written? How many video drivers has the XFree86 project written?
The problem is that all the video drivers for Linux are being written by a third party. Nowadays, if you buy a new video card and use it with Windows, most of the time *IT WILL NOT WORK IN ANYTHING BUT 640x480x4bpp*
The reason? Windows has no driver support.
"Say what?"
That's right kids. Windows doesn't have driver support; the manufacturers do. In fact, if you were to compare Windows to Linux (XFree86 in particular) in terms of video card support, Linux is miles ahead. The reason devices are supported in Windows is that manufacturers write drivers and give them to you with the video card. THAT is what makes the card work.
Now let's analyze why manufacturers can't release drivers for Linux. Support for video has been traditionally put into the X server (with the exception of fbcon, of course). Adding support means that you would either have to make your own X server, hand over the specs, or force you to sign an NDA for the specs.
Now how can we prevent this?
I'm no expert, but as far as I'm concerned, writing a set of drivers for Windows is relatively easy for the designers of the chipset who know all the features inside out. But writing a driver for XF86 means releasing the source. And Windows video drivers are more of a "plug in and go" thing. So what we need is an X server which supports binary-only video drivers which can be loaded when it is starting. That way, a manufacturer can write a driver, compile it, release the binary, and the user can specify it in the configuration and go.
Poof. No NDA, no harrasing, less trouble. We don't get the benefit of Open Source, but we do get more hardware support. If the drivers are buggy, well, we can't do much about it. But hey, it can't be THAT much worse than Windows, can it?
- ed
Well guys, if this upgrade is bad publicity for Linux, sounds like we should do something. How about getting together and writing some hotel management software? Sounds to me like we've got a knowledgable poster in the field who could give us some specs. Could be a real coup if we pull it off. Goal: stop people wanting to `upgrade' to Win95!
BTW, I'm actually moderately serious. Anyone interested in setting up some a workgroup, reply to this or drop me a line.
My guess would be that their app is written for text-mode (curses and the like); most hotel management software runs in text-mode on either dumb terminals or in VT emulation today, on AS/400's and assorted Unixes. There is no reason to use a GUI on such an application - it's just a waste of resources. :)
This would mean that their having win boxes is indeed for WP and accounting, or that some of the M$ marketing got to them before they wised up
finally some good news.. i was getting bitter about all the fud
I just love it when I see of Gates' statement just below an announcement that 4000 (a pretty big number) servers will be installed for a single company...
ObComment: why were they worried about videocard on server end - unless they were using X? I have yet to meet a video card that doesn't run under console mode in linux ;)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
If anyone thinks that Linux has driver problems they should have a look at Solaris X86. I'm running Solaris along with Linux and I can tell you that driver support sucks for Solaris. Now... if I could just get a decent driver for my hp deskjet....
FUD - it's not just for breakfast anymore
Can't play minesweeper? I don't think so :)
Most linux distro's come with hundreds, if not thousands (at least a couple) of games.
-S
A lot of stuff in linux is completely counterintuitive from ther perspective of a dos/windows3.1/win95 user. I speak from experience: A couple of years ago, I downloaded slakware 'cause my dad said it would be a good idea 'cause one of his coworkers said that linux is cool. Once I got the monster running, got the long prompt, etc. I logged in as root... and didn't know what to do with it. How the hell are you supposed to know that startx is the thing you run to run x, and what if ls doesn't work, and you're stuck with dir, and it doesn't accept the command 'cause there isn't an alias in /etc/bashrc or wherever. :)
Recently I installed Debian 2.1, and it is a lot better about that kind of stuff. Partitioning will still confuse a lot of people no matter what. The biggest problem with the Debian install is the 100 questions you have to answer while it's setting up the packages, and for anybody who doesn't know what they're doing, that can be very frustrating. Also, if you have a poorly supported vid card, you need to find drivers for it in the SUSE distribution, and download libgz while you're at it. Anyway, with the windows installation, it doesn't ask you nearly as many technical questions. "What timezone are you in" and "What parameters do you want for gpm" are 2 different things
So yes, installation is hard for somebody who hasn't done it at least 5 times before. After that it's easy. And after you install everything, you still need to have some kind of idea about how the system works to really make it work for you. It's not a rational alternative to put on the desktops of accountants who don't read slashdot.
-S
I guess Linux is getting widespread enough to begin having the eternal systems problems: if the project management is incompetent, the actual system involved is irrelevant - it WILL be screwed up. And if they're expecting hotel managers to be their sysadmins, it could get really ugly. I think this is due to the high-cost of good technical help - many businesspeople just don't want to pay what it takes to get a system done right. They can't seem to realize that they either pay now, or pay a hell of a lot more later.
"It's really not that hard", once you've invested
a couple of months of your time in getting to know
Unix and some of the particulars of installing and
using Linux.
For 'the average computer user'. this process will take less
time with MS Windows, if only because the people they
know that can help them with their problems are
more likely to be able to help them with MS Windows
issues than with Linux ones. If it took months to recover from Windows crashes, it would be a different story.
look, most apps are now being ported to a web interface. namely, ERP including baan, jd edwards, SAP....so any terminal with a 4.x browser can serve as a nice corporate desktop
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Bah. I'll take open source over binary drivers any day. And witness what happened to nVidia after they were pressured to release non-obfuscated source: They did it. They recognize Linux as an important OS to support, and realize that most Linux users aren't happy with binary drivers of obfuscated source.
/ever/ have to release source? And when XFree86 9.5 comes out and their driver breaks, or they decide it's obsolete and won't support it... what can you do?
Even ATI has finally released specs for their TV tuners.
Linux is gaining the critical mass necessary to pressure companies into supporting open source. If we accept binary-only drivers, what incentive will they
Coincidentally, I believe XFree86 4.0 will have a modular driver architecture that separates the video drivers from the X Server. I believe the code was donated by the MetroX folks. That will hopefully lessen the burden on driver writers and spur more commercial driver development for X.
The Linux community has produced some really great software, but would anyone write such a goldmine and give it away? Open source is nice, but if I can grab your code, recompile it with a few tweaks and sell it myself, where's your motivation?
I understand that the Free Software model isn't about "free beer", but I have to say, from reading a lot of posts here, if you close up your source, you're evilbadnasty. I'm sure the community could hack together a chunk of business apps, but how long would it take? I figure a couple of years, whereas a more "corporate" development team, presumably, take less time (it would be, after all, their full-time job). If you could prove that Linux software development can rake in the moolah, people will write for it commercially. Of course, the first hurdle is getting them to view the OS as a viable platform.
-- Wodin
My favorite words to hear, right there at the end of the article...
"....Linux is more stable than WindowsNT"
Kind of apporpirate considering Microsoft's Chair-person's brain-dead assumption of the impact of Linux. If I was Bill Gates, I would feel genuinly insulted that a free piece of software is beating out my software that took years to develop under the hands of my programmers. I would be led to suicide. He doesn't even make a good computer geek. I bet MacOs runs his fancy little home network because his wife's vibrator kept screwing up the NT server and causing the lights to flash on and off and crashed Bill's computer while he was jacking off to gay porn.
Just a few words. Have a good night everyone.
Madhatter --It's no wonderland out there.
- WinNT: No clue. Anyone?
:)
This is slated for inclusion in Windows 2000. But then again, isn't everything?
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
...any idiot can set it up and run it [NT]...
I actually disagree with this point (although not the sentiment behind it!). I agree that the _perception_ is that NT server is easy, but I my experience has been that in order to make the thing fast and stable (i.e. what you want from a server) takes a lot of understanding and a fair bit of work.
In that regard I guess it's like Linux... the more you know about the platform, the more you'll be able to get out of it. But I definitely agree that people have a _perception_ that NT is so much easier than other NOSes... I guess Microsoft stokes that perception so they get more sales.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Thats the problem nit-wit. IS today doesn't want to have to hire 'geeks' or anyone 'special' to run their shop-----------they want to be able to do it with the staff they have.
Windows can do this---Linux has a ways to go yet. Face it, my extremist friend----Linux *does* have weasknesses.
linux is only good for word processing! =]