Slashdot Mirror
Linux is a waste of time?
Anonymous
Bastard writes "There's
an article
in today's Chicago Tribune suggesting that the effort
being put into the Linux operating system would be better
spent improving Microsoft's software. The author says that
Linux is trying to reinvent the wheel. Linux isn't a waste
of time, is it? " Oh my.
I don't WTF he is talking about. How can u improve
M$ stuff if they keep the code locked?
What don't these idiots write something they have
a clue?
Oh my god, COMPETITION! We can't passibly have that. We can't possibly be horribly victimized by this great big evil capitalistic plot. I mean, we only have about 10,000 programmers working full time trying to better the world, slaving away at these horrible thingies calles *source code.* Help poor little us. Save us!!
Makes you wonder if Redmond is putting the screws
to the media these days...
The guy makes it sound like OSS software can't be
as good as commercial stuff because it's "home
brewed". Standard FUD: you can't really trust
software written by hackers and student. Didn't
Gates say just that not so long ago? The guys is
a parrot.
That assumes, of course, that the effort we put into Linux even *could* be put into improving Microsoft.
Well, guess what? It can't, 'cause I DON'T HAVE THE FUCKING SOURCE TO M$ WINDOWS.
I think most Slashdot readers could play devil's advocate on the side of Microsoft and make a better argument then this Coates fellow.
/.)
This was a jaw-droppingly weak article from a REAL journalistic enterprise....
PS But it was copy edited BEAUTIFULLY! (Yes, this is a sarcastic jibe at all you folks who bitch about copyediting and grammer on
BTW, :-O
Someone in a MIT mag. called RMS a pinko.
But does he have some valid points. Sure windows code is locked- why mention it? it is a fact of life and ain't about to change. the facts are that windows IS running on 90% of the boxes out there. why is that ? - that is the real question - Because Ma and Pa farmer can't (and probably will never) be able to get *into* linux. So all the wonderful Zealotry being hurrumpt by this chain is just that. Zealotry. Get used to the fact that we can't effectively fight Microsoft it's just too big. We can't simply tout a supposedly better product and win. - what is the prize anyway ? world domination ? then what some new guy - lets call him toby invents a new kernel set based on the now defunct NT code called... TOBIX and these guys try to kill linux. Never happen ? Hmmm. My 2c
After I just wasted about 30 minutes reading the article and then all the posts, I am a slow reader. I know now I should just filter out all the Microsoft articles on Slashdot. I am so suprised that someone who works for a pretty large newspaper would write such an idiotic article. Does he think we should all get jobs at Microsoft and maybe they will let us work on Windows. That is just not possible. I really am a little too baffled by the complete ignorance by the writer, I can't even form a good comeback.
Sorry for the anonymous coward, I am not on my computer and I don't remember my password. That's how shocked I am.
LoRider
Either this writer is a dyed-in-the-wool marxist (competition is unnecessary. Dissent is unnecessary), or his job is on the line if he doesn't write something that will get attention and to which readers will respond. The content of the column doesn't merit serious attention.
The author was obviously raised by a couple of slackers and now he himself is to lazy to learn or create anything new. My proof of this is the fact that he is a journalist and is simply writing his opinions. God forbid he should write something useful that others could benefit from. Instead he has no ambition and continues to write the drewel he writes.
As a Chicago resident, IT professional and regular Tribune reader, I could've told you along time before now this guy hasn't a clue! I've been skipping his column for years! He's just one of those marginally knowledgable PC Weenies who gives newbies advice on topics like how to AltTab between Windows apps. He wouldn't know a real computer if it bit him on the ass. Just ignore him and maybe he'll go away!
What was Linux thinking when he started writing
Linux, pulling thousands, millions of people
with him. While he could have used his own time
for a far better cause then to learn everything
about real operating systems and enabling
the masses to learn it as well, for free.
Knowledge is power my friends, that is why so
many people are scared of Linux.
Windows is for people who don't know anything about computers, and will remain that way from
using windows. Windows keeps people dumb, and that
is exactly how some want them to be. When you
use windows, you are not in control, you don't have the right to know what is going on,
you are not free.
Some people don't want to be free. Others value
their freedom more then their life.
Linux and free software, is about freedom of choice, freedom to learn, freedom to know what is
going on your computer, freedom to be in control of your system.
My point was that you don't see vacuum tube computers anymore and there's a good reason for that. I did not mean to bash vacuum tubes (though I must admit that I didn't know all the uses for them you listed). But the point is still the same. So as not to offend any other vacuum tube enthusiasts, I will now change my analogy. Rather than invent the car, scientists should have improved bicycle technology.
Oh great, now I got the bicycle enthusiasts all over me. Oh well, I'm sure you get my point that improving an old technology which is widely used rather than improve a new advanced technology which is not widely used is not a good idea.
Isn't this article a little late for April 1?
What do you get when you take Moore's Law and add it to P.T. Barnum's famous words?
The number of suckers born each minute doubles every eighteen months.
Well, Let's notch another one in the old idiot tree thanks to this writer!
You know, while there may be problems with Microsoft, I really don't think that Bill Gates is personally responsible for everything that Microsoft does. I mean, while he does control the company, I'm sure he listens to the advice of other people. To say that Microsoft and Windows is entirely Bill Gates's fault would be the same as saying that Linus Torvalds developed Linux(and all the GNU software) by himself. Bill Gates is just a geek who found a way to make money and exploited it, pure and simple. I wouldn't be that surprised if he didn't look at a single line of code in Windows 98. I think we have to take the blame off of one person.
This guy's just looking for hits and controversy. We should stop helping him sell newspapers.
Well, just one thing. You can't say that the Mac interface is the "best" interface, the interface to end all interfaces. It's not, and neither it nor any other interface ever will be. Why? Because interfaces, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. If I managed to make the absolute perfect interface for one person, the next guy would still prefer Win95. I hear lots of great things about the MacOS interface but I, personally, have found it to be one of the hardest interfaces to work with that I've ever tried (and I try them all and learn fast).
This is why I believe the X _model_, as opposed to the Win95 or MacOS model, has more potential because you can have any of dozens of interfaces to the same applications. (KDE, GNOME, Window Maker, AfterStep, fvwm95, twm, etc). It's probably true that, since more time and effort has been spent on the Windows and Mac interfaces, they are currently more easy to use for the most people, but the X _model_ has more potential and, with work, will be able to win.
Gotta use the command line interface to get anything done. Lots of 3rd party add-ons with no integration or coordination. Same goes for the GUI interface - multiple GUIs that compete against each other, rather than cooperate. I've done this before ... I like the concept of Linux, and its a great server, but the desktop sucks, and this article was right on the money. Linux is interesting, but I get my work done using excellent tools by a variety of 3rd parties on NT 4. You don't have to suck Microsoft's butt to be very productive using NT.
Even if you take everything said at face value, and assume Linux is a waste of time - people have a right to waste their own time and a right to prefer linux to windows for no reason at all without being criticized. I also think that Bill Gates should be criticized for his marketing methods but not for the quality of Windows. I think as stated earlier he has no idea whatsoever how bad the source code inside of Windows must be. Instead of persuing an Antitrust case against Microsoft the government should create laws concerning the quality of commercial software which would not be unlike those requiring meat inspection. It wouldn't matter as much that M$ has a monopoly if it was helping people instead of making their lives hell.
He's twice Linus' age and less than half the programmer.
And he doesn't have hordes of coders praising him when he's asked to speak at major industry events.
And this is someone we're supposed to take seriously?
He admits he doesn't have a clue and he's jealous for the attention that is given to Linus.
He also doesn't have a clue about the Internet. NT was not part of it in the beginning. Unix was. And Linux is making great strides with ISPs now.
Even the Chicago Tribune runs their web server on Solaris with Netscape.
And all the examples of application software he mentioned as not being present for Linux?
Not a single one was originally created by MS. Someone else had the initial idea and developed a product and THEN MS jumps on it and kills the competition.
Hey, remember the credo of the Open Source movement. If you can do it better, then do it.
If this guy wants to take up programming and help out MS, that is his perogative.
But no one is going to stop anyone from coding for Linux.
No matter how many journalists cry.
And if MS software was so great, why would the Linux coders be needed to improve it?
If he is as pro-MS and anti-knowledge as he appears then he will have MUCH to fear in the near future.
MS is hitting a wall of complexity. W2K is too big with too many things going wrong.
The future is in appliances that can handle the tasks most people use a general purpose computer to do today.
Linux can handle that niche easily.
AOL users will particularly LOVE Linux once it hits their market segment. Imagine a world where you don't have crashes anymore. Where you don't have to buy the latest hardware just because you've upgraded your browser.
Imagine a world where the majority of home users have computers that are only a little more complicated than a TV-VCR combo?
How many weekly columns do you see devoted to TV-VCR combos?
He knows his job is doomed if Linux succeeds (and with the numbers showing Linux gaining server share, Linux WILL succeed). He will have to learn more technology to stay current or move into another field of reporting. And the others are already saturated.
Life gets MUCH harder when you have to THINK and LEARN rather than regurgitate MS press releases.
:)
I know it's wrong to take joy in the thought of all of these MS fed "reporters" starving to death in the streets after the revolution. But I can't help myself.
Some people just HAVE to do it to get attention. Everyone says up is the way to go, he has to say down is the way to go, regardless of what he actually believes.
Anyway, he's a hack who didn't make any real points. This is the last thing more than 10 people will actually bother to read from him who aren't his family members...
Grab KDE or Gnome or X or whatever and THEN try it.
Better yet, grab OpenLinux 2.2 and try THAT.
Competition is good. That's what bring prices down and/or quality up.
The most vocal view here at slashdot.org is that Microsoft is evil and Windows sucks. Bill gates is the devil. He is doing good too. This year he
has contributed roughly 6 billion dollars to charity. Like it or not his operating system does run on about 90 percent of the computers in the world. Linux is only good for serving data and internet stuff. Regardless of how good the UI has come, it's several years of constant development to make that as strong a selling point for Linux as is its server abilities. The enduser is a windows person and will be for a while.
KDE and Gnome have a longtime to go, and installation needs to be less Geek and more friendly. Work on the communication skills folks.
MS is the one re-inventing the wheel... they've been doing so for the last two decades. Remember in the early 90's when Microsoft declared multitasking a 'New Feature'? MS started with a stone-age OS and still hasn't caught up to Un*x. Linux is just a Free (as in liberty) re-implementation Un*x so that any time spent on it (or other GPL software) can't be taken away. Linux is not a waste of time because nobody owns it and therefore it won't die. If MS died out next week tho... there would no longer be any support or future for an OS that hasn't even caught up with the computer technology of the seventies yet.
KDE ... Gnome ... I've got that. Not impressed ... Win32/GUI "wannabes" ... SHOW ME why KDE and Gnome are really better than NT? Can't do it ...
It's all personal preference; therefore, your comments and opinions mean nothing to anybody but yourself. Oh, darn, I've just contradicted myself. Back to AOL I go... :/
Hmm, If Microsoft Windows was a Wheel, it'd be a lopsided trapoziod. I'd say there's nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel . . . especialy when the other wheels are triangles and star shaped things.
Several points...
Linux is more of a competitor to Windows NT (the "server"), not Windows 95/98 (the "desktop"). Any unbiased source will readily admit that it is weak on user applications and niceties.
>...the dinky feature-weak...
That depends. If you are a novice, Linux *is* feature weak. If you are an expert, Linux is incredibly feature packed. The UNIX command line offers powers far beyond anything Windows or DOS has ever provided. Especially the way that seemingly independent tools are effortly meshed together into mega-tools. (That's the power of the "pipe".) The pipe is the enemy of fatware.
Of course, if the Linux folks ever figure out how to succesfully bring the power of the dinky applications connected with the pipe to users in a way that they can easily understand and use, Microsoft is going to be quick to copy.
> Linux currently offers slim pickings for
> ordinary computer users.
Yup. No argument about the current state of Linux.
> The Internet was working swell on the
> traditional UNIX...
Stop there. Don't mention Mac or NT. The Internet was working on UNIX, period. Don't forget that NT later embraced the net and that the net was built and working quite fine without NT and without Windows.
> Meanwhile, they would have us reinvent the
> wheel by wasting billions more hours creating
> applications to take advantage of Linux and
> make Torvalds' colleagues at Linux software
> houses like Red Hat Inc. and Caldera Systems
> Inc. rich.
Every good author needs a bit of flame-bait to pump up the circulation, right? I think the best point here is that Win95/98/NT/2K is structurally flawed. Sure, you could fix individual bugs left and right, but you're still left with a flawed structure.
Linux has an excellent structure, and very few individual bugs. If Microsoft went "open source" and allowed contributions from the outside world, most programmers would chose Linux -- it has the right foundation to build on. Who cares if Red Hat makes the money instead of Microsoft?
And when Linux matures as a good user desktop and when a good amount of applications are available, I'll hapily migrate to it and put away my airbag. I'm sick of crashing with Windows and Microsoft can't solve the problem.
They listen to their customers and ask where I want to go today. But they can't satisfy the #1 user complaint --- users don't want to crash. Well, make room for someone who can -- make room for Linux.
I read that Linus started his Linux work in 1991.
IIRC, NT 3.1 was not released until July 1993.
Therefore, it is pretty much impossible for the Internet to have been running well on NT before Linux was a glimmer in Linus' eye.
Stupid Chicago Retorter.
I don't like his stereo typing of what the Linux community is, quite frankly he acts like we are all just rebellious youths, doing what we are doing just because it goes against the system (Operating System I guess in this case).
I totaly disagree, I use and support Linux because it is the future for me. I don't plan to keep paying microsoft for the same chunk of code over and over again with only minor changes in what I want changed, minor bug fixes, and a whole mess of other changes I could care less about, and of course the usual additional bugs and security holes. All of which we eventually pay for and then some.
So here is the question, why should we spend billions of man hours working to make Bill Gates and his colleagues at Micros~1 richer? So that they can recharge the end user for the same wheel that was hardly even reinvented, and on top of that only to lease it.
The answer is simple, we shouldn't waste our time on Bill Gates.
This rather naive article completely ignores one reality: competition is good and competition will keep Microsoft honest. Now that Apple is regaining it's strength and with Linux coming on strong, Microsoft will be more responsive to what the "consumer" wants and not just what Microsoft wants.
Choice GOOD. Monopoly BAD.
Let's get things straight, then. I remember using Linux around 1991 (the early Slackware days, IIRC). When did Windows NT support TCP/IP? The Macintosh? I mean as part of the product, not as the "download our betaware stack product patch!". I know other flavors of Unix have been keeping the flame alive much longer.
Nah. MASM was fairly backwards, and had some strange idiosyncracies. TASM in ideal mode was better. =P
MS-DOS 3,5 and 6 were some of MS's least buggy programs (plus all the versions of BASIC they created for old computers) You'd never see DOS crash when getting a directory list, unless there was some hardware reason why it should crash, or a TSR loaded that was interfering. Compare that to Windows which could crash while browsing with EXPLORER.EXE depending on what files are in that directory, what drivers are installed, phase of the moon, etc. MS-DOS didn't do much, but what it did do, it did well.
I have to admit, though. Windows 9x is a lot more stable than a lot of people give it credit for. Unless you're playing a lot of games, you really shouldn't need to reboot more than once a day, and if you do, then there's probably something wrong with your install.
I heard you can make nice shiney floors though...
KDE is a desktop environment. It runs on Linux. KDE isn't better than NT.
Linux is more stable and scalable and reliable than NT.
KDE gives you a graphical interface to Linux.
It's like asking why this steering wheel is better than a Geo prizm.
The steering wheel doesn't matter.
But if you put it in a Ferrari....
Not only that, but linux cannot do anything useful, but windows can be a mail server (Is my memory workin right?)
~;-)
As far as I have heard, however, Milosevic's house has not been the target of any bombs.
Actually I beleive it was (I might be mistaken), the same day they bombed the TV station, except Milosevic wasn't home, so I think that is why it did not get much coverage as the TV station. I believe they said it was bombed because of some military operations or intelegence were being done out of it (or something like that), and not to get Milosevic.
It would be nice though if someone would write a more Linux Biased article some time, and if at all possible a neutral article that addresses the important issues.
hmmmm Linux was around just about the time OS/2 started out give for take a year. and NT started with 3.5 and popped out of the cracks after Os/2 3.0 was out. Wonder where these damn media ppl get there information from.
Having lived in Chicago for most of my life, I can say that this guy is an idiot, and I haven't ever seen one of his columns which was even factually correct. He is a moron who says stupid stuff in the newspaper. Nothing more, nothing less. He says that he has less than half the programming skill of Linus. From his other columns I would highly doubt that he programs in anything more complex than Visual Basic.
GW-BASIC really wasn't too bad. I especially liked being able to do "LIST" (what was it, F1?), and then go up, edit the code, and just hit . Quite a dynamic environment... I wonder if they were inspired by LISP systems? It sounds a *lot* like Lisp Interaction mode in EMACS, now that I think of it.
While Windows 95 is much more stable than 3.1 upon initial install, the thing is it gradually fucks itself over.
X's network transparency truly rocks.
Even if they open the source doesn't mean they won't charge any money for other peoples work or for the same chunks of code, no price control, and definetly no free beer to read the free speech. :)
Not only that, but even if they release their source, they would still charge for the same code over and over again, on top of that charge money for other peoples contributions, all to keep their medi/marketing empire going.
Unfortunately, Windows still has a lot of features that aren't available in those apps. OLE in Windows allows users to drop a spreadsheet from Excel/123/whatever into Word/AmiPro/Wordperfect/whatever with very little fuss, and even lets the user edit that same spreadsheet "in-place". Unfortunately this feature is largely unavailable on 99% of linux apps currently, although, again KDE is working on it (via CORBA), but it's hard to say when that's going to be done, and it'll initially only be available for KDE apps.
There's also the problem that the UIs on all these programs are not in any way standardized. There are loads of "standard" widget libraries (QT, GTK, Motif, etc) which further fragments things, and makes life generally a pain in the ass. Without a clear (and single) standard in these areas, the usefulness of office apps for *nix platforms is somewhat limited.
The computer equivalents of 'Siskel & Ebert' within Chicago's newspaper scene are Jim Coates and Don Crabb, two aging lard-asses... These guys own large amounts of stock in Apple Computers. Believe it or not, these are the first kind words about Micro~1 that I've heard from Mr. Bloates.
This guy has no clue about commands lines. He probably does know that MSWin runs atop MSDOS, but he is a consumate sloppy clicker....
Bloates does know about the Kernal... He buys chicken from him every other day....
Bloates is a warped, (no, not OS/2) frustrated old man, misty eyed about the old days when Da Mayor would pronouce things funny.
And what options would he have besides reinventing the wheel if he didn't know the wheel was round?
Not only that, but there is more than one way to make a rolling object.
> excellent programming tools, text editors and similar apps makes Linux the choice on apps alone
This is funny.
Most programmers, both working on OSS or closed source, expect their programs to be used by multiple people. For that reason, don't you feel stupid for thinking that programmers enjoying vast majority of software written for them means other users are satisfied equally?
OK, some of you must gonna say something about Applixware or StarOffice being the solution for most people's needs.
But you know what? My friend asked me, after installing Red Hat, what can he do when he want to use word processing. I asked if he had ever heard of Applixware or StarOffice. The answer of course is NO.
In the Windows world, I'm sure that MS Office gets equal or even larger amount of publicity, so that users know equally well what OS they're using and what apps they can use when they wanna do something.
It's not about quality of the software, it's about publicity. Anybody flaming me by telling me what software I could use for a particular purpose must gonna be right. But what do you actually expect users to know in order to let themselves start working? Should a beginning Linux user go out there, do a survey on Linux experts for what apps are available before they actually go purchase a distribution?
Look at your own words, you tell me who's stupid?
"I read that Linus started his Linux work in 1991.
IIRC, NT 3.1 was not released until July 1993."
Key phrases being "Linus started... work in 1991" and "NT 3.1 was not released until 1993." (which is wrong, BTW).
NT 3.1 was released in 1991. Development was rumoured to effectively have begun in 1987. Linus didn't start development until 1991, and didn't "release" anything to anyone until 1993.
Stupid Linux-biased ignoramus.
No. NT started life with 3.1 in 1993 and that was after OS/2 2.0
NT 3.1 arrived at about the same time as OS/2 2.1. So Linux was way ahead of NT. It still is.
NT started with 3.1, release in 1991. Linus didn't release SQUAT until 1993, although he started development in 1991 (NT had started in 1987).
Wonder wear these damn Linux ppl get there (sic) information from.
I am sure you will find more Linux users not knowing about those apps than Windows users not knowing about MS Office and other apps.
It's not quality that wins out always. Publicity also plays an important part. The fact is, there are way more people writing apps for Linux than Windows. But which univ. student, part-time/full-time hacker will get his software publicised?
Your list of software is correct, but to those who know more about Linux only.
To many other non-Linux users who want to try out Linux, your list may well probably be unknown to them.
And I think this is the most fatal difficulty that keep new-comers away
Really? Even over a modem?
X's client-server model is basically irrelevant to most home users.
I'll trust his computer advise the day I trust a used car salesman to do open heart surgery on me.
I figured a journalist would try to have a clue before he shot his mouth off, but I guess not.
well, first of all bill gates has nothing to do with the coding of windows. second of all, an operating system is nothing more than a tool. If linux offers you the most efficient way of completing your specific task, use linux. for the average user it is reinventing the wheel, trying to get their sound blaster live working whereas it already works in windows for example. using linux simply because it is not microsoft affiliated is simply, dumb. I've been using linux in a dual boot configuration for years and there has always been a reason to use good ol' windows in lieu of it. I don't think attacking the man's grammar is any way to refute his arguments either... Don't let ignorance and spite guide your decisions in life.
d
WRONG again clueless!
NT was still vapor in 1991. NT 3.1 was released in 1993. Check it out.
"NT had started 1987"???? Get a clue. Read "Show Stopper". Dave Cutler was still working on Prism at Digital until it was cancelled in 1988. Cutler started working for MS in October 1988. So it would be AMAZING TIME TRAVELLING SF if NT "got started in 1987"!!!
Linux people apparently do some research, unlike certain cluebies.
"...you could easily cut your LOC by an order of magnitude by putting the brace on the same line as a function definition."
Help me out here -- do you not understand what 'order of magnitude' means, or have you never looked at code?
Order of magnitude means power of ten. Going from 1000 lines of code to 10000 lines is an order of magnitude difference.
A typical C function might be
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("Hello world\n");
return (0);
}
Moving the brace, as you suggest, reduces LoC from 5 to 4. HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE? And that's a _trivial_ function.
EH! yes, he started it in 1991 and made it freely available on the internet! in 1991, people were downloading and running Linux. you stupidass idiot, do some proper research. GET IT RIGHT!
So what if NT was in the works before Linux. Linux was "stable" before NT.
Hold on.. NT isn't "stable" yet and it's 1999!!!
OH DAMN!
well, do that a million times :). and also, why would you pass something into a main function that prints hello world? template programmers, hehe
Hmmm....people writing in slashdot about Bill being a geek. Something about glass houses fits well here I think? Want to think utopian, imagine a world where unselfish people give up intellectual property for the good of the whole and ask nothing in return but good software. Thats what the Linux crew tries to portray itself as.
Truth? You are all jealous of Bill and his ideas. He makes money because the VAST MAJORITY like his products. Get over it and work for Microsoft. Wait, you cant can you - your still in school.
The way i see it, Microsoft didnt invent the wheel
they have this OKWARD Square thing lumping around
and LINUX is inventing the wheel as we speek.
Actually, he is--or at least fairly intelligent. You don't make X billion dollars by being an idiot (unless perhaps you inherit it..) But just because someone's a genius doesn't mean they can't also be megalomaniacal and Machiavellian.
I've rarely heard someone stand up and say "I like Windows". Usually what I hear is "yeah it sucks but it's better than the other stuff out there" (usually without having personal experience with the 'other stuff') or "[program X] runs on it, what can I do?".
But then..why am I even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous piece of flamebait anyway?..
Daniel
PS - yes, I am in school. Flame on..
This arguments makes the fallacy of reliance on past fact.
It is a given that more software is run on the microsoft platform, as it has been "popular" for a longer time. With linux only recently reaching a level of general recognition, it hasnt had the opportunity to reach a high level of professional development. I see this as changing rapidly.
This leads to the fallacy: Just because microsoft has been around longer doesn't mean that it is more worthy of being an operating system. Allowing fallacies of this nature to be uncontested would remove all forms of innovation and/or change.
Certainly. I would probably contribute fixes and improvements to Windows, but I can't even figure out exactly what to fix without signing my life away.
The reason why people contribute to Linux and *BSD is that it's easy to scratch your itch, if you have time and interest. But I couldn't stop Windows from blue-screening if I had all the time in the world, aside from going to work for Microsoft.
In that respect, all the time devoted to programs that work around windows problems and inadequacies (MaxMTU, various tweak utilities, registry cleaners, and everything that the kind folks at www.winternals.com waste their lives on) is completely worthless, because you'll have to come up with a new fix when the next version rolls around.
i was addressing the people that seem to hate microsoft because everybody else does, and i know they're out there, i've heard about them from a friend of a friend. For the strong others, if they want to put themselves through the trouble of not using the best tool for the job, go for it. You can use a flathead to unscrew a phillips, but if you have a phillips head, why??? Because it's made by sears and not craftsment? Personally, I don't like mickeysoft, but if their product makes getting the job done that much swifter, i'm not going to put myself through any hardships just to not use their product.
my dime
Sears *makes* craftsman.
--Eric
Jim Coates and his meisters at the Chic Trib are merely hucksters looking for some online publicity, good or bad.
It looks like he's trying to find other controversial targets in the IT world after failing miserably trying to put Apple Computer out of business.
Coates is a media whore, pure and simple.
I have bad english but i have a lot to say! too bad.. :-(. I need to take english class instaed of learning Internetworking and about computers.
help this guy out? It's obvious this man is in serious need of a linux-job.
And no, Bill Gates isn't a genius. He's a Harvard dropout who was in the right place at the right time - mommy set him up with some friends who happened to be in the right places in IBM, he happened to run across QDOS and pick it up for a pittance. Simply timing. Since then, he's again and again proven he could market sandbags to people in the Mojave and probably sell a lot of 'em. And no, I don't think he's richer than the sultan of Brunei. (who afaik is STILL the world's richest man)
For one, that is obvious jealousy you have for the man. And second, the Sultan of Brunei is not richer than Bill Gates any more. Bill Gates is now the richest human being in the Universe (assuming there are no humans in other solar systems).
cbb is a personal finance manager that works exceptionally well and can import Quicken files!
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt/cbb/
Best of all, it's GPL'd software!
~AC
That was a bit evil of you ;)
If the wheel invented isn't round maybe it's just as good reinventing it...
the same stupid arguments when I say that I find FreeBSd a much better OS. "If there are any faults in Linux, why don't you fix those instead of using FreeBSD?". Problem is, that Linux has too many faultsm and I have better things to do than re-inventing the Unix-wheel. ;-)
-T
I definitely agree, indeed the first releases of WinNT didn't even have TCP/IP support, so they certainly couldn't have been doing much for the Internet.
There's FUD and there's downright ignorance, I believe that this stuff is in the latter category.
The first post on this topic suggested troll...more like moron...
The more I read the article in question, the more I began to wonder who had ACTUALLY paid for this article.... I think it has a lot of the smell of the infamous Microsoft-paid Linux vs. NT test.....
I would like to check out this mans paycheck.
Although don't get me wrong, if he's a copy-writer.... well he has a living to earn to. It's symptomatic though of MS to have this kinda publicity.
One could say that the appearing of this kind of article is another sign that linux is now getting big. Only the most serious of serious competing threats to MS were attacked like this in the past.... Let's just all make sure MS gets no chance in eliminating the threat linux poses to it, like it did with other threats in the past
So let's do it better :-)
Yes I am a fan of linux and do appreciate how good
it is. I also disagree with the reporter but we must also be objective and
acknowledge that the lact of "office" style
applications is a problem. Perhaps we need to
formulate a way to get these applications out in
a minumum amount of time so that such comments are
irrelevant.
Even if we were *allowed* access to the Windows source code, Windows is badly designed and fundamentally flawed. You could spend ages trying to fix all the bugs in Windows, and the entire OSS community *might* just be able to manage that, but why bother when there is already a much better OS available which hasn't made most of the mistakes Windows has?
And I don't think that Linux everywhere would be a good thing either. I think BeOS will be more suitable for J. Random Luser's desktop when it has the required hardware support and software base, because it's designed for that sort of thing, unlike Linux, which is designed by hackers for hackers.
It's easy to believe the "everyone should use the same OS so there would be no compatibility problems" argument, but I think that competition in the OS market would be a Good Thing because it would make all of the OS's available better, and if there was a variety of different operating systems available people would be free to choose the one that best fits their needs.
And multiple operating systems doesn't have to mean incompatibility... many programs can be fairly easily written to be portable if the developers consider portability from the start. And how many people actually use more than a tiny fraction of all of the Windows software available? There could still be enough software for everyone even if none of it was portable. And what ever happened to word processors etc. that could read each other's file formats???
given that he has trouble even keeping up with
something simple as simple as Windows, he fears
that he might not be up to the task if Linux were
to succeed. Which could cost him his job, if his
bosses notice. So he fights Linux with the means
that he has a his disposal.
Oh, btw, I'd go with the $500 plan. Does Guido
take Visa?
He didn't drop out; he was kicked out for stealing computer time.
1. Host a banner advertising from doublelick.com
2. Put an article bashing Linux on your web site.
3. Submit the link to the Slashdot.
4. Watch those web hits soar.
5. Retire with $$$.
Bill doesn't think it will work.
He is heavily divesting in MS.
He isn't a dropout. He was kicked out for stealing computer time.
Incorrect capitalization and choppy sentences don't make you look like a slummin' writer, you fool. "Bill Gates'." No: it's "Bill Gates's," no matter how much you dislike it.
ESR isn't a very good writer. He is pretentious and pompous, always writing stilted babble that only appeals to hacker slackers (or whatever they are). I've seen him begin a sentence with "However"--a glaring blunder. There are many other English fallacies stuck in his writing, but I think you should try to find them yourself.
Incorrect capitalization and choppy sentences don't make you look like a slummin' writer, you fool. "Bill Gates'." No: it's "Bill Gates's," no matter how much you dislike it.
ESR isn't a very good writer. He is pretentious and pompous, always writing stilted babble that only appeals to hacker slackers (or whoever they are). I've seen him begin a sentence with "However"--a glaring blunder. There are many other English fallacies stuck in his writing, but I think you should try to find them yourself.
Before presenting another review to your cyberbuddies, take a few more writing classes; and, for the sake of English, capitalize the necessary letters.
He is richer than the sultan.
X's client server model really embodies the ugly
brute force approach. You can't send requests
for advanced controls across, so you have to send
the entire button graphic, and consistency of UI
goes straight out of the window.
Oh, and can you spell S L U G G I S H ?
A replacement for the tired architecture that X
is is sorely needed -- the same for Win32 et al.
Yes, I agree he is an intelectual thughead.. but to begin with, he seams to only hit the negative...
>I've seen him begin a sentence with "However"--a >glaring blunder.
However much you believe that beginning a sentence
with "However" is a glaring blunder, it remains
acceptable. But (to begin in another oft-criticised, but equally-acceptable fashion) you already knew that, didn't you? And (for a third) what, precisely, are "English fallacies"?
I live in Chicago, and I've read Coates' Sunday columns a lot. He's not a geek, just a guy who likes to spend time playing with Windows PCs and Macs. He somehow got his employer to pay him for being a "professional end-user".
99% of the Tribune readership (even those who read the computer column) haven't the slightest idea of the OSS vs. proprietary software issues. Coates is writing to THEM, not US.
I saw the headline on this article and it was exactly a conversation I had this weekend.
:-), or just buy the source on a pile of CDs.
:-) --goats
This article is just a bunch of clueless hot wind, so I'll ignore all its stupid points which all the other slashdotters have carefully shredded.
But imagine if microso~1 were to pre-empt the DOJ by releasing all the source code to NT under some type of M$-GPL, and any young wanna-be hacker could go out and DL the source code (over a period of several years with a modem
Imagine what would be more attractive to the young hackers looking to make a name for themselves. Make an improvement to antiquated unix, or make an improvement to the newer, slicker NT. NT certainly has much more room for improvement.
If I were some college student looking to be noticed in the industry, I would go out and write a better scheduler for NT, or perhaps a better virtual memory management scheme. At some point, if I'm good enough, my code gets accepted by the maintainers, and my name gets some recognition. Then microso~1 gets to reap the benifits of my work, but so does all the users/buyers/slaves of NT. And later, when I go job hunting, I can point out that my code is used by microso~1 in the NT scheduler. That would go over good with just about any recruiter. It certainly does now by showing my little bit of linux.
So think about it. The only way to have massive improvements the way mr. Coates wants is if anyone can make those improvements. Not just those few who put up millions of dollars just to have access to a small chunk of some APIs or whatever.
That would turn micros~1 into a sort of RedHat, selling just one of many distributions of NT. It would take away their biggest profit maker, but I would bet they would stay at the head of the pack for many years just on reputation alone. Who knows, microso~1 might even become bigger and more dominant if their OS code were to be improved by millions of young, brash, extremely skilled hackers.
A pint of nyquil wont get me to sleep after that thought
And what gives you right to request the source ???
It is not yours !!! Simple as that ! MS owns the rights and they can whatever thay want with it and rightly so. It is theirs! Get over it!
one more time >>> IT IS THEIRS !!!!
I agree, I have a lot of dissagreement with some of the supporters of open source. I was talking to a opensourse enthusiast who was breaking the registration of shareware because "even when you pay for it, you still don't get the source so you can improve it." If you don't like that, then write a version yourself, don't be lazy and cheat the authors. If they choose to make it open source, great, of not, don't complain, just don't use it.
I like linux, just some supporters have forgotten their common sense.
I will assume everyone reading this article will agree that Linux is superior to any Microsoft operating system. Given that Linux is the superior system, arguing that abandonment of Linux to improve Windows is equivalent to arguing that rather than developing transistors, scientists should have worked on improving vacuum tubes.
I couldn't find the author's email address on the page, so here goes.
After you've insulted every one of my ideals, and told me that your way is right, and mine is dead wrong, after you've tried to make a point that monopilistic business practices are ok, and that somehow, you are hurt by linux's existance, I decided to think up a response that was equally as intelligent as your article:
Fuck you.
One could also argue that MS thought THEY could reinvent the wheel. Nothing they've done is older than the ideas put forth by thousands of prior INDIVIDUALS (whether sponsored by corporations or not). What? From DOS to Windows to Office. Tell me what is new and I'll tell you what isn't. Maybe I can't pinpoint the origins, but by the same token, MS can't either. The difference is that free software has no means to lay claim to petty ideas, just to the time and effort required to compose them. MS lays claim to everything, and is willing to fight over it like a brainless, incompassionate bully.
*ack!* Sto--p ch--o--king me!
Al--right! All right already!
MS invented consumers.
MS invented marketing.
MS invented the internet.
MS invented the gui.
MS invented the mouse.
MS invented the wheel.
MS invented mechanics.
MS invented physics.
MS invented information.
MS invented your thoughts.
MS invented you.
MS invented consumers.
*POW*
Did I reveal too much?
I'm confused. Who is the majority? Who is the minority. Who is playing the devil's advocate? Are they the minority or the majority?
Who is contributing? Who is taking?
"Oh my," is right. Oh my, where are my rights?
Free software == Personal liberty.
Closed software == Collective prison.
I'll stop my hand waving now. After all, I'm not being paid to market my brand.
Oh, the sarcasm kills! Can't everyone see that it's arbitrary! Laugh! Cry. Laugh! Cry.
Now, on to the serious analysis.
MS is not the only corporation.
GNU is not the only free software.
Where the line is drawn, nobody knows! Any judgement made is telling half the story!
If you start drawing line segments, a cloud will emerge.
Orbiting clouds may condensate or disperse, depending upon their relative momenta.
Some clouds pass through each other.
Similarities pervade, but so does uniqueness.
Structure and patterns emerge, but so do variables.
What we need are definitions of property that preserve, rather than destroy, possibilities. The GPL is a great example of this. Unfortunately, the GPL requires too many words. Wouldn't it be nice if the corporate environment didn't require so much legal code? If free software becomes the defacto standard, I could see a much more benevolent relationship arising between producers and consumers. Marketing could revert their attention inward instead of outward. Products would more closely match the needs of the consumer. The consumer would be happier. The supplier would feel justly satisfied.
It doesn't take much work to change things. It only takes an open mind and a benevolent soul. Changes do not have to be radical, they just need to be an improvement. The more you procrastinate, the more radical changes may seem. Changes will occur. When changes are put off, or improvements are only allowed to trickle, the potential for change increases, and the tidal wave will soon envelope you.
Sounds like you understand only surface beauty. You say that you can use "dozens of interfaces to the same applications", and specify four different window managers. Changing your window manager _doesn't_ change the application. Using AfterStep doesn't magically give all my applications NeXT-like widgets. It doesn't give them standard key bindings for common operations like Open, Close, etc.
This is why KDE and GNOME are important. Apps share a common look _and feel_. Meaning you don't have to learn a new set of key bindings with every applcation. Although self-professed power users may not mind, I think this is the kind of thing that would frustrate "joe sizpack".
The author is obviously being facetious but I'm afraid my dim AC self just doesn't get the point of the joke. Ahh well.
I've probably been in this field longer than the reporter. I know a good thing when I see one. OS/2 was technically superior to Windows back in the heyday of OS/2 and I was right on that bandwagon. I remember telling the TeamOS/2 people that I was only using the platform because it was the best thing on the intel platform at the time and I would drop it in a second if something better came along. I did too. Same thing goes for Linux, too. Hype doesn't dictate my choices. Quality and flexibility do. I don't see Linux being replaced on my desktop anytime in the next couple of years. Microsoft's insipid offerings certainly don't appeal to me. If they were capable of coming up with something better I'd use it, but I really don't think they are capable. They lack the creative juices that drive true innovation.
Ah but I ramble. You youngsters have to understand that we tend to go on like this when we get older. Anyway, whatever the various detractors and hack journalists say, they can't even delay the inevitable much less prevent it. Linux is the Next Big Thing, and we all know it. The weak points are being addressed at an astounding rate and the strong points are being made even stronger. With everyone jumping on the bandwagon, we'll do just fine without the hype from the press backing us up. Quality speaks for itself and it's coming in loud and proud on the Linux platform. All we have to do is play our cards right, and it'll be a lot harder to misplay our hand than it would be if we were coming from a single company.
Remember: The corporate world came to us, we didn't come to them. Wintel is on its way out -- intel is fading fast with nothing up their sleeve for the next two years by which time AMD will have eaten their lunch and their dinner too. Microsoft's got to cut the ties and fend for themselves, and it's going to be every man for himself. The old power blocks are falling and new ones are forming. It's the real way of this industry. Microsoft has been able to artificially hold it together for over a decade, but they were bound to lose it eventually. They almost lost it with OS/2 -- if IBM had been any better at marketing, the scene would be a bit different now. Not that in the long run OS/2 would have made a difference in the Linux scene. Not many people remember that Microsoft originally designed that one as well, and it shows, deep down underneath all that patchwork IBM installed to hold it together.
Er. What was my point? I know I have one around here somewhere. Oh yes. Ignore those nay-sayers. Stash their articles away on CD ROM and tuck them away in a safe deposit box for 5 years or so. Break them out then and E-mail their editors their work from today. Cause lots of embarassment. "Boy," their editors will say, "Did you call that one wrong."
And finally, remeber: We're all in this together.
Well, I think the Mac OS and OS/2 interfaces are the UIs-to-kill-all-UIs, just because I've spent a good deal of time in them and have learned to love them both dearly.
:P)
However, I agree very much with your point that it's EXTENSIBLE interfaces that should be the focus of the future.
Apple's Appearance extension, beginning in OS 8.0 and greatly extended in 8.5.x, allows a good deal of customization. Even changing *every* interface element. That feature was available in the beta releases, and in an illegally distributed Drawing Board theme that completely overhaulled every element, but was dropped from the commercial release due to "quality control concerns"
Anyway, there's Kaleidoscope (www.kaleidoscope.net) that does this for a shareware feel. It's more complete than say WindowBlinds, but less complete than an X WM.
Mac OS X actually allows the user to *replace* the Finder-like-shell with any shell. I understand it also has an extensible interface architecture.
I think maybe the Big Ugly Corporations are finally coming around to the fact that user's have a basic need to personalize their work enviroment. Microsoft doesn't understand this. And never will. (No, those hideous toolbars that do nothing and get in the way don't count!
Anyway, I liked your observation and thought I'd jump in...
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Furthermore, Microsoft Windows 2000, which made its debut in Chicago at last week's Comdex computer show, is a much more useful personal computer operating system than the dinky feature-weak, application-starved flavor of home-brewed Unix known as Linux.
How could a dinky operating system be used as the major operating system for web servers on the Internet today? How could a dinky operating system be used to create a Beowulf cluster more powerful than a Cray? How could a dinky operating system be used to create the special effects in Titanic?
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
I have to admit that the beginning of the article reads as flamebait. But I get the impression that that was intended more as a noise filter than anything else: the flames can be easily identified and tossed.
...).
That said, the fundamental flaw in the article is his suggestion is that Microsoft wants anyone to fix their software. The facts are:
(1) They don't make the source available for fixing, except via restrictive licensing that locks most people out of it;
(2) They only fix bugs themselves if they get a lot of airplay, and even then they try to put blame elsewhere (recall when the Win95 SMB ".." bug was found, and they tried to blame the Samba folks? They aren't quite so blatent about it now, but they still tend to avoid taking responsibility for their bugs).
The bottom line is, if it were possible for us (meaning people outside of Microsoft) to fix Windows bugs, we would undoubtedly be doing so. A large part of the impetus behind Linux, FreeBSD, etc. comes from the fact that we can't fix Windows (or, for that matter, Solaris or AIX or
So the article's premise is wrong from the beginning. There's little point in discussing the article... although there might be some point in discussing the premise with the reporter.
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
Here comes some..
the dinky feature-weak, application-starved flavor of home-brewed Unix known as Linux.
He actually makes that 'home-brewed' comment once more in the article. What he fails to mention is that that 'home-brew' is being cooked up by some of the best chefs in the industry.
Now, I feel that Microsoft is a big reason why hardware is so cheap these days. And that's definitely a good thing.
He doesn't seem to understand that for the most past, folks don't use Linux to go against The Man, they use it because the Microsoft Way isn't so great. I hate when people send me Word documents via email. I hate using Microsoft's crappy development tools. I hate having to use tons of memory for OS services that I never use.
Linux isn't for Joe Six Gig. It will never be, even with the efforts of the GNOME and KDE folks.
The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye
*plonk* Unix, yes. Mac, kinda. NT? When was NT 3.1 actually released? '93 or so? I remember running Slackware just fine back then.. I guess our intrepid reporter hadn't heard about Linux until very recently..
Meanwhile, they would have us reinvent the wheel by wasting billions more hours creating applications to take advantage of Linux and make Torvalds' colleagues at Linux software houses like Red Hat Inc. and Caldera Systems Inc. rich. I have yet to pay for a Linux distribution. If I had to pull a number out of thin air, I'd guess that less than 25% of all Linux installs were purchased from RH and Caldera. Seems that those 'billions of wasted hours' are running countless web servers, ISPs, NT file and print servers, etc. pretty damned well. And I thank those people who have 'wasted' their time writing quality software. I have yet to see a product from Microsoft that lives up to any reasonable quality standard.
Bill Gates isn't evil. He's not the problem. The roving masses of moronic brochureware IT rejects are to blame.
Well, it depends what you use Linux for. It lacks in IDEs, which are an important and useful programming tool, especially for large projects. It also is lacking in web browsers. Lynx is great for a textmode browser, but there is no good graphical web browser for Linux (no, Netscape does not count) on par with Opera for Windows.
It's also missing games. Sure, there's Quake, but that's just the 5th rehash of Wolfenstein 3d. Even if you happen to like it, it's still only one game, compared to the thousands that Windows has.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Go by freshmeat. They have IDEs that look like Borland, IDEs that look like CodeWarrior and a few that do Their Own Thing (like the GXedit, or whatever the gnome project's one is.
Well, I've seen RawHide, and it seems decent, but not quite as good as The Real Thing. I haven't seen much in the way of Visual C++ style IDEs though (not that I use them, but if I did Win95 or (ugh) X development, I'd want one).
Frankly, though, IDEs are a lot less neccesary in a unix than they are in Windows or the MacOS. Having a powerful CLI and a really good text editor (emacs), the IDE is really unneeded.
I disagree. When I'm trying to get something to work in a program, I like being able to make a small change, press ctrl-f9 to run the program to test it out, return to the IDE window, make another change, press ctrl-f9 to test it again, etc. Switching back and forth from emacs and a CLI to manually compile something is not nearly as fun or expedient.
As for games, there are lots -- many of which are unavailable elsewhere; See xpilot or netrek, nevermind the new unix-only ones. See happypenguin.org for a decent (but not entirely complete) listing.
I was referring to major graphical games, such as StarCraft, Alpha Centauri, Vigilance, Rainbow Six, Need for Speed 3, Falcon 4.0, etc. Quakes I and II are the only games I can see for unix that fit in that category. Quake III and Civilization: Call To Power will also be released soon, but three games is still not a great selection.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's pure trollishness plain and simple. I wouldn't doubt if he'd been given an incentive to write the article by Microsoft. Who cares anyway!
I say, "Why waste time putting effort into Windows when we have a free and open alternative!"
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Oh man, I couldn't get through the whole article because I was on the floor busting a gut laughing and crying at the same time!
I honestly can't believe some people think the way they do. Its really too bad he didn't give his email address anywhere on the page because I am really tempted to give him a (polite) line-by-line rebuttle for every FUD filled paragraph he spewed out.
If ignorance is bliss, this guy has got to be on clowd 9.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
As others have pointed out, no sense cooking this guy to a crisp with the old flamethrower, but a few minutes in the oven on low should do the trick ;)
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
...or so I hear. Sorry I can't recall the reference, but I'm pretty sure it comes right from Red Hat themselves.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Go by freshmeat. They have IDEs that look like Borland, IDEs that look like CodeWarrior and a few that do Their Own Thing (like the GXedit, or whatever the gnome project's one is.
Frankly, though, IDEs are a lot less neccesary in a unix than they are in Windows or the MacOS. Having a powerful CLI and a really good text editor (emacs), the IDE is really unneeded.
As for games, there are lots -- many of which are unavailable elsewhere; See xpilot or netrek, nevermind the new unix-only ones. See happypenguin.org for a decent (but not entirely complete) listing.
First, StarCraft runs under WINE; I play it quite a bit myself.
There are commercial games available for linux... Hopkins FBI, BFRIS... . Frankly, flashy graphics is much overrated. Give me Crossfire and Freeciv any day. And given time, the commercial apps (or improvements in WINE to make them all run unmodified) will come.
And now to something I know a bit better... IDEs.
You need to learn to use emacs correctly. It does, indeed, let you make a small change, compile and run the program with a keystroke, run the debugger inside a pane... etc.
You'd be surprised how much a really good text editor does.
Hey... I was just rereading that message and noticed something -- what's up with that "(ugh)"?
Yes, Xlib is an ugly API. But developing with a good widget set makes X fun. (GTK makes X programming simply a joy; I understand that Qt is similarly great).
I've done win32 and MFC development; I find GTK far, far better. And with the win32 (and, eventually, BeOS and maybe even MacOS) ports, pure glib/gtk apps will compile and run just 'bout anywhere.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
ok. open up the windows source. if it is at all possible to improve, people will. of course this will never happen in a billion years. even if the source were opened, it would be 100's of megs large, and impossible to work with. think mozilla * 1e6.
clueless reporter
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
I've never really cared myself about "world domination" As long as enough people use linux to force vendors to open their specs, etc. I will be happy- I only want a stable system for myself.
Posted by unpHEAR:
The only time wasted I see here. His to spend time reading this article.
..for a reason!
Ready for the analogy?
Development of n OS : Evolution of n species
Both are very slow and often inefficient processes. But neither lead to a dead end like M$'s development model (if you're a little slow the "dead end" is 50E6 lines of code). Just another non-technical no-it-all reporter.
Posted by OGL:
Sorry, but I'm going to have to correct you here, as it appears you don't know what you're talking about. For all the newbie's information: Linux is not UNIX, and depending on the UNIX flavor may be somewhat to totally incompatible with it. Furthermore, any legacy UNIX application for which the source code is not availible (read: most of them) cannot even be recompiled, and thus could never be run on Linux. Thanks for playing,
-W.W.
Posted by revgrg:
..)
indeed; unix community really wastes time to be
MS compatible (samba, wine, dosemu
but consider also some calculus:
400.000.000 PC with MS software;
33% running every working day;
10% of those rebooting for any MS reason;
30 seconds bootup procedure minimum :
that makes, believe it or not
60 working years at (220 days/year, 8hours/day)
world economy could win ~ 1-2 million dollars
(16000-32000$/year) per day, but they prefer
to pay MS the same amount per hour in order
to create above losses
Posted by My_Favorite_Anonymous_Coward:
Before you argue that these hapless PC manufacturers are just responding to market demand, think again
(if, in fact, you think at all). With a stroke of a pen, Microsoft could crush Dell, or Compaq or Gateway.
How? By raising the rate it charges each company for Windows. You wanna ship Linux? Fine, you lose
your sweet deal on your volume Windows license. These companies have margins so tight that a few dollars
difference in license fees could spell their death.
Compaq steps out of line and invests in RedHat and (surprise surprise) its profits drop like a rock. Wall
Street conveniently blames Compaq's corporate acquisitions. Meanwhile, Dell is so deep in with Microsoft,
you can't even order a Dell with Netscape on it, no matter how nicely you ask. Tip: buy Dell stock now.
Sell it when Linux starts beating NT in corporate use surveys (notice I didn't say "if").
I guess you will have to sell your DELL stock quickly then:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5371.html
"Dell Computer Corporation, today announced it plans to factory-install the new Red
Hat Linux 6.0 operating system on select, "Red-Hat Ready" certified configurations of
its PowerEdge(R) servers, Dell Precision(tm) WorkStations and OptiPlex(R) business
desktop computers."
Besides, people will argue against Linux using the "drag and drop between programs" argument, but, honestly: how many people really work like that? Most Windows programs like to start maximized, leaving no area with which to manipulate the desktop, or other programs' windows. The typical user doesn't alter this behavior.
As a result, most people still use their Windows programs in the traditional way: open program, open file, manipulate file, save file, close program.
For the average user, a machine set up with Linux, KDE and StarOffice would not be noticably different than a Windows machine, except that it would not crash as much.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
About the only thing lacking now is Quicken, QuickBooks, and *games*.
I expect those will take another year or two. And then its on to World Domination.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
He obviously attended the ZDFud school of
"how to draw attention to your work
by making asanine remarks about Linux."
Let me list some *real* ways to waste time:
1. Develop ActiveX controls
2. Write code in MFC
3. Use Visual J++
4. Install Windows NT with the intent on running
an enterprise web site.
5. Pursue an MS certification course
6. Use Visual C++
....and many other ways to waste both valuable time
and money can be yours for just $10,999.95! That's
right just $10,999.95 and we'll send you all
this plus the 5 piece stainless steak knife set!!!
*SARCASM ON*
Heh. I just hope that the author can navigate the immensely complicated GUI that is slashdot, considering that it's running on one of those Linux boxes. Why don't they just switch to NT? You just *know* that NT *must* do better in large, dynamically-generated web pages, serving them to thousands upon thousands of users every day.
*SARCASM OFF*
Really, I don't see how a system can be more 'easy to use' when it doesn't work most of the time.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Lord. I hope you're being facetious. If not, get thee to a mental institution - and quick. :)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Yes, I know Microsoft's sole motivation is money. Not just money, mind you. Piles. Stacks. TONS of money. But it is my opinion that once a company's only motivation is money, it's outlived its usefulness. I'm not saying that companies shouldn't attempt to make money - that's a major reason such commercial entities exist. I'm just saying if they've lost all other motivation, they're not doing anyone (besids themselves) much good.
Yes, for the general public, who are willing to put up with crashes and inconsistencies and feeling generally straitjacketed, Windows and Windows NT do okay. And getting Linux to work correctly isn't a problem. If you've done it once, it can easily be scripted so you never have to do it again. Unlike with Windows, where you've got a black box, where you can only guess at what you're doing, and if something doesn't work right, you can only dick with it till it magically starts doing what it should, or breaks in an ugly fashion.
And no, Bill Gates isn't a genius. He's a Harvard dropout who was in the right place at the right time - mommy set him up with some friends who happened to be in the right places in IBM, he happened to run across QDOS and pick it up for a pittance. Simply timing. Since then, he's again and again proven he could market sandbags to people in the Mojave and probably sell a lot of 'em. And no, I don't think he's richer than the sultan of Brunei. (who afaik is STILL the world's richest man)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
It's not a matter of jealousy. I do speak the truth. Microsoft may try to rewrite history after the fact, but what I said is true nonetheless. And as far as him being richer than the sultan of Brunei, I guess he must be now (considering I see 3 replies saying Billy-boy has the ol' Sultan beat now).
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Imagine someone saying, "if you don't like the Republican government, don't join, vote or speak for the opposition; join the Republicans and improve them". (For "Republican", substitute your favourite ex-ruling party that seemed hard to beat for a while.)
In a way similar to the establishment of "green" parties, open source became a movement because enough people want it, not merely as a better product but a better way of "doing business". That's the generational aspect the writer notices but fails to understand (and therefore resorts to mocking).
That comment was, of course, once made towards green parties. Fortunately enough people didn't listen.
commercial software is NOT necessarily proprietory software
do make a distinction, redhat is quite commercial software so is gcc and so is abiword ... however they are all free software ... making software free doesn't mean not getting paid for it ...
>If car reviews were written like software reviews we'd be seeing
>in-depth recommendations based solely on the quality of paint job.
I take it you haven't seen some of those automovtive review shows that air on cable channels then?
I know most people will never read this, but after reading that article, I can't help but let my fingers fly and write something about what the author (Who didn't include his e-mail address, so I can't address these to him) said.
While the article has a nice pipe-dream inspiring it, the author makes a number of fairly critical mistakes. Additionally, there are several incorrect assertions. I'm not sure if these are unintentional ignorance, or malicious attempts to spin what we're doing.
In the article, the author asks the question "Why don't we stop development on Linux and all other alternative operating systems and concentrate on making Windows 9x / 2000 better?"
The short answer: We can't.
The long answer: Microsoft controls Windows with an iron fist. They add what features they want and ignore everything else. They have no economic interest in spending the additional [mb]illions of hours it would take to rummage through however many millions of lines of code Windows is up to and find the bugs that plague the system. They're raking in cash hand over fist, what would they stand to gain? Reputation? I don't think even the Microsoft Marketing Minions could pull that off.
The author states that we don't want to because we're anti-establishment and think we have something to gain by challenging the Microsoft juggernaut. Again, he is half-right. While there is a certain element of disgust rumbling through the computer world right now, that isn't unjustified.
I cannot count the number of times a bug in Windows or some Windows application has taken my system completely down. I have talked to literally thousands of people who have had the same thing happen. I cannot count the times I have heard people curse Windows, Microsoft, or Bill Gates directly.
We can't fix any of those because we don't have any of the source code. We can submit bug reports or requests for features, but from experience, I know that those are pretty much ignored unless it's something someone on the development team wants. If they even make it to the development team. Many times in large corporations, they don't; someone somewhere filters them out for some reason or another.
Why do we continue to work on Linux? Simple disenchantment with Microsoft isn't enough reason to work on a project this big. Why can't these people understand that?
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Amongst the crap this guy spewed was this gem - describing Microsoft software as "fatware". I say if the shoe fits, wear it - it's Microsoft fatware from now on!
Tom
How's your fatware today?
Right, this has irritated me for a while now. There are perfectly good apps for linux, perfectly well able to match the functionality of Office (well OK maybe not the office assistant though I hear KDE are working on it, but that's a piece of shit anyway).
Spreadsheet: abs (look on linuxberg for it), Star Office
Word processor: LyX (search on freshmeat), Word Perfect
Presentation tool: Magic Point (probably find it on freshmeat)
E-mail and news client: M, KDE's mail program etc...
Finance package: OK, this is the one weak area I can think of (in terms of free software) though I think there have been a couple of big-name enterprise business programs ported lately
Database: come on, this is what UNIX does best. There are loads.
axolotl
Maybe the question should be reversely asked: why isn't Microsoft's source code (or any typical proprietary software) available freely to the world so everyone can work on it and improve it, like the way Free Software works?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
So we all can improve Microsoft products, without source, without complete API's, and then we can have the priveledge of purchasing the fruit of our labor? Good plan. Maybe re-inventing the wheel is only sane thing when the wheel is square.
Also, I would submit Microsoft re-invented the wheel first, DOS wasn't the best solution at the time, just the one that IBM threw thier weight behind due to convenience and some arcane back room deal. Here is to Linux, Round wheels, Free Software, and doing it right.
Insert pithy comment here.
Or, as the man used to say, "You can't polish a turd."
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
" . . . especially when that turd is locked in a safe."
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
I don't think he did a whole lot of research into programming practices. There are reasons that Windows 2000 is reaching an insane number of code lines and why people feel the need to reinvent the wheel. When people keep adding features to programs (for this example, we'll use Windows), they get bloated software with tons of features that were available in previous versions but have been obsoleted by newer functions. Thus, you get a word processor that's almost as big as an operating system (and I'm not talking about emacs here) and software that takes many more resources than it should.
/is/ over twice my age. :)
Enter the 'yoot'. They have free time and excellent motivations, namely, making things work better. They decide to simply "reinvent the wheel", rather than trying to port the current one or add more features to it. Code comes out cleaner, smaller, and with the same features that people actually need and use. I think we only need to look at the Mozilla project to see this in action. Sure, it's taking a long time to get the project out the door, but damn, what they're producing is slick, fast, and still has the same features as its predecessor.
The problem with the Microsoft wheel is it's really big and it's really flat. People are "reinventing" it because it needs to be. It's not working; it's not rolling along. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for redefining the status quo can't be found in the old codgers in corporate America, it has to come from us 'yoots'.
I don't fault the author, though. He
I don't know if you've noticed this yet, but slashdot.org is filled with advertising.
Obviously part of the reason for placing these articles on slashdot is to encourage more hits on the slashdot web site as well.
I doubt the Chicago Tribune could care less, personally. Their job is to sell newspapers, which they do quite well. The web site is purely secondary.
I disagree. When I'm trying to get something to work in a program, I like being able to make a small change, press ctrl-f9 to run the program to test it out, return to the IDE window, make another change, press ctrl-f9 to test it again, etc. Switching back and forth from emacs and a CLI to manually compile something is not nearly as fun or expedient.
Hmm...I do that all the time whether it's for cli, curses, or X programs. I can edit, compile, and debug programs without ever leaving emacs. While running gdb in one emacs window, I have the code that is currently being debugged in another, with an arrow showing the current line the debugger is on. I can even set break points in the source window. It certainly does everything that I would ever use an IDE for.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
the author of this article or the fact that Micropuff's *resources* should be helping fund Linux Developer's efforts?
That's what I love about you crazy Yanks, you've no sense of irony! I think the 'holier than thou', 'Linux rules', 'Microsoft is evil', 'we must slay the naysayers' attitude is just another manifestation of what makes America great, your complete lack of a sense of humour! PS: ;-)
Coates is usually a pretty good computer beat writer, given that he admits he is not a propeller head, and his audience is the general PC user, not the expert. He is usually pretty good at explaining the what & why to non-techies, and he has taken unstable/unreliable software to task on more than one occasion.
So I think it is worth putting some more thought into why he decided to submit this column. Does he really believe what he said? If so, why? Is he saying something we should be listening to? If he doesn't believe what he said, why did he print it? Is he trying to generate flames for an "I told you so" column?
I confess I have no good insight myself. I am just a bit curious as to what his agenda is/was.
sPh
"One of those pieces of GNU (or at least GPL'd) software that's older than NT is ... Linux"
;-).
Not to mention VMS - I remember a lot of VAX VMS machines on the 'net in the old days. I think it would have been kind of difficult for the VMS team to have released NT before they finished with VMS and decamped for Microsoft. Maybe that's why Bill hired them though
sPh
I'll be brief- you're right.
And I agree, WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVING THIS CLOWN ANYTHING. He wrote this as a (f)lametroll- he really did. And he shouldn't be given the gratification of the roasting he richly deserves from it because it'll just give him ammo to use against us further.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This guy would be called a (f)lametroll on USENET- it's no different when the tripe's spewed on a newspaper or magazine. It's an Op-Ed piece- and as such is beneath our consideration considering how at odds this clown is with reality. Don't bother sending him anything. If you feel a response is needed- let's all come up with a reasoned one, put it up on the WWW, and then send an e-mail to the Chicago Tribune telling them where our response is with full permission to re-print with attributions.
This tripe that graced the Tribune's pages and web site is nothing more than more FUD mongering- and the truth is the best weapon against the FUD.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Believe it or not, there are people who use Linux because they find it to be the most efficient way to do what they need to do. If you like to use Microsoft products, fine (and, for many people, Microsoft products _are_ good enough). Just don't get in a snit because people prefer Linux over _your_ particular brand of operating system.
By the way, Craftsman is a Sears brand. FYI
Improving vacuum tubes? I prefer to call these devices as valves, or electron valves, but never the equivalent of Windows Technology. You might have one of these gems in your house if you have a microwave. Powerful TWT tubes can be used for radar jamming in "peace keeping missions." Many hams and audiophiles prefer these square law devices to power radio transmitters and receivers. They are state of the art in electron control. Linux is the art of software and logic control. Please do not compare valves to Windows!
I decided to think up a response that was equally as intelligent as your article: Fuck you.
Yuck. Bad word. That is what a parent would tell a child. Fuck is not a good word and procreation is not a good idea in this case. Windows programmers should not have the ability to spawn and father children.
I guess you will have to sell your DELL stock quickly then:
Yes, yes, we've all read that "Dell plans to ship Linux." This isn't the event I mentioned, but let's pretend that your reading comprehension issn't severely impaired and I actually did say "sell when Dell offers Linux."
Dell is broken up into several divisions. They are strongly bound now, but diverging. Dell may be publicly announcing that they are offering Linux, but when, where and how? Will Linux even be mentioned on its online store? That's Dell Online, the second most profitable web site in the world and the highest-availability channel for buying Dell computers.
A lot of companies are offering Linux, but so far it's been to corporate clients through their corporate sales. It's almost impossible to get a consumer machine loaded with Linux, even from people who claim to support it. My point stands; this situation is just a bit more complex than I laid it out.
News Flash: The Vast Majority(tm) didn't decide either way.
"Like" implies favor. Favor implies choice. For most users, choice does not exist.
Perhaps you just emerged from a deep freeze, or your mom just let you on the Internet last week, so I'll fill you in on some news stories covered in depth here and... well, everywhere.
First of all, it's been well documented that you can't buy a PC from a major brand unless it has Windows on it. This includes IBM PC's and IBM makes OS/2, one of Window's supposed rivals. Have you ever heard someone say,"When the sales guy at Gateway asked me which OS I wanted, I chose Windows, because it's the best." No, you haven't and you never will, because no Gateway sales rep is going to ask that question. Some major brands have announced that they'll "ship Linux," but only Compaq seems to be doing anything. Go to Compaq's website, however and they tell you how to get Linux from RedHat -- to install on top of the copy of Windows that they'll install on your machine.
Of course, you shouldn't have to pay for that copy, because the Windows End User License Agreement (EULA) says that you can get your money back if you refuse the license. Just try. Many have, only a few have succeeded after months and months of trying.
Before you argue that these hapless PC manufacturers are just responding to market demand, think again (if, in fact, you think at all). With a stroke of a pen, Microsoft could crush Dell, or Compaq or Gateway. How? By raising the rate it charges each company for Windows. You wanna ship Linux? Fine, you lose your sweet deal on your volume Windows license. These companies have margins so tight that a few dollars difference in license fees could spell their death.
Compaq steps out of line and invests in RedHat and (surprise surprise) its profits drop like a rock. Wall Street conveniently blames Compaq's corporate acquisitions. Meanwhile, Dell is so deep in with Microsoft, you can't even order a Dell with Netscape on it, no matter how nicely you ask. Tip: buy Dell stock now. Sell it when Linux starts beating NT in corporate use surveys (notice I didn't say "if").
Get over it and work for Microsoft. Wait, you cant can you - your still in school.
Well, I, for one, haven't been in school for a long time. They let me out once I finally mastered the difference between "your" and "you're." I've turned down several invitations to work there and I'll turn down any more that come my way.
Microsoft is teetering. When it falls, it will fall hard. When IBM screws up, it still has a dozen other legs on the ground, but Microsoft is nowhere near as large and diverse as IBM. When Windows 2000 turns out to be a dud (notice I didn't say "if"), then Microsoft's one and only leg will buckle and the giant will stumble.
Chicago is where the PR firm that M$ used for its infamous AstroTurf campaign is located. Could the same firm be pumping its local press contacts full of this kind of FUD? "Resistance is futile." - well known evil robot war cry. But fortunatly for Free Software, "Persistence is fertile." - gbs.
Hmmm, does anyone have a reference to this which can be cited properly? I find it very interesting, since surely that's just how Bill started out. *sigh*.
Speaking as both a sysadmin and a computer journalist, I feel obliged to yell a small protest at that last comment.
:-)
I was a geek first, then got into writing freelance features on computing subjects. I have written (positively, I believe) on Linux, open source software and crypto-issues for the UK IT press and have always tried to give a fair representation of those topics.
But then again, no major software companies have ever left jiffy bags full of unmarked bills on my doorstep, so perhaps I am the exception.
It is easy to see that non-geeks (or certainly, non-programmers) might not see the point behind OSS and be confused by the idea that after trying to unify standards and improve user interfaces for the last ten years, we are now being asked to use another OS with an antidiluvian command line and no 'a:' drive.
The fact that these 'standards' have been achieved at the expense of consumer choice is not a consideration for most users, and is unlikely to be until they are shown a workable alternative.
If you are serious about wanting decent coverage of Linux, etc. then your time would be better spent giving journalists the information they need, rather than flaming them.
-- Stu
Yeah I hate toolbars too. I wish I had the code for MS Word 4 - that was the last thing they made that was actually good. I'd give my left arm, or at least my crummy copy of Word98 for an up to date copy of Word 4.
Anyhow, I suspect that there's going to be some trouble with extensible interfaces. Having done a good bit of HTML design, I suspect that there are two schools of design. The first codes to specific browsers and uses tables, etc. for exact positioning. The second is more abstract, with use of CSS and other standards for layout that can be interpreted differently, but without obfuscating the content.
An extensible interface that was anything more than changing the colors of the existing interface would have to be VERY abstract. Especially if fundemental parts of the interface changed (like changing icons back from nouns to verbs - could be useful, I dunno)
A very difficult thing to work up a standard for, much less convince people to design for (in adherence). I suggest reading the Apple Human Interface Guidelines book, as well as Tog on Interface. Both very handy sources of information for this sort of thing (there are lots of others, but those two stand out)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Nothing much to do on a Sunday afternoon. Wouldnt ;)
mind giving a few words of advise to a miscreant.
CP
"Maybe re-inventing the wheel is only sane thing when the wheel is square."
LOL! I think I may have to repeat that.
Try seeing what happens when your raid-5 (hardware or software) gets shutdown uncleanly. Say, 50gig? 100gig? Thats SMALL, folks... so why does it take hours to bring linux back up?
It's being worked on, but let's not cite vaporware, thats a Micros~1 trick. When the raid cleaning + filesystem check for a half terr finishes in a matter of minutes, go ahead and trumpet it. But until then, anyone who knows better will happily correct you, and make linux look bad in the process.
Of course, on the bright side, Linux dosn't crash often enough to make this a concern. But when it does, it takes quite a while to recover.
--Dan
Whether the stuff reporters put out is !@#$ or not, we must read it and check it, becuase if we start ignoring all anti-Linux/Unix/OSS/FSF/etc, we'll miss an article where they bring up an important issue worth addressing.
here's the URL w/o the extra space (i.e. so it should work now, although most of you probably got it anyway)--
/ Linux_vs_NT.html
http://www.student.brynmawr.edu/~ahackman/linux
and many thanks, "anarchist," for citing my page-- I'm incredibly flattered!
--Anneke
--Anneke
"Real Women Use Linux"
i loved the opening lines of this article, i could only laugh, and i though that this must be a put-on. the sad part is that it isn't, the guy actually thinks this way. the end is especially telling:
Whatever the merits Linux might offer the highly technical specialists who use it to administer Internet servers or use turbo-charged text commands to perform complex file transfers, Linux currently offers mighty slim pickings for ordinary computer users
...
Meanwhile, billions of human hours have been spent writing the amazing applications that run on the Windows and Macintosh platforms.
...
Meanwhile, they would have us reinvent the wheel by wasting billions more hours creating applications to take advantage of Linux and make Torvalds' colleagues at Linux software houses like Red Hat Inc. and Caldera Systems Inc. rich.
To insinuate that Linux programmers are evil just because they make money off of it, yet to in the same breath exclude MS is incredulus. then he goes on to say that Linux is _forcing_ prople to rewrite apps for is is to completely overlook both Linux's standard Unix portability and ignore MS's history on the issue. who makes us completely rewrite every app every two or three years because they develop a new *standard.* Throw in some FUD about Linux being hard to use, and some more about how it's not *real* UNIX. Then he says that the internet was working well on NT before Linux was even thought of. I think some more fact checking is in order. i tried, but i couldn't find even _one_ correct fact in that article. if the guy wasn't serious, i'd be laughing my a** off.
Reid G. Ormseth, Esq.
The fact of the matter is that Open Source is new and different, but yet it's not. It is something of a hybrid of capitalism and communism, something which has been founded in academic circles for years, a competition by sharing things. If you don't like it do it yourself, or help me. I don't need to lecture you on the feature of OSS, you know what it is. On one hand many people think that the GNU people, namely RMS are communists, yet they are the ones who are opening up this market to competition, something it's been almost devoid of for 10-15 years. RMS _is_ a *pinko*, and ESR _is_ a capitalist. That's why I loved the article's position that Linux is evil because some people want to make money with it at Bill Gate's expense. It is, yet, it isn't.
Reid G. Ormseth, Esq.
Reid G. Ormseth, Esq.
In the Binary Beat Article for 4/25/99, James Coates advocated further Windows development over use of Linux. I wish to respond to certain points within his article:
We never said he was. He's a business man, and a damn good one.
The complaints more have are areas where the PRODUCTS he sells are lacking. This is where alternatives like Unix, MacOS, and yes Linux, come in.
Has he ever utilized Linux? There are more applications showing up for Linux each and every day. There are CHOICES about what you use as well, as there isn't much choice with Windows.
Multiple desktop control programs. Multiple webservers, multiple database and productivity packages. Guess what, most of them are FREE.
How about graphic manipulation? For high end stuff you need to go burn a couple hundred bucks for a copy of Adobe Photoshop. The GIMP come free with Linux.
Weak? You're apparently referring to that study done that "proves" NT is 2-4 times faster as a file and web server than Linux is. What you haven't heard, or have ignored, is that Microsoft paid for a study proving that NT was faster.
That's what they got. A highly tuned (both hardware and software-wise) NT server is FAR faster as a file and web server than the base install (with poor tuning) of RedHat Linux.
In addition, a good deal of software from corporate *NIX environments can be ported into Linux with little more than a recompile. I'd like to see many of the NT applications ported to Windows 9*.
Also, I shall sound the "STABILITY" horn again. Yes, under some application NT is a fairly stable and solid OS. Unfortunately we have YET to see reports of an NT box coming close to the STANDARD uptimes reported by Linux. Also, downtime on NT boxes is measured in hours and days. Linux? Minutes.
As with any other issue out there, you have people who tend to take their positions to an ultimate extreme. Similar to the touted Mac-Zealotry.
Do not judge an entire community by thos few who must scream that Linux will eventually replace the toothbrush, the car, etc. A goodly portion of the Linux community are merely people who prefer using Linux to other OS's and don't particularly care about political/social rammifications.
This can be viewed in the same vein as "Bill Gates is a Monster". And what does your age have to do with you not liking him?
That's, again, a case of painting the entire community with the same, broad stroke. There are people out there, Torvalds included, who do not CARE what you use. Simply that there are options for themselves and others.
At his pre-Comdex Q&A at Fermilab, he was asked about gaming on the Linux platform. He recommended Windows as a gaming platform.
No, the best part about open-source code is that if it doesn't work, you can CHANGE it so it does work. The same cannot be said in the Microsoft Programming Model.
This is pure speculation on your part. About the only way most people find out they're running Linux is if they ask their networking admins. Usually, if it isn't crashing people have no reason to ask. This makes any REAL assay of Linux penetration very, very difficult.
The only problem with this view is, it eliminates choice. I'm sure there's a lot of little tin-pot dictators in this world that would LOVE for the US to "just go away" so that they wouldn't have to answer for their abuse of the civilian population.
Also, competition is GOOD. Do you REALLY want to have to go back to paying $300 for your operating system?
Actually this has been an issue within the Linux community for several years now. The only place where Linux has little support is in the Gaming market. There are several professional-level office productivity packages out there (one of which is Word Perfect). There are multiple choices for a desktop interface (you only need to use command line if you want to).
There are even applications for Linux that allow you to run Windows inside a window if you MUST have Microsoft Office or your game-du-jour.
Slim pickings? Hardly.
I think a small lesson is needed here. Microsoft's beginnings were every bit as "home brew" as a good deal of the Linux-based code. DOS (which Microsoft BOUGHT (not programmed) for a couple grand) was initially written as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System).
QDOS was really only meant as a program for testing Intel-based hardware. Some of the major problems in Windows-based programs are STILL directly traceable to insufficiencies in QDOS.
Also, home-brew isn't necessarily BAD. These days, the people are very concerned about the stability of the product (as the developers are running it on their own systems, not a box paid for by their employer that can be replaced if it takes a dive).
Also, with the projects staying in a more personal sphere of development, it is usually far easier to gain tech support and report bugs than it is with a closed system such as Microsoft. Microsoft bug fixes come at random, multi-month intervals. Linux can, if the user desires or requires, be updated almost every day.
As for the lack of features implied by "home brewed". I have yet to suffer from any such perceived lack.
Time spent on a project doesn't make it any more or less home-brew. Since Linux' inception approximately 8 years ago, roughly 70,125 hours have passed. Let's say 1/3 of this has been spent developing just the kernel of Linux. That's over 23 thousand hours. Realistically only maybe 1/2 of this is time spent doing viable work. So 12.5 thousand hours.
That's probably less than the amount of time Linus Torvalds has spent working on Linux (by himself). Take into account all the people working on various projects and you have several million hours of development time. And in only 8 years. Right now they're beyond the point Windows was at in 1995.
Okay. I can accept the Unix part. As for Mac and NT? NT was barely beta in 1991. MacOS was NOT being utilized server-side. That's not it's role.
Will Unix work better? Look at the Unix philosophy. Tailor the environment to what you wish to do. So YES. Unix will work better. For NT? Yes. It'll work better with about 10 times the hardware.
Perhaps if the wheel and been invented square it too would have needed to be reinvented. And what waste? So long as we don't HAVE to take a DEFAULT, it's worth it.
In addition, I don't think the people at Caldera or RedHat are getting rich off Linux. Making money? Yes. But a large chunk of the money they make is poured right back into development. Linux distributions have their place. They are the people that assemble, test, and distribute complete systems to use, as opposed to searching the internet for each and every desired package.
Also, you complain that we're making them rich. Why make Bill Gates rich(er)? You, yourself are now "demonizing" people for making money in the computer industry.
Linux is about choices.
Is it for everyone? No.
Are we trying to push Linux on everone? No.
Thank you for your time.
Charles Borner
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Micros~1 has wasted billions of lifetimes of otherwise happy people rebooting their crap OS. They should be held accountable - for manslaughter!
support gun control: take guns from cops
When Rob links to idiots like this, he should simply inform tham that they've been linked to slashdot, and that they may read opinions of their article at slashdot, and could remind /.'ers that they don't need to flame-mail the guy since he already knows where to get his flames.
This would save bandwidth.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I use Linux as my desktop. I've got a web browser, productivity software that's constantly improving, and my computer never crashes.
When I go into windows, I feel handicapped.
I think with teh coming of Caldera 2.2 and other "newbie" distros, we're going to see a much broader desktop market infiltration.
is that it will take a long time for the thousands and thousands of apps (that even the mac has let alone windows) to come to linux. And that's a good point until you realize that your choice in Windows apps may be threatened by MS. Want another word processor like Lotus or Corel? Tough-MS Word is the standard. Want a choice in financial software? Right now there's Quicken and MS Money but don't be surprised if MS finds a way to kill Quicken too. If MS makes an app, that probably means that you won't be able to as well. Linux is more than another unix. It's a unix that's winning. It's a unix whose users really try hard (_try_ is the operative word here) to make easier to use. And people are finally paying attention to it.
---
Coates on Microsoft:
... man every bit as technologically adroit... as Gates ever was."
"...prisoners of the Microsoft model..."
"... 50 million lines of bulky and balky code, bloated top-secret fatware that can crash out of the blue and that only works the way Microsoft wants it to work."
"...$89...for Windows 98...upwards of $300 that a box of office strength Windows 2000 can cost."
Coates on Linux:
"...2.5 million lines (at most) of highly flexible, free-to-use and free-to-modify software that almost never crashes and that works any way a programmer cares to make it work."
"...free, crash proof, flexible, (and) lean..."
"...the product of a
Multiple personality disorder maybe?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hackers and students. Weren't there a couple of guys named Gates and Allen years ago who were sort of in this category who were trying to start a software company? Should be obvious from their rapid descent into obscurity that ahckers and students will never produce anything with a future.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Moneydance. Requires the JDK which of course you can get from www.blackdown.org if you don't already have it. I used xacc for awhile, now that's become GnuCash, which might amount to something in a few years. :)
Slow, but that's mostly my machine...one of the better Java apps I've seen.
Get it here: http://seanreilly.com/java/moneydance/
The problem is that in many cases, these people are middle-management. They make decisions that will affect your life.
You have a decent point here. One of the reason's we didn't end up deploying Linux more often, was because it was different, and perceived as a "toy" OS, lacking features/stability that other well established (eg. Solaris) Unices offered. This was a headache for me for quite a while.
The managers wanted a "Real Unix Sysadmin" for our desktop Linux boxes. I countered "Well, then why don't I have a 'Real NT Sysadmin' for my NT machine? I have more problems with that than my Linux box!"
All he could say was that upper management demanded it. Luckily the Unix sysadmin is a great guy, and only logged in once or twice. But giving him root made management happy, so go figure.
The solution to making management happy?
We used Linux under the table where managers didn't notice, because it always worked, just like countless other people out there.
Thpbtht. :-)
Flaming the guy is pointless. Make a coherent argument against him, and try not to resort to the kind of blatant assertion that makes his article so weak. So take "have at it" with a grain of salt. :-)
--
Ian Peters
Something which should be pointed out to the author (which I have done via private email, in as polite a manner as possible) is that the billions of programming hours put into Windows programs hasn't been anywhere near as efficient as Free Software promises to be.
By his own logic, companies shouldn't bother to compete, because we only really need one application to fill every niche. Anything else is wasteful of effort, right?
Free Software efforts tend to naturally select the most promising alternative(s) and focus programming effort on those. Programmers are free to borrow and share code as the license permits, making their projects develop at a staggering pace.
We may have already invested billions of programmer hours into Windows software, but if so, it's been a losing investment. At worst, Free Software fails to capture the mainstream market to any significant degree. Most of these programmers wouldn't (happily) code on a Microsoft platform anyway.
--
Ian Peters
I'm glad to see some calmer heads in this discussion. I agree, flaming this guy is, at best, a waste of effort, and at worst, playing right into what he wants.
...) which address the shortcomings of GNU/Linux already.
In large part, I agree with your breakdown of points for/against the GNU/Linux system. Where I have problems, though, is the slant he approaches this with. I think most of us understand current weaknesses with our operating system of choice. And steps are being taken to address it. KDE a very polished, useable desktop. GNOME, to which I contribute time and code (albeit not as much as I'd like!), is already impressive looking, if not as polished as KDE. Just the other day, I was playing with AbiWord, since it had been a while since I'd last looked, and was amazed by how far it has come. We're not there yet, but lots of people are trying.
The problem, for me, is his assertion that we're squandering valuable resources by trying. I have to ask myself what this man's point was in writing this article. It certainly isn't constructive to tell someone "Hey, your dinky little operating system is no good! Quit playing around right now and fall in line!", without making anything approaching a cogent argument. This isn't even very effective FUD, because it's so obviously biased.
Certainly, there are valuable messages we can take from this article, but these aren't new messages. The Free Software community, as a group, is a pretty smart bunch, and there are well-written articles in the mainstream press (maybe not as many as we'd like
--
Ian Peters
You know CmdrTaco & Co are doing something /.
right when a Chicago Tribune writer trolls
to bring up the hitcount.
I have always been taught that you always try to make your code as lean and fast as possible. It is very obvious Linus was taught the same, and obviously those at Microsoft were not. Heck, Billy Gates dropped out of college, he must have left before he got through cs 101, and missed the "mean and lean" idea.
As far as feature-weak goes...hahahaha...yeah.. okay... you do what I do in Linux and then I might agree with the dude. Hell, I would almost be willing to say I would give him my first born if he could do half of what I do and have seen done, and do it as efficiently and effectively.
(Sorry for any spelling errors)
This article is written from the perspective (and experience?) of the "average" older computer user. I have seen this type of person in the workplace many times. Here's their profile.
About 10-15 yrs ago, they are forced to switch from his typewriter to a PC; they hated it. Over time, they painstakingly gain experience with the crap from Redmond. Now they are in their comfort zone; scared to death that they might be forced to learn something new. These people, if they are mediocre, feel threatened by their youthful co-workers who are extremely productive and capable of doing things that they can't. Too young to retire, too old to start anything new.
The problem is that in many cases, these people are middle-management. They make decisions that will affect your life.
This guy forgot that MS office is a reinvent itself. Visicalc/ Lotus being first Spreadsheet. Remember Samna (later WordPro). Havard Graphics before Powerpoint Etc etc.
Help fight continental drift.
3) These gloriously anti-establishmentarian crowds swarmed over young Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, whose anti-Microsoft pronouncements started to sound like some kind of call for jihad.
As with any other issue out there, you have people who tend to take their positions to an ultimate extreme. Similar to the touted Mac-Zealotry.
ps. You forgot to mention (as the author of the article has also) that Bill Gate$ was in this postion 4 years ago when Windoze 95 first came out. You think there will be much fanfare when win 98 patches (even though it will still cost you money for fixes) comes out?
logan
Folks, I have seen some cluelessness in my days and believe me, this guy is it. But, lest I indulge in a _purely_ ad hominem rant - to the argument: How, exactly am I supposed to fix Billy's busted M$-Wrong Thing(TM) a) without access to the source, and; b) given that it's a nasty piece of crap at the _design_ level. Winbloze is a scrap-and-redo chunk of excrement. End of story. Keep hacking, people. We have got to make the Right Thing(TM) win just once. It's really really important that our children do not grow up in an M$-dominated planet. Gawd, this article makes me puke.
Guess what? Home-Made Chicken soup beats canned soup ANY DAY
-- 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.
I like this part:
"The Internet was working swell on traditional
Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was
much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye,"
OK, maybe Mac's on the client side, but NT was
not even for sale yet, afaik, when Linux began.
Just some Win3.0 and OS/2...
Proof positive as to his cluelessness.
Miles Lott
Just because their code is locked isn't the problem you have to remember that even M$ doesn't even understand the code in windows 2000 at least a percentage of it. How does one improve something that they don't fully comprehend.
P.S. I can't spel
I agree that we shouldn't feed the fire but maybe an article or two of the latests comparisons with orcal and the survey from last week that reported that nt was used on non mission critical servers. There was a lot of coverage of the mindcraft article i think it was on cnet but non of the following surveys/tests that showed linux was better was there.
I do think that the IT managers have to be shown that linux is a great server operating system and that it beats out nt show them what apps they get (server end) and maybe it will help IT managers serch for better servers. Lets face it it's not the peons that wrote this article and the many like it that run the world it is the decision makers that have to be proven which operation system is better.
Every article that bashes linux that goes main stream will help show IT managers that Linux is bad. For every article written about Linux that doesn't go main stream will show the programmers of the world which one is better (and we already know which one is better).
P.S. I can't spel
Hmm, maybe we should start CC'ing the emails to the advertisors... maybe some of 'em will pull the ads, so the site makes less $$$...
--Rob
I read the article and figured it would just draw flames from /.ers. I read the comments anyways and was pleasantly surprised. While flames did exist, I think that most of the posters were on topic, persuasive, and open-minded. This open-mindedness is very important as linux advocates are starting to draw bad media by being to extreme. So posters, whether you care or not, I am proud.
For the record, the comment I really like was by fornix about how linux is great for people who like to get at the internals of something and tinker. Since I couldn't moderate, I thought I would mention it before getting off the soapbox.
If that were true I would have no objection to Microsoft's power (I already have no objection to his personal wealth). It is indisputable that Microsoft is a monstrous corporation. They don't play by the rules. They break the rules wherever and whenever possible for the sake of their own corporate power. They do not care who they smash; they don't care how much it costs in attorney fees.
The corporation gains its character from its leaders. Bill, as founder and chairman, sets the pace and tone. If Microsoft is monstrous (something even I, a rabid capitalist, consider to be self-evident) the logical and necessary conclusion is that Bill Gates is a monster.
Sure, there are lots of other smaller monsters out there -- but that doesn't change the fact. Bill Gates has money. If he and his company played by the rules, I would have zero complaints about their power. They don't.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
BTW, editorial email addies are available here.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
>The Good:
> * The truth is that Linux suffers from >a dearth of real usable applications. This is >changing rapidly, but at the moment, the lack of >apps is the truth for most purposes.
I'm not sure this is really true, as a statement. Perhaps Linux suffers from a dearth of office apps, but as a fairly `typical' programmer sort, I never use such things. As a student, the glut of free (in both senses) excellent programming tools, text editors and similar apps makes Linux the choice on apps alone.
Perhaps for the majority of the great unwashed this is true, but do we really Linux to be a mainstream operating system?
Personally I find XEmacs a wonderful IDE, far better than the RHIDE for DOS.
Anyway, if you want games, why not help us out on The Elite Project at http://compsoc.net/~flend/tep/tep.html or another OS project?
Ladies and Gentlemen, set your flamethrowers to "scorch". This articles obviously just an attempt to goad everyone into flaming the guy like the open-source-brainwashed folks he tries to portray us as. The only semi-valid point this article makes is the "lack of software". While I agree you can go get a Windows program to do just about anything Joe User wants, saying they don't exist for Linux is just hogwash. Linux programs can't afford to throw $20 million behind marketing of something. Don't you just hate it when people spend time making a good product instead of pimping it to the public? This guy sure does..
No sheep. Just a guy who likes to spike his hitcounts with the attentions of bored slashdotters. A guy with a mailbox aliased to /dev/null and fingers on autopilot. Need X amount of copy, lessee, linux ruled last week, okay, it sucks now. That'll keep 'em coming.
And so they did. And the paper pulls in bucks.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> He doesn't realize that a lot of the GNU software is older than Linux itself, and older than NT.
... Linux.
One of those pieces of GNU (or at least GPL'd) software that's older than NT is
The column was just so much flamebait to spike the hitcount. Had it even a smidgen of editing, fact-checking (see timeline note above), or even issues of substance, I might have thought otherwise. All we did was make the Tribune happy with the hitcount. People don't read articles fawning over Linux as much as they read articles that are critical of it. The demographics beancounters checking the hitcounts and the referer logs know this.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Seems to me this article was written for incendiary purposes only. Just a newpaper columnist writing pulp fiction on a slow news day.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
The comments about reinvention of the wheel regarding Linux's position vis a vis Microsoft weren't too bright.
Windows, for all its merits, is fundamentally flawed, and in desperate need of repair. Programmers outside of Microsoft who do not want to wait for MS to eventually work out the problems CAN NOT repair the current "wheel" of Windows without access to the source code. Microsoft won't release it.
The current wheel, though useful for now, is inefficient. Repairs to the wheel are inefficient, late, and expensive.
Reinvention of the wheel, in this case, is the only option. Just as peer reviewed medical journals insure that scientific research is valid, peer review of open source code is making Linux a far better program for all uses far more quickly than Microsoft will be able to move the target of Windows. ("Target" meaning "standard of usefulness for the average user" rather than an objective to be reached or interface to be copied.)
It's only in this time, when MS has a significant head start, that Linux may look like a fool's venture. But now that momentum has built, it will soon become very evident that secret source code operating systems are well along the same path that the dinosaurs followed years ago.
Windows compromises security and reliability for a pretty, easy user interface. Linux makes no such compromises, and is rapidly moving toward a pretty, easy user interface.
While I use both Windows and Linux today, I can already easily see the time when I'll no longer have use for the Windows compromise that the columnist seems so willing to condemn us to for all time.
The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye, and it will work better whether or not the true believers pull off a miracle and slay the dragon.
It seems that the author doesn't really know what runs the Internet. NT and Linux are roughly the same age, within a year or two. It has not been until very recently that NT was even used as a server on the Internet. It has mainly been larger Unix servers and as of the last few years, Linux servers.
As many have stated previously, this is pretty much a troll, probably intended to get this reporters name on the map and get hits generated for his papers website. It's people like this that have gotten the corportate computing world into the mess that it is in.
And another thing-- whenever people say M$ got where they are today because 'the people freely choose it' I have to wonder about the validity of that argument in time. Say a majority of people made purchasing decisions in 1988-1992, and that Win3x came out on top and os/2, et. al. got a smaller part of the sales pie. Does that give them the right to deny FURTURE generations of decision makers the freedom to choose? The way it turns out is like a vote - during a brief period of competitiveness the people, by some twist of logic and marketing, 'choose' m$ - does that mean that from then on we have to be saddled with whatever claptrap they want to foist on us from then on forever and ever? It's like freely electing your dictator for life and hereafter. We want a choice NOW and always, not be forced to use something that was decided on eons ago (in computer evolution time).
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
..have a contact address for this freak?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
As a yugo owner I can only resent that you compare my car to anything from Redmond!
My car has outlived the country it was built in, do that with a ford!
It's place of origin was bombed by NATO forces, do that with windows!
no really, NATO ought to spend some airpower on Micos~1!
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
He's probably spent the last 10 years of his life trying to learn Microsoft products and is now starting to get a handle on them. I don't know this, but I'm guessing, seeing how he is obviously a little slow.
Now that he's spent 10 years on Microsoft, he starts seeing the tides changing. "Oh NO! Now I'm going to have to put my little brain to work learning a NEW operating system?
Oh, I know! I'll fight it off! If I can convince everyone that Microsoft is clearly superior and make people hate Linux programmers for supporting Linux instead of channeling their efforts to make MS software better, then I won't have to use my pathetic excuse for a brain! Yippee!"
And then he went on to write the article.
And as they say, the fish rots from the head down.
My "father's Linux" was a stack of punchcards and some server room where you would drop them off, and come back in a few hours to see how many vcars it read before you had a bug.
- Vincit qui patitur.
This is an excellent example of common reporting practice - in any field.
The name of the game is "Pick the opposit to current thinking" - the trick is if you turn out right - you get herold as a genuis down the road.
When 9 out of 10 times it falls flat on it's face as the pice of tripe it usualy is, most just ignore you and move on. No reall loss.
I especially love the cicular logic "There arn't any "good" applications ( read MS branded ) avalible, therefore it's a waste of time to write for the platform"
I'd love to research and see how many people said the same thing about the choice of windows/mac vs dos programs. Games bring this to mind the most, for years even up to win95 era, games were dos based.
As with all things, it's not applications that will make any platform or operating system - it's the avalibility of games.
Game development has been the driving force behind faster cpu's for years, and with the current vendor community turn around to linux - it's going to drive home linux as a consumer operating system.
Nothing in windows or the latest intel proccessor lets you do "basic office tasks" such as write letters and spread sheads any faster in terms of real use then the old dos programs of the 80s gave us.
What let Billy and thirdparty people the room to give us "feature bloat" was due to gamers pushing the envelope. Now with ID shipping quake shrink wraped for linux, games will be the "killer app" (pun noted).
Some say that without a single entity behind it, linux will flownder under it's own hype - but looks at IBM and os/2 - we don't have one company to crap it up - only capable of holding still long enough to shoot themselvs in the foot - and the community in the head.
--
James Michael Keller
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
Applying his "arguments" to other domains, we get:
:-)
1) People who spend their time watching 'narrow' movies like "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" should instead watch popular block-busters like "Armageddon".
2) Ford shouldn't have bothered making their "Ka" series; People who wanted to buy a small car already could choose the Fiat Pinto or other models.
3) Who are these upstarts Emmerich and Devlin? Don't they know that Sci-fi movies are made by George Lucas?
He apparently feels that Windows should be open-sourced, though, which would be the single point where we could agree with him...
I read this guy every week on Sunday with his main column (of which this is one) and on Monday in his Q&A column. He is definitely oriented toward the teeming unwashed masses for whom logging on to AOL to get mail is a challenge. He is also quite enamoured of MS. Why he even bothered writing about Linux is beyond me since it is probably way off the radar screen of the vast number of his normal readers.
/. crowd. I don't know how prominent it is online, but the print version runs at the top of page 4 of the Trib's Sunday Business section. Most people probably won't even know it is there.
/.ers are interested in the computer as a computer. Mr. Coates is interested in it to the extent that it helps him get things done and the less he has to think about it the better. I think he is representative of the vast majority of users.
I wouldn't worry too much about this article causing much of a stir outside the
I think, though, that he is emblematic of a divide in the computer world, the folks for whom the computer is a means to an end, and those to whom it is an end in itself. Clearly
I think you are wrong about AOL users loving Linux . To some extent, they are already using it now when they surf the web, and they don't even know it. Most people identify with what they see, and most people see Windows. Also, most people are so cowed by computers that they are afraid to object to the rate at which Windows crashes, they don't know that things should work any other way.
Until Linux gets a warm fuzzy interface that doesn't totally cow the unsophisticated user, it will be perpetually consigned to the server rack.
That is unless there is a quantum leap in the sophistication of users over time. That is a real possibility and worth working toward. When my six year old can out manuever 60% of the people at work on the computer, there is hope for the future.
I'd tend to disagree with the hypothesis that this article was written as flamebait in order to hike up the hit count. While there may be an element of truth, atrocious articles like these are not doing the credibility of Chicago Tribune any favours in the long term.
;-)
While a pro-Microsoft stance may be a feasible journalistic position, phrases like "Harumph!" and "Sure da yoot are frustrated" and blind MS praise do the author's and paper's credibility no favours. Neither does the suggestion that Linux "rebels" take up a more conformist position wash very well. But what really puts the icing on the cake is the insinuation that RedHat and co are evil because they are trying make money, this flat bang in the middle of a pro-MS article. You'd think that MS is a large charitable benevolent institution or a public service.
As a 21 year old I find the whole conformist attitude extremely patronising as well as fundamentally flawed (you don't make footprints in the sands of time by sitting down). In fact I believe that even educated Windows users, (yes, they do exist) who acknowledge that MS software isn't perfect, would agree that this article is badly written and that the supression of new ideas is no sound long term strategy. Honestly, this article ought to be taken out and shot
Personally this is the only article out of the Chicago Tribune I've ever seen (there may be more but I've forgotten a few) and it's not really a good advertisement for the newspaper in general. Reading this does not entice me to spend any more time trawling through the rest of the newspaper in search of better reading material. Unless the average Chicago Tribune reader is a moron (a distinct possibility) the Tribune ought to, for their own sake, get a better writer.
nb: It's probably best to refrain from writing to the author unless you feel like taking the time to compose polite, polished, well written and factual response. Otherwise he'll be writing about those power-freaked linux "youths" bent on world domination and making money (shock horror!) and flaming anyone who is pro-MS (as opposed to just him).
They must have rewritten the beast. I attempted to use the initial release of MASM on the original IBM PC with PC-DOS 1.0. It was the buggiest POS that I have ever encountered. The Microsoft FORTRAN and Pascal compilers were also terrible. My programming group ditched all Microsoft products and switched to the UCSD p-System for our projects.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I know this isn't going to get a rating higher than a one, but, as a gamer, I have to say it.
Did anyone else at the end think he sounded like a troll from Shadowrun?
"By demonizing Gates and exploiting the natural
human fondness for the underdog, da yoot in da
Linux mob are wasting a lot of time that could be
better spent making nice with da dragon."
This article utilizes one of the most blatantly false means of argumentation commonly found in the press today, which I call "argumentation by personification," since I don't know if there's an accepted term for it.
This type of argument involves putting up a person as a representative of a concept you dislike, and then ridiculing this person to convince people to share your view. Here's an example:
What does this have to say about the Linux operating system? Nothing at all, really. It's just a subjective way to say that Linus was strongly criticising Microsoft.
A more insidious way (frequently used by MS) to use this argument tactic is to not openly ridicule your subject, but paint a reasonable picture of them that is however, somehow flawed:
So here we go. Linux Torvalds (whoops... I mean _Linus_) is an arrogant, youthfully ignorant and violent little guy. Therefore, you should not use the Linux operating system, but "root" for an operating system conceded to be inferior and backed by a corporate "dragon."
You find the same nefarious arguments in scandal sheets like Newsweek, which recently published on their cover a spectral, corpse-like photo of the Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, next to the words "The face of evil." NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia is often referred to as "bombing Milosevic." As far as I have heard, however, Milosevic's house has not been the target of any bombs.
It's obviously in the interest of the US government and the large corporations to distract people from the fact that most of the people dying as a result the bombing campaign in the Balkans are not war criminals, but ordinary civilians. If the press focused on this fact, there might be a lot more outrage about what is happening there and has happened in places like Iraq (Saddam Hussein), Panama (Manuel Noriega), Japan (Hito) and Germany (Hitler), to name just a few places that were bombed by the US this century and personified by the press in an effort to garner support for the bombings. [1]
Coates should not be believed when he states that
because he insinuates that professional organizations like Red Hat "Inc." and Caldera Systems "Inc." are quaint, unprofessional "software houses" that are simultaniously scheming, wheedling corporate entities trying to get rich by using Torvalds. The imagry is unsupported and uninformative.I don't wish to condemn Coates's article entirely: he does state the true (but obvious) point that Linux lacks the huge number of software titles that have made Windows so successful. That's a really powerful argument, and I for one will not urge anyone to switch to Linux until it has AOL, Seinfeld screensavers and talking paperclips. [2]
[1] I make no judgements here whether any of these bombings were justifiable. The relevant fact is, that in each case, the US press personified the countries as identical to their leaders.
[2] Which, of course, is an example of the same tactic I'm criticizing Coates for.
One wonders exactly what applications any Microsoft operating system has, that Linux does not. I am wondering if some of these journalists are getting paid by the hit on their newspaper's webservers. Throw up an anti-Linux story, let some /.'ers know about it and 25,000 hits later the newspaper web server has more attention than it has enjoyed in months. -Just a thought.
The part of this article that frustrates me is the continued misreporting on Lines of Code. Win2000 Pro is going to come to 28-30 million lines of code according to Microsoft. Win2000 Server while add a couple million more according to MS. The press are pegging Win2000, not mentioning version, somewhere near 50-60 million. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle. The point is the press continues to use speculative journalism on a number of fronts. They also fail to mention that the LOC number is for every possible feature in Win2000, though no one will install and use every line of code. Counting Lines of Code is also inaccurate at best. A brace on a line is a line of code, but you could easily cut your LOC by an order of magnitude by putting the brace on the same line as a function definition. As for Linux, I have no idea what the LOC is. But 2.5 million seems pretty low if you count all the things that MS is counting in its LOC, like Samba, Apache, Netscape, PHP, X, and Gnome or KDE. Perhaps each distribution should report their LOC and how they calculate it for a fair comparison?
Probably this would deflate a few egos also. Imagine writing a hotly worded column, then getting... NOTHING! Maybe while they are here looking for that sweet flame, they can follow a link or two and learn something.
Blogging because I can...
Hey Rob.. Howwabout having any links inside articles go through a redirection script of some sort, and then display the click-through totals along with the article?
...
... would be easy to do, and would be very interesting (to say the least)
Closed, bloated and buggy software makes for a square wheel. It needs reinventing.
Linux may not be perfect, but decision are being made based on the best knowledge the developers have (e.g., and not the marketeers).
A little more than half a year ago I ordered a Debian CD in the mail. It was my first attempt at installing anything linux, I had hardly even heard of it before. I installed it, never could get anything to work. So i tinkered around in the command line for a while, it was fun, took me back to my DOS roots, but I couldn't really do anything productive in it. Well a few months later I got a Redhat CD because I had heard that was easier to install and play with. And in the process came across Redhat's XBF Drivers for my video card, so this time I had X and I got my modem working, etc. Point was I tried, the first time I really didn't.
Within the space of 2 months I found myself never booting into my Windows partition. Why? Well to be quite honest I had everything I needed on the linux side And More. At first I missed EI4 because netscape is slow and buggy, but I soon learned to love lynx and now I use nothing else. Every rare once in a while I fire up mozilla m4 when looking for a new theme.
Anyways, the point of all this, I'm just an average user. Sure I'm a little more computer savvy then iMac user down the street who just waves his mouse around on the screen like a magic wand. But I'm definatly not your IS expert or CS major. What I use my computer for is for the most part average user tasks, composing short letters, writing email, snooping around on the internet, ect. You know what? Linux does these things better than windows. I like the fact that it feels like I upgraded my computer when I havn't touched a stick of memory. In fact the ironic thing is, Linux is EASIER to use than windows was. Why? Because nothing hardly ever goes wrong with it. In windows I was always having to dink around in a plethora of control panels because something had fritzled out. Now I can leave my computer up for months on end and not a problem in sight.
Using linux as a desktop computer is NOT using a flathead screwdriver to unscrew a phillips screw. That is about the piss poor worst analogy I've seen. If anything it is like using a high performance sports car to drive to work. You get lots of extra frills and boosts that you probably can't use all the time, but hey why not! You look 10 times better then everybody else on the road, and if you do need to press the petal to the metal, you don't have to worry about the carborator blowing up or the windsheild blowing off.
As well, I find your comment about not liking 'mickeysoft' but going ahead and using it anyways sick. Why support a company that you don't even believe is in the right? Do you have any conception of how hypocritical that sounds? I realize that pretty much all major corporations are bad, and micros~1 just happened to get alot of lime light maybe(I believe them to be worse than average), but you really won't see me supporting many large corporations at all unless it becomes absolutely impossible to not do so. And you know what? I don't suffer for it, in fact I probably make out better not buying name brands.
Oh by the way, love the sears vrs craftsman comment, are you insinuating that Linux is a Version of Windows?? Are you one of those shmucks that thinks Redhat 5.2 For Windows is shareware?
V
In my honest opinion, without any biased and as applied to almost anything, I would like to say that there is no such thing as a waste of time. If you're improving something (be it the wheel) in the long run, what's the point in complaining. If it is of interest to those of us in the Linux community, does it really matter?
The point I'm trying to make is that a person entirely dedicated to the Linux movement is of no use to a Microsoft system. Change the OS, the goal changes, the need changes and of course, the interest changes. Perhaps the efficiency of Linux advancement has increased because of this fact.
Supply and demand. Windows is in supply, thus profit is low as is interest. Linux is in demand, supply of programmers is high, price is low -- it's the ultimate economic threat to the MS lovers. It's not purely taste, is it?
Here it is: jcoates@tribune.com
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
True dat.
... he seems to get his advice from mailing lists and asking individuals who may be as or more clueless than he.
Coates occasionally says sensible things, but any geek should stay away from his answer column, where he weekly tells people to reinstall this or that Winwhateverware. He's a Mac user who started out doing computer reporting by bragging about how neat it was to keep AOL running all the time on one's desktop -- conveniently forgetting that he was a Tribune reporter who got a free account, while at that time, most AOL users would have paid about $500/month for the same privilege.
The guy also suggesting stopping spam by politely writing to the spammer and asking him to desist. (He also gave a clueless definition of the origin of the term "spam".) I enlightened him with the URLs of several spam-fighting pages, asking why he hadn't done a simple web search on spam-fighting technique, and he brushed me off. The man simply doesn't care that people have already solved some of these questions
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
jcotes is one of the true Microsoft borg. He makes mac users look bad. I think you mac people should have a "blanket party" with him. Its obvious he as no idea about the IT industry, and shouldnt be writing about it. I see a line between people who want to learn (linux users) and people who dont (Windows lovers).
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
Well, the kernel (which some people will say _is_ Linux, but I disagree) is about 15 million lines of code all by itself, no small number.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
What does he mean by "dinky, feature-weak, [and] application-starved"?
Linux supports virtual memory, TCP/IP, SMP, very large disks, and all the stuff Windows does (well, maybe not hardware wise... yet).
As for dinky? How many CS people honestly think making a program bigger makes it better? Just more places for bugs to occur.
Microsoft AmigaBasic was Godawful... slow and buggy as hell. The clever M$ programmers decided that since the 68000 could only access a 24 bit address space, they could use the upper 8 bits of each pointer to store data. Needless to say this made for "interesting" behavior on 68020 and newer systems...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I live in the United States of America, and I am in fact from the Chicagoland area. And here in the USA, everything's always been about freedom and equality... and it's no different with software.
At it's core, linux and other pieces of software that fall under the GNU Public License are about this very freedom. Anyone can see what's in the software, and anyone can use it for whatever they want. Companies like Red Hat are trying to use it to make money and compete in the OS market, and others use it for other things. With free software, anything is possible: all someone has to do is write the code. At heart is has nothing to do with Microsoft, it's just that many people happen to be using free software to try to eliminate or as an alternative to Microsoft products.
The problem with having Microsoft products as the sole computer prodcuts available as this author suggests is that people would then be dependent on Microsoft products. And since Microsoft is a company whose goal is to make as much money as possible (just like any other company), this is a conflict of interest. A corporation devoted to profit cannot effectively serve the needs of the public.
It's for this very reason that the our government has departments to set certain standards rather than leave things up to private companies. The author is from Chicago... I'm surprised he doesn't recall the old chicago meat factory conditions before health standards were enforced. It's the exact same thing.
Only something like free software can effectively work in the public interest... in fact, that's why certain groups are involved in the Software in the Public Interest (SPI) project. As computers and software become a larger and larger part of our society, our freedoms will become more and more restricted if proprietary software and standards power these devices. And I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my freedom just to make it easier for some company to make money.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
Subject:
:-) ) is that software is like sex -- it's better when it's
Linux
Date:
Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:17:19 -0500
From:
Sydney Weidman
To:
JCoates@tribune.com
coates sayeth:
"Bill Gates isn't a monster."
I don't think anyone is suggesting that he's a monster. He's just a
bureaucrat with a big salary who pushes people around and calls it free
enterprise.
"Not only that, but we're all very, very lucky to have
Microsoft in our lives."
OK, this must be hyperbole. I'm assuming that you wanted to be as
controversial as possible. I can't imagine that anyone would believe
this unless they had a vested interest. But it's true in a way that
we're very lucky to have Microsoft in our lives. Binary Bill was not the
first person on the list when IBM was phoning around looking for someone
to write the operating system for the first IBM PC. The first guy was
out of his office at the time of the call. The IBM guy only knew of
Gates through Bill Gates' mom, who served with him on the board of
directors of a big charity.
"Furthermore, Microsoft Windows 2000, which made its
debut
in Chicago at last week's Comdex computer show, is a
much
more useful personal computer operating system"
It's useful for you. That's great. It is useful for millions and
millions of other people, too. But that doesn't mean it has to be the
ONLY operating system available for IBM PC's. In the meantime, your
column may have discouraged people from trying Linux. I'm sure you don't
care about that, but free software, even if it were "dinky" and "feature-weak", still has an important social and political goal the point of which
you have missed entirely. I understand that you were responding to the
toungue-in-cheek jabs that Linux fanatics often take at Microsoft. I
think this anti-Microsoft stance is misguided because it's focus is too
narrow, so I can identify with your reaction to a certain extent.
"application-starved flavor of
home-brewed Unix known as Linux."
There are hundreds and hundreds of applications for Linux. Many are
non-commercial, that is true, but the beauty of the GNU Public License
is that the flow of information is toward the public domain rather than
being stolen from the public domain. A lot of the work that went into
Microsoft Word came from the users, from university graduates who were
trained with public tax dollars, and directly from academic research.
Moreover, Microsoft products inherited ideas that were freely available
long before Microsoft was a glimmer in Binary Bills eye.
"I must take this dangerous stand after watching the
teeming
hordes of messiah-hungry Linux fans at Comdex."
What's wrong with being passionate about something? Would you prefer
slavish apathy? Or the cold eye of the mercenary? One of the funnier
things that Mr. Torvalds has been quoted as saying (perhaps this is
Apocryphal
free.
"These gloriously anti-establishmentarian crowds
swarmed
over young Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux,
whose
anti-Microsoft pronouncements started to sound like
some
kind of call for jihad."
This is the kind of energy that is created when people have been stifled
for a long time and then are released.
"They chafe at the fact that most of us are prisoners
of the
Microsoft model, working in jobs where the Windows
desktop has become our home away from home and where
our daily bread is earned working in Word, Excel,
Access,
Outlook and other Microsoft software."
This monoculture of computing is part of what made the Melissa virus so
dangerous. Everyone is vulnerable. Besides, I don't really think anyone
wants to take away your Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer. We only
want people to have credible options when choosing operating systems.
"It rankles these radical souls that the new Windows
2000
operating system probably consumes 50 million lines
of bulky
and balky code, bloated top-secret fatware that can
crash
out of the blue and that only works the way Microsoft
wants
it to work."
Shouldn't that rankle every Microsoft customer? The only reason it
doesn't is that there isn't anything else around to compare it to --
except Linux .
"Linux, they note, is 2.5 million lines (at most) of
highly
flexible, free-to-use and free-to-modify software
that
almost never crashes and that works any way a
programmer
cares to make it work."
Agreed.
"I know going in that I'll take more flak for this
column than
just about any I could write, but I need to tell you
that
sometimes its OK to root for the dragon.
Sometimes St. George can be a pain in the tail that
should
just go away."
If there were no Linux
someone would invent something like Linux or some other free operating system
just to break the monopoly. Knowledge industry monopolies are a really
actually quite vulnerable, since the means of production (peoples'
minds) cannot be controlled in the same way as physical objects can.
This is a case of the bigger they come the harder they fall. If Linux is
so crappy, then why is Microsoft panicking? The truth is they know that
even if they win the DOJ case that they are going to be in for a very
rough ride because of free software. Microsoft fears open source
software much more than they fear Linux. It wasn't Linux that was their
first concern in the Halloween memos, it was the open source development
process. Ideas and invention are healthiest when minds are free, and
Microsoft knows this very well. They strive to stifle freedom and
innovation except when it comes from Microsoft. In fact, St. George is
protecting YOUR rights as a consumer.
"Whatever the merits Linux might offer the highly
technical
specialists who use it to administer Internet servers
or use
turbo-charged text commands to perform complex file
transfers, Linux currently offers mighty slim
pickings for
ordinary computer users."
As I said before, I don't think anyone wants you to feel threatened
because there is another alternative out there. You are welcome to
continue using Windows 98 or whatever you use. Certainly at the present
time, there are fewer applications available for Linux than for Windows,
but this may well change in the future. Perhaps you should try Linux
again in a couple of years.
"While Canada's Corel Corp. has ported a version of
its
WordPerfect software for Linux, the sad reality is
that the
great bulk of software that people can actually run
on Linux
is just as home-brewed as is the Linux operating
system
itself."
I don't know about you, but I like home brew. It's tastier than the
commercial stuff...
"Meanwhile, billions of human hours have been spent
writing
the amazing applications that run on the Windows and
Macintosh platforms."
I never consider sunk costs when I am making a business decision. I
don't care how much time has gone into making something because that
time is going to be there no matter what operating system I decide to
use. I only want to know if switching systems is going to benefit me in
the future. You argue that the hours which have been spent on developing
Windows 2000 imply that time is being wasted developing other
alternatives. This is a complete non-sequitor. It is irrelevant to any
consideration of value. It would be like saying "Well, I've just
discovered that I built my house on top of a bog and my house is
sinking. There's no point building anywhere else because I've already
put so much time and effort into this house!". You can see the analogy,
I hope.
"In fact, the information revolution that has allowed
us to
prosper right along with Binary Bill was made
possible by the
empowerment of these applications-
-everything from Web browsers"
I feel sorry for you, man. You are going to get flamed up the WaZoo for
that one. Web browsers were designed by public institutions like CERN
and the various consortia that have governed the standards development.
Private organizations like Microsoft and Netscape (yes, not everything
is anti-MS) spent most of their effort trying to out manoeuver each
other by introducing new "features" or "extensions" and trying to have
them accepted as the standard. Some succeeded, but in many cases they
were not in the best interests of consumers. What's good for Microsoft
(or any corporation, for that matter) is not necessarily good for
consumers, in spite of Microsofts appeals to the contrary.
"to e-mail engines,"
You have a knack for picking bad examples, I think. This was another are
where the value of public contributions far outweighs that of private
contributions. Sendmail, Fetchmail, Pine, Elm, and many others.
"to CD-ROM shoot'em-up games like Doom and Quake, to
personal finance packages."
You finally picked a few where MS is at least a player. But Doom and
Quake weren't developed by corporate giants like Microsoft. MS just
waits around and buys ideas because no bureaucratic organization that
size can innovate. The risk involved in innovating is antithetical to
the middle management mentality that pervades the corporate world.
"The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix,"
OK, you've got a point there, but
"Macintosh"
hasn't had a server OS until recently, I believe. (I'm sure I'll get
flamed if any of the Mac people read this)
"and Windows NT"
wasnt't what you'd call the traditional OS of the internet.
"Meanwhile, they would have us reinvent the wheel by
wasting billions more hours creating applications to
take
advantage of Linux and make Torvalds' colleagues at
Linux
software houses like Red Hat Inc. and Caldera Systems
Inc.
rich."
This is dreadful reasoning, as I showed above. You might want to ask
yourself whether any two competing companies aren't wasting their time
reinventing the wheel. Surely it is just as wasteful for two companies
to be trying to solve the same problem independently. Wouldn't they be
able to solve the problem more efficiently by sharing ideas and
knowledge? Our university system exists for just this reason, but
cutbacks have destroyed the capacity of these institutions to fuel
technological development. Ideas belong to the public first. They are
"on loan" to copyright and patent holders so that they can return
something of value to the public. On no other condition would corporations be
granted monopolies which are protected by the government. That's why I
find the whole Department of Justice action so arbitrary and
hypocritical, although now it has become a necessary evil. Government
sponsored sell-off of the public domain - otherwise known as
intellectual property - is what allowed Microsoft and others to grow so
large and still deliver a sub-optimal product. If Microsoft had someone other
than a bunch of volunteer hackers biting their ankles, they would really
be sweating. But in fact hackers are all that's left to oppose the
Redmond Supergiant. The only way anyone can touch Microsoft is by giving
stuff away.
"By demonizing Gates and exploiting the natural human
fondness for the underdog, da yoot in da Linux mob
are
wasting a lot of time that could be better spent
making nice
with da dragon."
There is much more to the Open Source software movement than "exploiting
the natural human fondness for the underdog". Software can be better
than it is now. You just don't have the imagination to see how that is
possible and the people who do have been denied an outlet until now. It
won't happen overnight, and there will be lots of bumps on the way, but
Linux will eventually be just as popular as Windows.
Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond. You'll have a
much deeper appreciation of the phenomenon.
Sincerely,
Sydney Weidman
Actually, not using something because you don't like the company is not dumb, and i'm surprised you can't think up a reason why. Because this person might think that Microsoft is a bad company (and he would be correct too), and he might not want to support it. How is that dumb? (STFU)
Next, a reporter should have perfect grammer and spelling, there is no question on that, its his job to write things, he should know the basics of writing before he gets a job like that. Although your correct, it doesn't make his article that much worse, just makes it look amateurish.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
And it doesn't have GUI!
And there no are apps for it!
And its really a lot of work!
And its really is expensive in hidden costs!
And its so hard no one knows it!
ahaha i hate some people =)
Give me linux or give me death!
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
I think you're right about the self-confirming hypotheses that have come up recently, but knowing the problem isn't going to stop it.
I could point out, as has been done in numerous posts already, a number of logical and empirical errors in this article, but why? We already knew the article was wrong before it showed up here. I wager that even the author had an inkling that he was wrong on multiple points. Telling him so, even amongst ourselves, is exactly what he wants us to do.
What needs to happen is more yawning. These nerve-touching articles will only keep coming if they are continually gratified with a response- that's basic psychology at work. Stopping them will require a collective yawn, just like the trade press has done recently to Microsoft. Perhaps a few of us will turn to our neighbors and say, "Oh well, he'll get it right eventually" but the roaring responses need to stop now.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Why are some people soo frightened of new, interesting and obviously better things?
I mean, to create better technology than MS is not reinventing the weel, but a very important step into the right direction.
misanthrop
He has the quote: "The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye". But he fails to realize that the internet was running on Unix before NT was a glimmer in Bill Gate's eye. And it's using the same software that Linux is using. He doesn't realize that a lot of the GNU software is older than Linux itself, and older than NT.
Also, how are we supposed to be "making nice with da dragon" if the dragon doesn't let us? What are supposed to channel our efforts into, poking at Word with a dissassembler? We're not allowed to make Windows any less abominable. It's not wasted effort. It's effort that would otherwise not have bene made towards much of anything.
I get the feeling he wrote it to get Slashdotted, as he realizes that everyone will hate him and sent him nasty emails. I'm not going to satisfy him. All he wants is for a few hundred of us to send threatening emails so he can confirm his belief that we're all ultra-liberal hippies.
...it's sort of like a mercy killing, isn't it?
For some reason everytime I read somehting by this guy it annoys me. Just last monday he was praising linux.
Though this time atleast he knows he's going to annoy me.
What I'm wondering did the fact ther MS does not make the source code for its software available to us slip his mind?
Perhaps if we COULD spend our time improving microsoft products, some of us would. Perhaps if this possibility was open to us those products would be more stable. Perhaps if MS's code was available we wouldn't have to "reinvent the wheel."
speaking of venting. I'll stop now. But I do have a few questions.
He quotes linux runs on "Maybe 7 Million" machines. Is close to accurate? I don't even know.
He also quotes that Linux is at most 2.5 million lines of code. How many lines of code is windows? And if we are going to compare on lines of code between windows and Linux shouldn't we also include the number of lines of code in X, KDE, and Gnome?
And if we went through all that trouble. What value would it be?
David Saff
Hey the buck stop somewhere and Bils at the top. But do remember that he chooses which direction the company takes and who stays and who goes. If he doesn't like the person pointing them in that direction he boots them out so the company can go in another direction. He may not be a monster but he is trying to be a Robber Baron.
Neil Cherry - Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
That's a pretty interesting way of putting a very important point. So often, some of us fall into the trap of thinking one operating system can/will do it all. But no, more is better, just as the availability of more than one soft drink is a Good Thing(tm).
:-)
I will have to remember that
iSKUNK!
Absolutely ignorant. This boggles my mind. Oh well.
What continues to frustrate ME, is that these ignorant reporters always claim that linux just doesn't make a nice desktop solution for anyone, while I know pretty damn well that it is the ONLY viable solution for me. There are an uncountable number of features which I "take for granted" in linux, that I simpy could NOT do without.
And as linus might say, who gives a rat's arse if they don't use/like it? Linus would *probably* say he didn't give a rat's arse if noone but he himself used it- that's why he wrote it in the first place...
Every one of these reporters has just _got_ to put a "spin" on linux and explain why it's not a microsoft killer. No? Well, it's killed microsoft in this neck of the woods...
scohop
j. scott olsson
Good point about the reason for hating M$.
Their alleged policy of using Windows as a 'tool' to open new markets and bludgeon competition should be enough to raise user's ire.
However most users are not aware of that, they are aware of the fact that Windows crashes a lot and that Office cost U$1000. So you cannot fault anyone for choosing to notice the more obvious flaw. I am sure many users called N$cape sore losers, without noting the fate of DR DOS and GEM.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
You know what would be really impressive? If every Linux user in the world just ignored things like this. It's not relevant to anything. It contains zero useful information, so why bother?
Who cares if a opinionated little man gets up on his soapbox about a subject he is ill-equipped to comprehend, let alone report on? It's his right. It's our right not to pay any attention to his pithy yammering.
You might make the case that people might read his article and dismiss Linux as an operating system for themselves. So what? Anyone with much sense will do a little more research then he did and base their choices upon that. It's not up to us to argue with fools, so that a few more fools will choose Linux. Linux doesn't need fools.
I don't mean to imply that responding to him is encouraging him. I mean to imply that acknowledging his existance is a waste of time, so why should we? He writes with the mentality of a seventh grader, but we don't have to read him with the same. Or at all.
I'd like to see slashdot completely ignoring tripe like that. It doesn't enrich us one bit. It doesn't provide an insight into anything that matters. It shouldn't have been posted.
A beginning user should go out and get a boxed set that comes with all the apps they want, such as COL.
Additionally: ``They'' aren't making you reinvent the wheel. They're doing it by themselves, out of the goodness of their own hearts.
It seems rather appropriate that the owner of the long suffering Cubs would have someone of this caliber on their payroll. This guy looks like he'd be right at home proclaiming his opinions in some free, local computer rag aimed at people for whom the telephone represents the extent of their grasp of 20th century technology.
His criticism of "homebrew" software means he's never done any IT work in his life. Let alone program a single line of code. The only way these type of people know what a pentium II/III secc looks like is because Intel sent them a glossy press release. If Microsoft told him that he had to sell his organs to upgrade to the next version of windows, he'd probably hop right on the cutting table.
I bet the last time this guy had on opinion on the mark was when the Cubs were last in the World Series.
Well, I wish I could see what all the hubbub is about, but somehow you've all managed to slashdot a Netscape Enterprise server on Solaris.
Didn't think that was possible...
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I would like to personally apologize to the world that this city has allowed someone with such an assbackwards view of the computer industry to take an influential position and write as if he had a fsck'ing clue what he was talking about. He will be tarred and feathered immediatly.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Unless you're playing a lot of games, you really shouldn't need to reboot more than once a day, and if you do, then there's probably something wrong with your install.
You call this stable? Once a day!? That's at least 6 times too often!
Once a week seems more reasonable to me, but since IE seems to leak memory like an incontinent grandma (at least here, YMMV, etc.), any system under active Net use needs to be rebooted more than that. Of course, there are also the times when Win9x goes into full Helen Keller mode and the only recourse is the reset button; for me, this sometimes daily and other times almost never -- phase of the moon? tides? lack of candles and chicken sacrifices? random instability generator?
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
NT 3.1 was released in 1991. Development was rumoured to effectively have begun in 1987. Linus didn't start development until 1991, and didn't "release" anything to anyone until 1993.
Perhaps you may find thi interesting. This is from the Microsoft Museum Timeline
Microsoft Launches Windows NT at Windows World
05/24/93 Microsoft formally launches Microsoft Windows NT at Windows World in Atlanta. Windows NT delivers a powerful, reliable and open platform for client-server solutions - business applications ranging from inventory management to sales automation to financial analysis. It can also scale to meet the user's increasing processing needs because it has no internal system constraints on resources and provides consistent support for Intel, RISC and multiprocessor systems. It is scheduled to be released in 60 days.
and this, from linux.org
Linus had an interest in Minix, a small UNIX system, and decided to develop a system that exceeded the Minix standards. He began his work in 1991 when he released version 0.02 and worked steadily until 1994 when version 1.0 of the Linux Kernel was released.
Having used NT 3.1 extensively, I can assure you that it was rushed and felt very beta. However, Linux .02 was released in 1991 and hit 1.0 in 1994. It spent a lot of time in development in between, but it was mostly stable from the get-go.
BTW, it took me longer to type this than to find these sources. Poke around first next time.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
I would bet my last computer he's never used Linux before.
Obviously he was running short of material in his cell
starved cranial cavity.
You can dump 30K$ and 6 years of effort into a Yugo.
In the end.. it's still a Yugo. *shrug*
Anyone else think the only person who truly believes Microsoft
will ever get their OS running right is Billy boy?
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
1. Windoze games ports
- id has been good about this. Starcraft runs under WINE. More real ports would be really really nice. But some support is growing very slowly.
2. Universal font installation. Like windows font installer in NT or even Win31!
- Good point. This would help draw in the DTP crowd a lot easier.
3. Better Html tools. Nice if Hotmetal PRo by Softquad had a port.
- I s'pose. I prefer not to use anything more than Emacs to edit HTML, but that's beside the point. HTML tools would do good things to turn people on to Linux.
4. Better development tools. Nice GUI ide's for C/C++ developers.
Definitely needed. We need something to kick VC++'s ass.
5. Winamp
X11amp already exists. Supports all the fun stuff winamp does, based on an mpg123 engine.
6. A browser that supports skins. Change the look of Netscape.
Nice, but not real necessary to gain a user base IMHO.
7. G2-Realplayer.
Haven't checked up on this lately. They do seem to stay somewhat behind in their linux support.
All in all, I would say the author of this article is in need of a good smack. He makes it sound like corporations are gods and greed is even better. He makes home-brewed a dirty word. Haven't billions of human hours been spent developing Linux software, just as much as Microsoft crap? Don't products tend to be of much less quality when the only motivation for creating them is money?
(*correct answer: a resounding YES*)
completely off topic, but at least as far as audio goes, i'd pick vacuum tubes (valves!) over transistors any day.
the guy who wrote the article was ignorant. the quote:
"The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye."
just proves he's an utter moron.
From your own post, NT 3.1 was released in 1991.
Let's take the best[worst?]-case scenario: NT was released in January and immediately grabbed a huge market share, while Linux wasn't begun until December (yes, i made those dates up). So, NT being in widespread use for under a year qualifies as "before Linux was a glimmer in Linus' eye." Perhaps in this case. More likely, NT hardly had the 'market penetration' and bug fixing to have the internet running well on it in under a year.
Please, next time think before you post. Why am i not surprised you posted as an anonymous coward?
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
"But... I thought rebooting was a normal thing!" ;)
heheheh
this guy is so obviously trolling for FUD it's not even funny.
he contradicts himself by saying that Unix was running the internet before Linux was a glimmer - doesn't he realize that Linux is BASED on Unix?
and just how, exactly does he propose to pry the source code for Windows out of Gates' fingers?
THAT i'd like to see.
der dee der.
I found the Article lacking a little History.
I quote:
"The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye, and it will work better whether or not the true believers pull off a miracle and slay the dragon."
Was NT running the Internet back in 1991?
What percentage of NT boxes run on the NET now. Smaller then Linux/Unix, I bet.
I am not sure but i thought M$ only had DOS, Maybe am an Idiot like he his.
I found the Rest of his article this bad. A lack of facts never makes a good article.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
There is an old analogy that I once heard used to explain the choice between MacOS and DOS. "An operating system is like a record player, if I sold you the world's greatest record player, but it would only play "Tom Jones' Greatest Hits", you'd better really like Tom Jones, or buy another record player."
.Xdefaults file in their home directory and can't find it, (but I ran ls like you told me to... Oh! ls -a!) it makes for articles like this one.
For my part, I like the applications on Linux, and with the advent of KDE, and all of the KDE games, my wife the techophobe has even started asking that I leave my computer up in linux. (Dual booting and all that)
That said, occasionally I want to listen to something different. Baldur's Gate does not run under Linux, neither do many of the entertainment titles that I play. Linux still does not support many of the top cards out there, or any EAX cards, etc... And I like IE 4.0. The full screen mode appeals to me. And when the guy comes with the cable modem, I'm not going to tell him to forget it because there's no Linux driver.
We Linux guys need to face facts. If you aren't a programmer, not a technophile, and you load up Red Hat 5.2, (the curent version as far as CompUSA is concerned) with the default set to FVWM95 (shudder) it looks like a rinky-dink OS, it runs like a rinky-dink OS, and it quacks like a rinky-dink OS. You have Apache running in the background by default chewing up memory (10-20MB), FVWM95 runs like molasses on a P200 with 64MB of RAM. And what can you do? Use the GIMP? A photoshop 3.0 clone? Only if you also get the RH power tools, And then everything is marked "ALPHA - This will blow up your machine and burn your toast."
As we fire off our flames to anybody who says that Linux is not for everbody, remember that it is not for everbody. 99% of computer people don't care how good the compiler is, don't really mind rebooting once a day, wouldn't look at the source code even if it was included, and don't understand why you have to be root to change a menu in your WM.
And I will also remind you that we've got FUD down cold. A typical Slashdot post goes in to great detail about how Win9x will crash on you every 2 minutes, and that Bill Gates is the devil tyring to subvert you into a MS slave. I'd say that this article holds up a mirror to how silly our community anti-Mickeysoft sentiment really is.
And when the average home user trys out Linux and spends an hour trying to get X-windows set up on their video card, downloads a new program and runs it only to get a screen full of missing library file errors, tries to get a PNP sound card set up, needs to be a scripter to get a PPP connection to their ISP, gets told to look for the
Indeed, I know people that have started running Linux that can't figure out how to use vi, but the all swear it's great... Why? Because everybody says it's great, that's why.
Do you really want to have some fun with this guy? Send him an e-mail congratulating him on pointing out some flaws in our OS, and ask him where he feels that improvements need to be made. For each point that he brings up let him know how to better set up his machine if it relates to that, let him know that it's being worked on and point him to the web site of the developer, driver issues, explain that the attitude of hardware manufacturers is changing, and that with that so is the availability of hardware support, basically show him that linux does work, and well. It would be more fun to make him eat his words. We might find that he has no idea how to make it better... then we post his e-mail message on slashdot and show the world that he is just mumbling out his butt.
This also accomplishes a loftier goal, it shows him the greatest strength of our OS, _community_.
~hamnrye
P.S. Where can I get an asbestos keyboard?
"Linux currently offers mighty slim pickings for ordinary computer users."
??--What do ordinary computer users use that Linux does not have? Linux has image editing software (GIMP), web browsing and email software (NETSCAPE), Office-type software (K OFFICE, APPLIXWARE, STAR OFFICE). Have I missed anything that an ordinary computer user would want to use on any ordinary day?
"Meanwhile, billions of human hours have been spent writing the amazing applications that run on the Windows and Macintosh platforms."
This is true. However, most useful applications for Windows are third-party. Eventually, these companies will be writing their software for Linux too. (i.e. Wordperfect)
"to CD-ROM shoot'em-up games like Doom and Quake"
--oh gee, wow, wish i could play Doom or Quake in Linux....oh wait...I CAN!
"
The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye"
So...now it's working better than before--and for free...
"Meanwhile, they would have us reinvent the wheel by wasting billions more hours creating applications to take advantage of Linux"
What the hell?!? Reinvent the wheel?? What is this guy smoking??
Why do people not do more research before they write garbage like this. This guy has probably never even seen Linux in operation. Never seen all the cool apps that run perfectly on it--that were coded for (oh my!) free...
And, I agree with someone's comment before mine -- What the hell is wrong with a little competition?!? It makes everyone's product better in the end...
all the signs are there. bad grammar, sentences on the fringe of being run-on, every paragraph made up of a single sentence, 5 or 10 lines alike.
i really don't like this style of writing, and attribute it to lack of serious revision, just like my writing seminar teacher did. for comparison go to any ESR article and see that he actually has a structure in his writing. 8)
on usenet, he indeed would be a troll, but in chicago tribune he is yet another reporter who will be getting an invitation to the next geek party at bill gates' house.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
I think this guy has the thing backwards, Microsoft should start writing code for linux, in line with the wheel metaphor, while linux is reinventing the wheel, that's because the linux community is building wheels for an airplane, while microsoft's wheel are ground bound. Therefore microsoft should jump off their little land buggy and write code for a safer, more efficent computer advancement. Microsoft's code is bogged down and not well designed for the kind of performance and stability that consumers want now that computers are more popular than ever.
Plus, people do write code to improve windows, but it's not really the same thing as no one has the source tarball to window's source code, so if microsoft won't give source code, why should anyone donate their own for them to use? With linux you give some, you get some back, with windows it would just be a blackhole void that sucks up people's time and code.
=-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==
Not bad. Well thought out. I agree with most of what you have to say.
clancey
Now before the flaming contest begins, it is important to note that the author was correct about a few things. And then he was wrong about quite a few things. And then there are some ugly truths...
The Good:
* The truth is that Linux suffers from a dearth of real usable applications. This is changing rapidly, but at the moment, the lack of apps is the truth for most purposes.
* Microsoft gets lots of mindless bashing from Linux (and *BSD and MacOS) users. Unfortunately people just call Microsoft bad and don't understand the reasons why.
The Bad:
* The author claims that his years of experience make him better able to analyze the operating system market. Unfortunately the computer world doesn't work that way, let alone the world in general. Usually it's the young kids in a garage throwing together a product that cause revolutions, particularly in this industry.
* The author implies that if everyone ran the same operating system there would be an overall benefit. This isn't true at all. Choice and competition causes the operating systems to improve. A capitalist society without competition is a Bad Thing (see also "Railroad/Steel/Oil Barons").
The Ugly:
* The ugly truth for the Linux community is that some users' rage toward Microsoft outweighs their ability to justify their anger. If you believe that all software should be free, then you might have some room for anger. However, programmers are not charity cases generally, and you can't feed your family or yourself by giving your work away. There is room for both free and commercial software to coexist happily.
* The ugly truth about Microsoft is that people are hating them for all the wrong reasons. Once all the anti-competitive practices become the object of the public's rage, rather than just their shoddy software, then all the anti-trust laws will be strengthened. Microsofts crime isn't that it sells lots of software, it's that it leverages the software to screw the little guys by not releasing standards, API calling conventions, etc. Stallman wrote a nice piece recently touching on the fact that it is the leveraging that is the real crime with MS.
* The last ugly truth is that dearth of applications I mentioned. The tools to do certain tasks in Linux simply aren't there. If I'm doing programming then it's all a little bit better because many programming tools started in Unix (not Linux), and were quickly converted. At the same time though consumer and small business applications on Linux (or *BSD) are either not as well-featured as the Windows equivilant, or they don't exist.
There is a steep learning curve coming too. If you have a superior operating system in some aspect, and the applications, then users will come, right? Wrong. Look at Apple folks. MacOS although not superior in it's low-levels, has a vastly superior user interface to anything else out there. (I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying it, but it is simply a fact.) MacOS has plenty of applications for any task that are parallel or more featured than Win32 equivilants, but they don't have the user base, because they don't have the users and purchasers out of the WinEverywhere mindset yet.
To get users out of this mindset, and to convince this columnist that your operating system is better you need a killer app, that no other platform has. And Linux, just like *BSD, just like MacOS, just like BeOS, doesn't have that killer app yet to break the Windows mindset in consumers.
Pardon the novel... this is probably my 10 cents worth.
--Cysgod
This reading is absolutely correct. Lets all stop doing our hacking on linux and start doing something we hate. Its not like we are going to have a choice in 5 years anyways because MS will run everything because of authors like this one that will go out to a computer store and buy a computer without knowing how to use it and be happy with an OS for idiots. He will be happy because he is part of the hurd of people that take all the easy ways out and MS knows this and will take advantage of it to make money for the world of the hurd that knows not what hacking is.
Please, Please Don't flame!!!
This is what he wants, he wants us to become angry and hateful.
For the sake of the community, just ignore it. 5,000 emails won't do any good. A prepared response posted here is all that is neccecary
This guy is a friggin' sheep. Buying into, and beleiving everything MS has to say. Pretty pathetic really.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Finance package: OK, this is the one weak area I can think of (in terms of free software) though I think there have been a couple of big-name enterprise business programs ported lately
Yea anyone know of any good financial packages.. I need to move my family over to linux, but I ain't getting my dad away from his quicken anytime soon. Is there anything that can read quicken files out there? or atleast operate as well???
Linux had, has and will always have more applications than Windows. It's a mathematical fact. Anyone saying this isn't true doesn't know how the world works. Unix has been there for 40 years, and Windows for 20. Unix has more apps than Windows, so Linux has more apps than Windows since every single Unix app will work on Linux. Of course some non-IT people (like that guy who writes this crap) think that if the app doesnt have a GUI then it's not good or something. Oh well.
Coates is a guy I've been reading for a while only because he's the only IT-guy in the Tribune, but I wouldn't worry. He caters more to the AOL home-productivity audience than anything else, really. So when reading his columns, you gotta use a newbie point of view, and realize that he's actually right. Would you want newbies and AOL peeps running Linux right now? Imagine the tech support calls alone. So although he's wrong on most points, most of the people that read his column don't need swaying to Linux anyway. Think about it: most of the people that know and run Linux already know about it, and know it's better. We don't need to be told that it is.
"McBane to base: Under attack by Commie Nazis!" -the Simpsons
Reinvent the wheel?
Absolutely, if it prevents a bus from driving around on a bicycle tire.
When something is as old and dead-ended as Windows, it's time to give it a decent Viking funeral, and start over with something better.
Linux is the foundation of that Better Thing.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
As for legacy applications... iBCS, anyone? Linux can run native SCO and FreeBSD binaries, I believe.
definetly no free beer to read the free speech. :)
Hey... where is all this "free beer" I keep hearing so much about?
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
Well, it depends what you use Linux for. It lacks in IDEs, which are an important and useful programming tool, especially for large projects. It also is lacking in web browsers. Lynx is great for a textmode browser, but there is no good graphical web browser for Linux (no, Netscape does not count) on par with Opera for Windows.
Awhile ago it was announced that Opera for Linux was under development.
It's also missing games. Sure, there's Quake, but that's just the 5th rehash of Wolfenstein 3d. Even if you happen to like it, it's still only one game, compared to the thousands that Windows has.
I know, this is a good point. However, there are games under development for Linux. I am the lead programmer and project coordinator on a kickass networked game currently being developed simultaneously for Linux, MacOS, and Windows. Sorry guys, I can't tell you anything about it, but I'll tell you this: it's very different, and IMHO much more fun and exciting, than anything out there today. It'll be worth the wait. Believe me. 1999 is going to be a great year for Linux. I only wish we were releasing this game as OSS, but unfortunately I don't have any say in that.
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
that guy is almost as stupid as al gore
--
hellraiser ( @linuxfreak.com || @nac.net )
awk 'BEGIN { printf "Just another %s hacker\n", ARGV[0] }'
--
hellraiser ( @linuxfreak.com || @nac.net )
awk 'BEGIN { printf "Just another %s hacker\n", ARGV[0] }'
Journalism is one of those fields you go into when you're too stupid to do anything useful. Computer journalism is for journalists with no people skills.
Now there are intelligent journalists out there, but it's obvious that most of the press and especially TV do not have any standards. Just look of the level of grammar in a typical newspaper or the insipid questions of a typical TV interviewer.
This article is typical of one that you read about a subject that you know a lot about, but most people don't. He can say anything he wants about Linux, because 99.9% of his readers don't know any better.
If car reviews were written like software reviews we'd be seeing in-depth recommendations based solely on the quality of paint job.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
This article tells us that Linux is a hard-to-use OS with many advantages. ("....So Linux is free, crash proof, flexible, lean...")
Yet, he says we should not use Linux for two reasons:
Come on. Just because we already have it implemented on other OSes doesn't mean we should discard the stability advantage.
And why should we care what other users of the OS thinks if it works
To be fair, there is one often-named point here which (hopefully) Linux developers are addressing: Linux is not easy enough to be used by all but the very-computer literate.
Just my say...
-- "I hate quotations." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
sheesh. if you're going to complain about something, complain about the fact that the error in "grammer" is not grammar-related at all, and is merely a speling error.
-krog
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
I really hate to see articles like this. Although there are a few valid points in the article, it is overshadowed with dripping sarcasm.
The author would rather see us all get hired by m$ and write windows 2000 instead of working on "the dinky feature-weak, application-starved flavor of home-brewed Unix known as Linux".
WTF?
I think what Mr. Coates fails to realize is that there are a LOT of programmers in the world.
What's more, taste is subjective. Asking everyone to adopt a single standard solely for the sake of conformity is ludicrous. America was founded on the ideals of freedom of choice. To say that all of us (which he generalizes as young, idealistic, anti-establishment hackers) are "wasting billions more hours creating applications to take advantage of Linux and make Torvalds' colleagues at Linux software houses like Red Hat Inc. and Caldera Systems Inc. rich" is insane.
I don't think he gets it. I'd suggest everyone send him email, but I can't seem to find his email address anywhere.
If that had been a usenet article, I would have been quick to say it's a troll.
He mentions the large amount of hours needed to develop Linux applications. He does not mention the larger number of hours being lost every week as millions of Microsoft systems crash and waste the time of users, maintenance, and administrative staff.
Linux is irrelevent to 90% of computer users right now. Taking the effort put into porting applications and emulation into the Windows counterparts would benefit far more people.
At least for the short term
The clear fundamental oversight by the author is choice. Making several of anything is always a waste of effort that can be put into one. Think of all the marketing dollars wasted on Pepsi. Why do we fight wars when we can be all one country? Do we really need more than one Operating System?
Yes. People like choice. If I didn't like Windows and asked for something different, I don't want to hear "Well everyone else uses Windows. Do we really need *two* operating systems?" Each to their own, right?
He is a smart man. His reasoning is mostly sound. His comments are practical. But there is one flaw: It is against the rules of human nature. And that is what makes the World go around (well, excluding momentum, of course).
--
its also jcoates1@aol.com or jcoatesl@aol.com. I can't tell whether its a 1 or l.
I do wonder whether it's even worth putting such links on Slashdot. It sends their hits sky-high, so the advertisers love it, the editor loves it, and enough Slashdot readers send unpleasant responses for the columnist to base their next column on the phenomenon. I don't see why we should give them more grist for their mill.
--
--
Think Green... Burn only 100% recycled dinosaurs in you car.
How do killer apps happen? To use Geoffry Moore's
analogy, they are the result of the Tornado --
technology and users needs coming together at
just the right point in time, so that a lazy
product segment becomes an unstoppable force.
And in the end, one company ("the gorilla")
dominates the segment. Looking back in history,
relational databases were a tornado, Oracle
became the gorilla. Internet infrastructure was
a tornado, Cisco became the gorilla. Desktop
publishing was a tornado, and the Macintosh and
Adobe shared joint gorilla status until recently.
On the free software server front, Apache and
Samba were the real gorillas, and Linux came
along as infrastructure for them. If we're
looking for desktop "killer apps", we need to
look to the future, predict the most probable
Tornados, and be ready -- not look in the rear
view mirror at Office, Microsoft got there first.
Especially since most of us don't even use an
app like Office to get our own work done -- we
use TeX+emacs.
Remember, even the dragon's friends become food when it becomes hungrey enough. Be careful how "close" a friend you become.
(Taste like chicken)
Computers are probably the utimate tinker toys for guys. I used to like hacking automobiles, but modern cars are now less approachable for weekend mechanics.
I don't think most people hacking GNU code are constantly thinking "must ...destroy ...Microsoft..". Instead, they are just having fun tapping into the power of computers to accomplish things. Open source puts that power in everybody's hands. The positive feedback loop of open source software and empowered individuals will be hard for Microsoft to break.
but we are doing it so no-one else will have to again. That is where he completely misses the point. The current system of software development forces us to reinvent the wheel. Work done can only be reused and fixed to the extent that the original author allows. If we were allowed to fix and improve current software then linux would indeed be waste of time. But we can't and
in the long run linux and open software will greatly reduce the amount of wasted time and effort that the author is so worried about.
Linux is the solution, not the problem!
As with all things, it's not applications that will make any platform or operating system - it's the avalibility of games.
Game development has been the driving force behind faster cpu's for years, and with the current vendor community turn around to linux - it's going to drive home linux as a consumer operating system.
In full agreement here. Games drive the market. Notice how nearly all new PCs include 3d accs. I wonder why that is? Quake (and doom before it) has driven my upgrades as well as providing yet another reason why I NEED broadband. I think Q3 being released natively on Linux will do much to improve it's overall market acceptance. Without games an OS, however superior in other areas, simply won't garner a large market share. Notice Apple finally reaized this, we'll see what it does for them.
Win9x have done amazing things for the PC game market, anybody else remember having to reconfigure memory for every game? Linux needs one button install and removal for game elements, so we can play all those wonderful FREE demos.
..and I love those 3dfx commercials. They hit dead-on the mix of high tech world-saving-possibilities used for straight pleasure.
+&x
Anti-establishment means bucking the system for the sake of bucking the system. People buck the system all the time, in order to try to improve it. When a politician raves about movie violence, he isn't being anti-establishment (and would likely be insulted if you said that he was). He's being anti-violent-movie.
We aren't anti-establishment. We're anti-crash. Anti-BSOD. Anti-broken-software-that-we-can't-fix. Anti-square-wheel. Anti-bloat.
We're pro-uptime. Pro-tech-support. Pro-stuff-that-works. Pro-set-and-forget. Pro-efficient-use-of-hardware. Pro-competent.
We spend all this energy inflicting all this pro-* stuff onto Linux because we can. Since Windows doesn't let us make it work, we don't waste our time on it. Sooner or later, the horses pulling square-wheeled carts will get jealous of the horses pulling round-wheeled carts and passing them.
--The basis of all love is respect
So he wants to bring up dragons. He wants us to make nice with the dragon.
This isn't St. George versus the dragon. There are two dragons. By painting Linux as St. George, one implies that it's the little guy. But Linux really isn't the little guy. Linux is two things. Linux is effectively the next generation of Unix, literally More Unix Than Unix (though the vendors aren't allowed to say that). And Unix is a fairly formidable dragon itself.
One dragon, "Windows", lairs on the desktop. The other one, "Unix", lairs on the server. The desktop dragon is fat and lazy, munching on a steady diet of managers and Apples. He rules his realm by sheer size. The dragon of the server has cut his claws and sharpened his fangs by fighting the Big Iron and VAXen. Currently, he rules his realm, but he keeps vigilant.
The desktop dragon has never dealt with any competition bigger than a lion. Windows (in the form of NT) is shambling over to serverville for supposedly easy pickings. Unix has home-field advantage, decades of competency, and practice slaying other dragons. In the lair of the server, the desktop dragon is going to have his head handed to him.
Meanwhile, Unix (in the form of Linux), is looking at the desktop. He's not sure if he wants to unseat the dragon of Windows, but at least wants a time-share in a nice neighborhood. It's more powerful, but Windows' home-field advantage is daunting. Unix isn't used to the close-quarters combat of the desktop, but Linux has some experience. The outcome here is much more in doubt.
--The basis of all love is respect
I'm all for making a product better. But the article is assuming that Micro~1 software is better. And thus the world would be better servered by focasing on improving their products. But wouldn't it be better if everyone switched to Linux and worked to improve Linux software.
"Here, take this free software that doesn't crash, runs all your favorite appz and gamez, and just looks pretty cool."
"Free software! Get it away! It's evil! It doesn't crash because it's got the DEVIL in it!!"
"It doesn't have the devil in it. Come on, it's the software you've always dreamed of..."
"NO!! You can't make me!"
"What's your problem? I'm giving you quality free software."
"Is it from Microsoft?"
"No."
"It's EVIL!!"
"No, Microsoft is the Devil."
"It is?"
"Yes, it is."
"I don't believe you."
"Just try the software. It works - it's got all the features you want."
"No it doesn't."
"You know, I'm not getting anywhere with you."
"Yeah, run away."
One of the great things about Linux is the opportunity it provides to do things better this time around. From a user interface perspective, Windows is pretty crap. Some of the innovations i've seen in window managers such as Enlightenment and WindowMaker -- multiple desktops, no start bar / apple menu, opaque windows, the customisation -- are really kick-ass -- are really heading in the right direction. And the day of the 3d desktop environment is looming, believe me -- you go to Siggraph and all anyone can talk about are better interfaces and input devices. And i'd hate to have 20 million lines of code on my hands when it comes to making this thing ship!
The guy has a point when he talks about lack of software but uses really bad examples:
So Linux is fast and fluid. Windows is fosillizing. We just haven't seen the test of this... yet!
--
Rare Window - free your photos
It IS kind of annoying to think that anyone would feel satisfaction for putting out this kind of garbage. However, there is an ideological objective to be gained by proactively fighting FUD, error, and just plain stupidity. I'm just as tempted to passivity as the next guy due to the time and effort that proactivity entails, however I think that is a weak tactic.
:) Seems to me that anyone who has been given a public mouth has the potential to do damage, especially if their platform is built on pillars of non-logic and non-fact, etc. The way I see it, we have a moral obligation to straighten these guys out. And who better qualified for this job than slashdot readers? :)
Sometimes you have to start small fires to put out big ones. Sometimes you have to keep fighting the little skirmishes while you're perfecting the big weapon.
"Know thy ignorance."
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
- _
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
-----------------------------------------------
for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less`
_______________________________________________
Nathan's blog
Maybe most computer professionals consider Microsoft sotware a waste of time. Perhaps the time put into Microsoft software could be better used to improve Linux (and other opens source software).
-
I for one believe that Microsoft software is a sinking boat that should be abandoned. In more commercial terms, if Linux and Windows were commercial OSes produced by the same company, Windows would have been dropped a long time ago because it is a losing investment. Why waste time taking all the bugs out of outdated software when you could be improving and enhancing a much more powerful, stable and bug-free product?
-----------------------------------------------
for a good time, `finger npsimons@nmt.edu | less`
Nathan's blog
One of the most sensible statements made in this thread.
This "journalist" is trolling for flameage which will most likely be used in a follow-up article which shows the world (of Chicago) geeks being rude and intolerant -- the implied comparison is with the nice folks at Microsoft, of course. Haven't we seen enough of this type of crap recently? Playing into it doesn't serve us well. I can understand wanting to counter FUD, but this isn't FUD -- it's base, intentionally antagonistic and meant to irritate and elicit specific reactions.
I agree with Telsa -- time to stop feeding this type of troll.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
"We aren't anti-establishment. We're anti-crash..."
speak for yourself, honey.
as far as i'm concerned, that it works well is just frosting on the cake. i kinda like it that free software erodes the concept of property. what's more anti-establishment than that?
Unfortunaltely, the story doesnot have a message board where we could enlighten the author. I went through the their staff index and did not find a James Coates. But I did find a Jim Coates - Computer Technology reporter. JCoates@tribune.com /.? I really don't have the time to do it. I am too busy wasting my time writing useless lines of code. I have an addiction. I can't help it. Should I go into rehab? Is there any purpose to my life?
I believe it is the same guy. Is it appropriate for us to email him and express our views. Should we just direct him to
Sure, applications make the platform, but how does this guy expect applications to get written/ported unless there are enough early-adopters using the platform?
Given that the guy likes Linux, but thinks that Linux apps are weak, presumably it's the OS developers that he thinks would be more productively enhancing Windows - tough to do when Windows is closed and proprietary.
How lame to write an article like that, and not even have an e-mail address for feedback. Pretty much speaks for itself.
.. of project leaders and managers will be today's students who are increasingly using Linux :)
"I sure hope this linux thing doesn't catch on, I just figured out how to change the wallpaper in windows 98 last week, I'd hate to have to re-learn everything. I hear that linux is even HARDER to use than windows."
Oh well. It's a shame this guy wrote such a crappy article on the subject, this is a point that could be argued in an interesting manner with some thought and insight.
But there is no trace of either in this article.
Oh, and this guy's opinion of linux is going to really improve when 300 angry slashdotters fill his mailbox with flamage and intricate point-by-point dissections of his article.
Go team. Sick him. Yeah.
put the time and energy into it that they put into LINUX.
It would also have the marketing might of MS behind it
Ease of entry into consumer space---which would make computing better for EVERYONE.
And better support from the third party vendors
Alas...Bill would have to open the code to us if that were to happen.
What he doesn't understand is that it really is nothing new anyway. Linux is 20 year old technology anyway...little more than ported to the x86 platform.
I think that the challenge that the Linux community, especially those that contribute Linux programs and system software, should learn from the continued stubborn criticisms of Linux. Although some criticisms point out real flaws that need to be fixed, most of them are based on general distrust and a poor reputation.
Now, before I get flamed for the poor reputation part, consider this: how many times have you heard about Linux being a geek/nerd operating system? If linux is to become widely used, it should have a wide usability range. New users should not be forced to learn how to manipulate textfiles and other low level things if they do not want to. In other words, the OS should be as highly customizable as it is now, but those who do not want to customize should not have to or should have an easy and well-documented way of learning to do so. (Much of the current documentation for Linux is written for techies, not for newbies.)
The other, more important point that I want to make is that Linux, to overcome the fear of the potential audience, needs to be more than it is now. It must not only beat Microsoft in some areas, it must beat Microsoft in every area, and badly. Until then, we cannot expect Linux to be as popular as Windows. It must get so good that even the most conservative and ignorant Win 3.1 users find it hard not to respect it.
This is the sort of attention seeking sulking that you'd expect from an 8 year old.
He obviously knows that what he is saying is unfounded, naive, and just plain wrong. Surely he has thought that everyone making an OS since the first OS has been reinventing the wheel!
Microsoft copied Apple (and others), Apple copied Xerox, but they were all trying to improve on previous attempts.
Mr. Coates knows all this as well as the next person. All this is for, is to get him some publicity. I don't know whether he needs the money or the recognition, or what, and I don't care!
Did anyone else notice the advertisement before the page loaded? This isn't about Linux at all, he's probably not even an IT reporter, it's just the Tribune trying to make money out of the advertising, and using Slashdot to get the attention!
The internet is going downhill very quickly with the likes of these shameless types.
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Microsoft Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems are VERY User Friendly.
Until recent years, the computer industry has been a "Members Only" club. Only the people who knew a good amount of computers could use one, let alone have one in their home.
Then the computer was simplified and made to be more friendlier, in a marketing scheme designed to appeal to a wider demographic range. This was done at the expense of the functionality.
"Take away a few minor liberties and replace those subroutines with automated functions and the omputer will be an easier device, and a useful tool to the common man."
Some people just go to far.
The main gripe with Windows and Macintosh, today, is it's complete lack of ability to satisfy a "Hard Core" computer user. And with such a huge market share, the computer industry is now flooded in that direction. Everyone and their grandmother wants to have eternal access to the internet.
Unfortunatly, when these folks see how difficult a computer is, to actually use, and sees that Hardcore users are taking thier domain of computer functionality back, they panic, and think it's called re-inventing the wheel.
To us, it is RESTORING PROGRESS.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
The only truth out there is that most home based computers are used for the following:
-Sex downloads and sex image manipulation.
-Game playing.
-Some SOHO stuff, where all you need is an app like StarOffice. I have already started showing it and people are just starting to consider using it on their platform.
-Let your kids play stupid pseudo-educative stuff.
-"Be cool" and have the latest computer even if you don't use it.
I won't talk about sex. It is obvious that it is the biggest industry of the net!
Games follow: They sell hardware. You wouldn't have had dual Voodoo SLI or TNT or ATI FURY or even MMX and now 3Dnow and MMX2 and soon 3DnowII without them!
If you have games, and your OS is better than Windows, people will switch to it. And then parents or even adult players will go buy Corel or StarOffice or Applix for Linux, if they use the machine for any work at all!
PERIOD.
Now for the guy, he doesn't seem to understand a lot, BUT he seems to need some publicity. Everyone of us tries hard to keep his/her job. So I guess he is doing the same.
Good luck to him!
Kill Microsoft? No! Just hire their GUI guys!
Absolutely. As much as I love /. there's nothing that bugs me more than these sort of reactions. Sure, the article was stupid - it happens. Sometimes people say stupid things. But it almost goes without saying that this guy probably doesn't frequent slashdot, so why bitch to each other about it?
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you think that calling someone a "stupidass idiot" is going to make your point any more correct? It's hot blooded irrational insults like that that make it harder to conduct reasonable discussions. Sure, his point may have been wrong, but wouldn't it have been easier to simply point that out? Do you feel like a bigger person now that you've called him a "dumbass"
The journalist said it
What does that spell?
spoo
"Doing the Chicago Tribune no favours."
...)
The article is doing this, of course.
Microsoft isn't a welfare organisation.
You need only a short look into their
latest business reports and will find
out that they are doing best business
in terms of financial results. Doing
good service to their users by maintainig
their software and fixing bugs is quite
a different side.
Starting application development with Linux
requires an installed system to be successful.
Doing the same with any Windows and Microsofts
Tools is a matter of big money and time.
You need compiler, assembler, debugger, SDKs/DDKs
and docu which will sum up some $1.000 or even
more and a grant for success isnt included by that.
Tell that to a 15 or 16 year old genius (that
will be the software engineer of the future)
and his choice for now and later is obvious.
How many Office Packages do you need?
Primary answer: I need only one that fits my needs.
Perfect answer, isn't it?
I think the author isnt well informed on Windows
either, even if it is his reference.
There are lots more of Office packages than
only MS-0ffice. And if i am willing to spend,
say $300, then i have the choice between
multiple qualified systems on Linux either,
including the free ones as well.
It seems to me that this article is some sort
of FUD out of a lower tray. Not simply the
speach is the matter but its intense expression
of a disagree without giving any argument for
the reasons why to do so.
Sure if all Linux people were be able to
contribute to Microsoft Windows there had
been no need for Linux at all. But since
they had no chance to do so, they were forced
to do it on their own. Since Windows never was
a free OS and there was a need for a free OS
on the x86 platform and the free tools to do
so it was just a question when to start up
with it.
Anyone who writes about any complex system
like the area of operating system usage
(i intentionally avoid the phrases "market"
and "market share") should be in knowledge
of Darwin's principles. Any life form (=OS)
that exists has its well founded base.
An increasing population of one sort indicates
that it has managed to adapt to certain
environmental parameters that were unused
or non existing before. Any life form that
doesnt adapt will shrink in population or
even be extinct if certain parameters change.
A big population has a bit of an advance
over a small one in adapting to a changed
environments. A population that consists
of individuals with lots of flavours,
expressed by the number of hooked landscape
types (=platforms), is more likely to already
have the ability to adapt to certain changes.
Applying this to the Linux/Windows future
we can state that:
- Linux is adaptable to any need at any place
- Linux has already lots of platforms
- Linux is existing in lots of flavours and
is performing higly even with small HW demands
(ebedded, desktop, server, cluster,
- Windows is developed at a single place only
- Windows has a few platforms (some 3-5)
- Windows is existing in a few flavours and
is performing average with medium HW demands
Now we come to the most known Darwin quote:
"Only the fittest will survive."
Comparing the characteristics above implys to
me that Linux is more fit than Windows in
terms of adaption capabilities. Recent research
has brought up that evolution is not always
a steady process that goes incrementally but
there were some phases where evolution went
in very fast steps in relatively short time.
Such a quantum jump can be independent of
anything if steady evolution has reached
critical mass or of some sort of major
catastrophe or big change happend.
The last "catastrophe" we have seen
was the uprise of the internet. Can you
imagine Linux happening without the internet?
(There were other things like IA-32 or the cheap-
ness of the IBM-PC clones or the GNU compiler
but they were only base requirements, not the
real change in "climate".)
The time until now showed that Linux was able
to take big advantages of presence of the
internet. Windows despite wasnt really dependent
on it and could gain only less advantage of it.
The next "catastrophe" in terms of evolution
is the IA-64 challenge. (okay, maybe there will
be another, i dont know right now, its a sample)
Linux surely will take advantage of that new
system and will nearly immediately take it over
due to its well founded multi "colored" background.
Windows also has a 64 bit flavour (the DEC Alpha
port) so it is likely as well that it will run
on it in time.
Linux needed some 7 years to spread around and
seems to be ready now for most challenges.
Windows had 14 years in which it was already
very widespread but if confronted with major
changes it was from time to time a bit slow
or say late in hitting the streets.
So its more likely that Linux is the one that
has the power to give you the OS for the 64 bit
aera first. For buying an early IA-64 system
its not unlikely that there is a Linux/64
system pre-installed for 64 bits mode simply
because the lack of alternatives at that time.
Lets do a last statement fitting into Darwins
description of nature:
Any known species is derived from the same root.
Any of them has developed special skills.
Some of that skills are rather special and
others are rather universal. The most important
and universal skill is to survive and to evolve
in any environment. (In this terms, Ridley Scott's
Alien would be classify as extremly fit.)
Applying this to Operating systems, you know
they all share the same root (bits and bytes)
but will differ lots in the ways they are
designed, the speed and quality development is
done on them and finally the way they do their
job at the users computer as his desire.
Since there a many different users and as much
different desires, an OS can oly succeed if it
is possible to fit as much of that. An OS that
is designed to satisfy lots of users is fine. An
OS that can be customized is better. An OS that
can be improved and extended and takes advantage
of that changes by incorporating them for anyones
use is best!
A single direction design process is always
beaten in the long term by a design process
that has included feedback. I have lots more
the impression that this does much more apply
to Linux than to Windows.
Bye AlexS.
--- Linux has no limit !!!
First of all:
microso~1 is a buggy expression, it has 9 chars.
micros~1 is the right one.
Even OpenSource itself isnt the key of getting
that OS up. For Linux there are pathways back
to Linus and Alan (Cox, of course). I dont think
Bill will be happy doing the job of a kernel
patcher himself, but he could pay (and fire)
a person that will do this for him.
But what i am personally aware of is that:
A build manager typically tends to incorporate
only things that are prooven to be stable.
But as long as that changes aren included
in some version they have no chance of
doing that proove. Since there is less
possibility of trying out and merging
experimental code into Windows it has
the disadvantage of being less performant.
Linux can be configured risky but it must not
by default. It lets more choices to the users
since they are doing the system build themselves.
Thats the reason why Linux has the better
sheduler over NT. It is a matter of the process
how fast the code is advanced veryfied and
merged into the default system.
Even on Linux projects (mesa) the question arised:
Who is the owner of the submitted patches?
Who is the copyright holder?
Who has the right to distirbute it or change its license?
(mesa/gpl was made availabel to xfree project
as mesa/xfree, which means lots more freedom.)
Think about Microsoft, they will run in several
serious troubles if they would start with doing
real OpenSource. (And there is still the question
of how many code they "borrowed" from other
software without being entiteled to do so.)
Bye, AlexS.
--- Linux has no limit !!!
Idiot: JCoates@tribune.com
Jim Coates, Binary Beat Columnist and Computer Industry Reporter
JCoates@tribune.com
-------------------
Jim Coates, Binary Beat Columnist and Computer Industry Reporter
Let's take a closer look into what he was saying. Hmm, Bill isn't a monster . . . ok, I can agree with that. He's simply a shrewd and lucky businessman, whose increasing market share has led him and his company to lose sight of little things like fair play and morals, etc. Here again this is simply human nature, not out of the ordinary. People with an unfair advantage over others *will* use the advantage. Didn't some "Wise Old Dead Dude" say that "power corrupts?" I agree.
Now he goes on a rant on how we should stop wasting our time supporting competition and choice and just accept Windows as our personal savior. Huh? Has he ever taken a single economics class at that Cracker-Jack college he went to? When has a lack of choice *ever* resulted in a better situation for the consumer? Hmm, I don't know. Ask your cable company, *if* you can get them to answer the phone!
Also, I should just mention that Linux (really open source in general) is not ever going away. This is exactly the type of collaboration that the internet makes possible and encourages. You are witnessing the power of the contributions of the *entire* world sharing and collaborating, and building on the work of others. Just as the power of compound interest makes for a much better investment return you will see much better and varied software now and later. Do you really think the third world (where the real growth is) is gonna fork over $300 for each computer to the richest (maybe?) man in the world? The only M$ products they use now are pirated.
If linux seems unfinished, well that's because it *is*! And yet it grows exponentially every year. Perhaps you are making your judgements on the linux of a year ago, I assure you this is not your father's linux. Windows will simply never be able to catch up after W2k version, because the version after that won't be out until 2003, while linux will be significantly improved every 3-6 months. It is already technically superior, it just needs to fleshed out with user apps, and that is happening quickly.
Finally, if anyone is wasting their time they're wasting it on Windows. They are supporting the very company that limits their choice, rewards them with dll conflicts and frequent reboots and crashes, as well as not supporting a system that benefits us all.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
I think the userfriendliness has a long way to go for linux. The 'average' user just wants to have a computer and be on the internet with as little fuss as possible. Caldera's intentions are good, and I like the idea of installing it from Windows, but that's also a problem; if you have windows already running with all these neat new things like IE and all, why install another OS?
By the way, maybe the wheel is being reinvented, but hey, the last one was squared, so why not invent a round one.
It's true. Windows is an easier operating system to use. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not into Windows or Microsoft advocacy here. But neither am I into Linux advocacy either. I use whichever platoform and whichever set of applications make MY life easier and get MY job done. As economists would say: it's all a matter of utility. Does the cost of purchasing Windows and the frequent crashes and reboots of my windows applications outweigh the ease of use of the system? I don't know. Currently I am running a partitioned hard drive with both Windows and Linux. I have learned much about Linux and the ways of UNIX this past year and right now I will still say that even for the high tech of us, even for those of us who like to be in super control, Windows can do everything Linux can do and is much easier to make things happen. But I'm a programmer at heart and I certainly support the Open Source movement which seems to unlike anything else in society. I mean, where else do you have hundreds (sometimes thousands) of strangers uniting in a common goal with common objectives. I think if you take a step back and think about it, that is the amazing thing about Linux. Whereas Windows has hundreds of people working on the source code because they're getting paid, Linux has hundreds of people working on the source code because THEY WANT TO. And that is why I will continue to support Linux over Windows despite the fact that Windows is easier RIGHT NOW. But knowing the pace at which Linux has been developing, I have no doubt that Linux has the potential to outpace Windows in terms of ease of use and any other standard by which one may measure an operating system against another.
In the end I believe that choice is good because of the competition it promotes, and I will choose to support Linux and the ideology behind its growth and development.
Link
If NT is the wave of the future, what doesn't he go down to the server room and see that they are running solaris???
Hey lookie here, it's not NT!
I live in Chicago and read the Tribune occasionally. I have yet to read one of his columns that I wasn't mentally correcting. He makes huge errors on a regular basis - this was one of his least clue-free ones. Wait till you see one of his real doozies.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Recently I found a link on the Microsoft Home page to an independent comparison between Apache on Linux and MS IIS on WinNT 4.0. With slanted crap like this around, it is no wonder that the main stream press doesn't understand the nature of the OSS movement.
"For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone." - Ayn Rand
In general I find this article how few good
:-p
u x/ Linux_vs_NT.html
points. The author is $Microsoft mushhead.
I'll point out some remarks.
[1]Bill Gates isn't a monster.
Not only that, but we're all very, very lucky
to have Microsoft in our lives.
NOT. He wants to be sole propietor for OS's
on PC's. Tell it to the judge.
$MS is only good things
1. Fonts- easier to install than Linux
2. Games.
3. HotMetal Pro by SoftQuad
4. Neo Planet
5. IDE's for C/C++/JAVA compilers
[2]Linux, they note, is 2.5 million lines (at
most) of highly flexible, free-to-use and free-
to-modify software that almost never crashes
and that works any way a programmer cares to
make it work.
Best of all, the open source code that makes
up Linux is free of charge compared with the
$89 one pays for Windows 98 and the upwards
of $300 that a box of office strength
Windows 2000 can cost.
So Linux is free, crash proof, flexible,
lean and the product of a willful young man
every bit as technologically adroit and set
in his ways as Gates ever was.
What more can I state. This is exactly why Linux
is better than $MS. If you need an office suite
use Applixware. You can install tons of fonts
with no problems. StarOffice is slick, but
font installation is a pain in the butt.
Both these products are equal to $MS Orfice.--
oops -I mean Office
$MS's only good OS is NT server. It is Unix-like.
My friend told me to try it and he is a die-hard
Unix man. He hates $MS. He told me if it wasn't
for NT $MS would not be on his ISP.
Here is another reason Linux hauls ass .
1.http://www.student.brynmawr.edu/~ahackman/lin
Stuff to make Linux more accessable to the
nermal person(spelling mistake intentional)
1. Windoze games ports
2. Universal font installation. Like windows
font installer in NT or even Win31 !
3. Better Html tools. Nice if Hotmetal PRo
by Softquad had a port.
4. Better development tools. Nice GUI ide's
for C/C++ developers.
5. Winamp
6. A browser that supports skins. Change
the look of Netscape.
7. G2-Realplayer.
I can think of other things, but this is a start.
I guess I made my point.
In general I find this article how few good
:-p
u x/ Linux_vs_NT.html
points. The author is $Microsoft mushhead.
I'll point out some remarks.
[1]Bill Gates isn't a monster.
Not only that, but we're all very, very lucky
to have Microsoft in our lives.
NOT. He wants to be sole propietor for OS's
on PC's. Tell it to the judge.
$MS is only good 5 things
1. Fonts- easier to install than Linux
2. Games.
3. HotMetal Pro by SoftQuad
4. Neo Planet
5. IDE's for C/C++/JAVA compilers
[2]Linux, they note, is 2.5 million lines (at
most) of highly flexible, free-to-use and free-
to-modify software that almost never crashes
and that works any way a programmer cares to
make it work.
Best of all, the open source code that makes
up Linux is free of charge compared with the
$89 one pays for Windows 98 and the upwards
of $300 that a box of office strength
Windows 2000 can cost.
So Linux is free, crash proof, flexible,
lean and the product of a willful young man
every bit as technologically adroit and set
in his ways as Gates ever was.
What more can I state? This is exactly why Linux
is better than $MS. If you need an office suite
use Applixware. You can install tons of fonts
with no problems. StarOffice is slick, but
font installation is a pain in the butt.
Both these products are equal to $MS Orfice.--
oops -I mean Office
$MS's only good OS is NT server. It is Unix-like.
My friend told me to try it and he is a die-hard
Unix man. He hates $MS. He told me if it wasn't
for NT $MS would not be on his ISP.
Here is another reason Linux hauls ass .
1.http://www.student.brynmawr.edu/~ahackman/lin
Stuff to make Linux more accessable to the
nermal person(spelling mistake intentional)
1. Windoze games ports
2. Universal font installation. Like windows
font installer in NT or even Win31 !
3. Better Html tools. Nice if Hotmetal PRo
by Softquad had a port.
4. Better development tools. Nice GUI ide's
for C/C++ developers.
5. Winamp
6. A browser that supports skins. Change
the look of Netscape.
7. G2-Realplayer.
I can think of other things, but this is a start.
I guess I made my point.
Dear Mr. Owen Youngman,
As a fervent reader of slashdot (you know the online ezine thingie for "da yoot") I came across a link to your newspapers article about
A REBELLIOUS REACTION TO THE LINUX REVOLUTION
By James Coates
Im not sure how to classify this article.. is it, like Mr. James seems to suggest with his words ; "Today I must cast all caution to the world wide wind and express some of the most unpopular views one can take here on the Binary Beat." a paper printed TROLL, like the ones all of us "yoot" seem to know from the more serious news in the world, the usenet newsgroups?
(If you dont know what either slashdot, a Troll, or usenet is, I suggest you find another Job, so I wont explain those terms, having faith you DO know your job.)
Or is it just that Mr. James does not like "yoot" ?
Of course it also is possible that Mr. James is a clueless newbie on interactive media, Internet in perticular, which also would strike me as odd, since he is publishing in a well known paper on the subject, so you presume he knows stuff.
Last option I can think of is that Mr. James will get money if MS stock rises, or he is just bribed by Bill period.
Cause, the whole article is just packed with damn lies! No? The article is truthfull? Lets take aside the obvious raving against "yoot" and "followers chanting World domination, NOW" (Sjees, Mr James cant see a joke if he tripped on it, can he?) and get to the damn lies :
"In fact, the information revolution that has allowed us to prosper right along with Binary Bill was made possible by the empowerment of these applications--everything from Web browsers to e-mail engines, to CD-ROM shoot'em-up games like Doom and Quake, to personal finance packages."
So you state that Binary Bill is personally responsible for the heaven on earth in shape of Web Browsers (mind I remind you that the MS WebBrowsers was about the LAST one made) e-mail engines (I really hope Chicago doesnt run Exchange, Id like my email to arrive.. probably not, sysadmins are ussually less stupid than breadwriters : www.chicagotribune.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 on Solaris)
Like before MS there was no email.. get a grip!
Sure, now Billie made us Doom and Quake.. be real! You DO know that stuff runs better on linux do you? You DO know the first DOOM servers ran on Linux do you?
But giving you something.. Granted.. If you use anly MS stuff, you must have a good personal finance app.. that for sure is true.
"The Internet was working swell on traditional Unix, Macintosh and Windows NT before Linux was much more than a glimmer in Linus' eye,"
Did Mr. James OD on XTC? Did you do same fact checking? Internet working swell on Macs and NT?? Well your servers arent running it.. wisely so.
Why does Mr. James fail to realize that the internet was running on Unix before NT was a glimmer in Bill Gate's eye. ? Or did he just conveniently forget?
It STILL doesnt run well on Macs and NT, let alone say, 3 years ago. On traditional Unix? Yeah sure, whatever that is. If I take it to be Solaris, BSD's, and AIX you are right. Big difference thou : for those you PAY ALOT. Well, less now they have a FREE competition to take into account.
Oh, and in the meantime, if you want to save the paper some money, tel the sysops to switch from solaris to Linux dude.
And theres my story, why the hell is the Chicago Tribune afraid of Linux? To me it looks like another J.E. Hoover screaming COMMIES!!!!
Even that is ok, I think, after all imho you can say all you want, to all who wants to listen. But getting the facts staight is something you do expect from a newspaper. Otherwise the paper is totally useless, and just another propaganda machine.
The most to the point comment from slashdot :
"on usenet, he indeed would be a troll, but in chicago tribune he is yet another reporter who will be getting an invitation to the next geek party at bill gates' house."
I also hope, since you have the nerve to publish utter nonsense, probably to get some hits on your website, you also have the nerve to post some comments from readers. Hereby I grant my permission to use this article, uncrippled, in any shape of media you like.
Oh and please leave the key to "da yoot" on your way out.
Last word of advise, dear Owen, seek some well writing "yoot", perhaps from slashdot, to get some clue in your paper. As well as writer style.
Kind Regards,
Richard van Beers (beers@xs4all.nl) Amsterdam, The Netherlands
You are all jealous of Bill and his ideas.
Yeah all his good ideas, sure, like :
- icons and windows
- compressing harddrives
- internet computing
- the mouse
All that wonderfull stuff right? DO me a favour, and check your old dusty history books.
Oh wait, you dont go to school yet.
People could stop "wasting their time" (assuming it is being wasted, which it is not) if microsoft would allow access to their code, so people could improve it. But since that will never happen....
This guy misses the point and Bill is a hypocrite. He talks about freedom and everything we do with Bill's OS however its Bill's way or no way! Did you ever install some microsoft product. It practically takes over your system. Oh yeah windows plus was a boon to the world that really helps me a lot. I mean half of the things windows does is just eat up cpu time. Try to unistall EI it gives you all sorts of warning like the world will end. And the active Desktop is a pain in the butt. All linux needs as far as I'm concerned for the average user is 1. Office suite (which exists) 2. Easy connection to AOL (lets face it more people use it)
I know I shouldn't waste my time with this kind of flame-bait, but it's Sunday and I'm a bit bored.
Here's the e-mail I sent to Mr. Coates:
I'm sure you're getting lots of nasty e-mail about now. I wonder if your article was sincere -- it reads a lot like flamebait.
Linux is not "dinky" -- it is an excellent system that is starting to get the attention it deserves. I find it amusing that you judge yourself fit to make such a judgement when your technical knowledge would probably fit on the head of a pin.
You're correct that Linux is not for the average user's desktop just yet. Considerable effort is currently being spent in this area, but it will take another 2-4 years until I'll be able to recommend Linux to my Mom. And maybe Linux will *never* overcome MS's dominance on the desktop -- it doesn't mean we shouldn't *try*.
So Linux isn't for you. But instead of simply ignoring it, you feel the need to heap uninformed criticism on the efforts of the highly skilled people who develop free software. To what end? -- attracting attention to yourself and your article, which you unfortunately could not accomplish with your mastery of the facts, and brilliant synthesis of them.
Youse betta not dis da trollz, motherfragger, or Brumby'z gonna get funkay on your hoop.
Is Bill Gates smarter then Linus? Then Larry Wall? Then RMS? I don't think so. Just more greedy. Less ethical and yes more evil. When you found a company which lies, cheats, and steals as a matter of policy then you deserve the evil adjective.
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
War is necrophilia.
JCoates@tribune.com
Is his e-mail. Please feel free to re-butt him.
greg, REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!
But wait ...
This guy is writing in a large-circulation newspaper, for the general public! I don't think it's reasonable to just 'brush off' his opinion and remind everyone here that they're preaching to the converted.
There oughta be a rebuttal in the Chi. Trib. to such columns -- otherwise it looks for all the world like the Tribune gave away free advertising to MS.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
James Coates is famous for being a MS apoligist. Don't pay him ANY attention.
Since Microsoft is closed source, that means they do lot let help. Thus if it was not for linux, many peoples programming skills would have been left unused, that is a waste.
Whoever wrote the article in the Chicago Tribune, must be; evil evil evil stupid !!!
there are things so bad , they are unimprovable, and best let alone.
linux doesn't reinvent the wheel because M$ hasn't ever gotten that far, (too many bugs)
AMEN!
A lot of you people need to give MS a break. Microsoft is a business and the sole objective of a business is to make money. How do you make money? By selling your product to as many people as you can at the right price (where marginal revenue equals marginal cost). Let's think about this a second. What percentage of the world's computer user's could ever possibly even install Linux, nontheless get it working efficiently? It takes someone with a LOT of time on their hands to do it. Not all of the world has that kind of time available (they actually HAVE a life). Back to where i was, Microsoft makes products for the general public so they can maximize profit. Windows/NT works fine for the general public. Why change it? So what if its big and bloated, crashes occasionally...blah blah blah. I'd rather get my work done quickly and easily on my MS products and the multitude of wonderful programs which run under them, and go out and have some fun, than waste my time trying to get Linux to work correctly.
Bill Gates is a genius. He's the richest man in the world, you're not.
Some will say, "Well, MicroSoft is already here, why don't we just accept it. The software is easy to use and understand." True, but at what cost does this kind of attitude change? Microsoft, as we know, is poorly written, bloated code that any college hack can create. Hell, even a highschool hack using Visual Buttocks 6 can create. Oops, I mean Visual Basic. This code is like a angry fat lady chasing some poor sap down for the last box of Twinkies in the snack isle...pretty damn scary if you don't turn them Twinkies over I might add. That's like how Microsoft software works...if it doesn't like its environment at that specific time, better get ready to reboot. People like Microsoft so they don't have to learn anything and everything is easy and in a cute little package. Once again, at what cost? How many license fees are you willing to pay? How much more will Microsoft own what you do? These are types of questions that these Microsoft users need to be asked. "Oh, I can't use that because it's not Microsoft compatable." I think that says it all.
Articles by the same author, any patterns forming.
GIVING MICROSOFT CREDIT FOR SETTING SOME STANDARDS
MICROSOFT'S WORKS SUITE 99 IS THE SWEETEST UPGRADE
MICROSOFT'S HARDWARE BID HITS ALL THE RIGHT NOTES
MICROSOFT'S COMPLAINING COMPETITORS TURN UP VOLUME
(BTW, Posted from IE, through NT, I'm not 'anti-microsoft, but this guy seems a little to biased)
To read the articles you've gotta pay, but the previews come up when you search for the authors name.
Its true. I see his point that L O A D S of time has been spent rewritting software, but if things are being done properly this time then its worth it. Lets face it Windoze is beyond the point where it and all its software could be quickly altered to be what they should have been in the first place.
And that's Microsoft Assember! I thought it was great. I never had a problem with it. The sad thing is, it's the only quality Microsoft product I've ever seen.
I assumed he was taking the piss. He was obviously looking for a slashdot type reaction. It wasn't a serious review in any shape or form and it is amusing that everyone gets their knickers in a twist. Also why bother writing enormous reviews of his article and why he was wrong, when there is no way in hell he will ever read them. You're preaching to the converted.
jcoates@ameritech.net
need i print more?