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.
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!!!
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 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"
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.