Slashdot Mirror
CNN's anti-FUD on Linux experience
PowrSurge writes "CNN as a nice article on Linux's Desktop experience not being the Windows experience. It's worth reading. " It's Nick Petreley writing, which explains the fact that they actually have a clue as to what theya re talking about. But it's always a good thing to explain in a mainstream audience why networked computing is good, and why X is good.
It makes sense to run stuff on the client itself *if* the client is capable of running the software at a good clip. But I could easily imagine a department salvaging dozens of 486's (practically free!) and putting X clients on them, hooking 'em up to a single beefy server.
Maybe you should read what I said? Because you seem to be repeating it. Let's summarize:
(1) You can have your data and applications on the server.
(2) It makes more sense to run the applications on the client given the amount of computing power that's typically available there.
If you want to have dumb terminals, so be it. In that case Linux on the client is a complete waste of time and resources.
I agree with you there. In that case, I would suggest you get rid of Linux completely and find a thinner client.
This will be the same Jerry Pournelle who has a link entitled "Installing Linux on a home network" on his home page? The one with a whole stack of pages about his experiences installing Linux at home?
I was, not long ago, working on a software deployment project at a large high-tech company (I can't tell you what the name is, but it's known as the Circle-M Ranch...) All the desktops were WinNT machines. In order to install the software, a human installer had to go to every single machine one by one and sit there installing and configuring it. STOOOPID!
Thank Crom for networked file servers, at least...that meant we didn't actually have to carry a CD or floppy around. But every single day, I would say to myself, "WHY did they choose to do it this way?! 2000 individual user machines to install and configure, 2000 individual chances for the user to fsck up the configuration...and no way to check the configuration remotely!" If each desk had had an X-terminal, it would have been trivial. Even if each desk had had its own UNIX workstation, it could at least have been done remotely. But no, the company had to jump on the NT bandwagon...
(And as an afterthought, it would probably help stamp out Windowsisms like sending a company announcement as a FREAKIN' WORD FILE attached to email...two or three times because of the different versions of Word out there!)
First, Solaris is free for private use.
Second, since we got a $150000 server why would we waste time on an operatingsystem that can't even do SMP better than NT.
No, I don't mind paying for Solaris as it fucking rocks when you have 64 CPUs, I dubt linux will be able to do that in the next 10 years.
Linux is a hacker wannabe OS, let it stay that way.
World domination stinks, no matter what OS it is.
We've had threads in userspace for quite a long time. I believe we even have kernel space threads now (But don't quote me on that.) Having the lightweight processes can be kind of nice in some circumstances (But it's pretty rare when I'd do a clone instead of a fork, personally.)
Do a "man" on it. It lets you execute a command on another
machine.
Actually, if you take typical tap hot-water, and put it in an ice-cube tray, and put it outside, it will freeze faster than a tray of cold water. The reason is that all the way out there (and out there as well), the water is evaporating from the hot water tray. So when the primary heat transfer is required (latent heat/heat of freezing), the hot water gets through it faster.
Why am I responding to this Troll?
Anyway...
First of all, this is clearly labeled as an "Opinion" piece.
So? Nick knows what he's talking about. Statements from the Supreme Court are opinions too, but does that make them any less relevant?
Linux is improving faster than any competing OS product.
Analgous to this statement is people's (mistaken) belief that hot water freezes faster than cold water.
I realize this is a grave mistake making any sort of response to this, but that "belief" is actually true. Hot water does freeze faster than cold water. See: here. In any case, what makes you say that Linux is not improving faster than any competing OS product? Can you come up with any facts to back up your opinion?
Overall, a ridiculous analysis.
Overall, you sound like a real pinhead with no idea what you're talking about.
Set up .shosts files on both machines to allow ssh without password and then make the command executed by your "desktop shortcut" be:
ssh -l [username] [remote host] [command]
I've used this setup for quite some time in CDE...
thoesing at avalon dot net
...Troll?
It wasn't a troll. I meant every word. Still do.
On your next web search look for Svante Arrhenius . And read your own references a little more closely ("under some conditions"). I never said anything about mass loss (evaporation).
No matter, you really seem to have missed my point (and I'm the pinhead -- thanks!). The point is that because something has a greater rate of change does not imply that its state is greater. In terms of kinetics, this means that it has farther to go than the slower moving entity.
If you believe (as do I) that the original article was intending to say that Linux is the ultimate client machine, and you agree that some some of the fastest changing parts of "Linux" are the client pieces (e.g., Gnome, KDE, etc.), then you might see the point that I was making.
Nonetheless, I still stand by my assessment that if you take the article to its logical end, you'll go out and buy an X Terminal and connect it up to a Linux server. And I don't think that was what the author intended.
But what do I know? I'm just a pinhead.
(but I do know a little about kinetics)
What the CNN bunny seems to need is VNC. This runs on just about anything and allows you to have a remote X desktop on another Linux box, a Windows box, DOS, Palmpilot, whatever. There's even a Java HTML client.
:v)
It's on
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
Vik
As bacground to the above, all XStart does in Exceed is excecute a script. Look at the options you can set up in one of those XStart scripts: Executing via a terminal window (i.e. telnetting in and running it via command line) via rsh, etc....you even specify the exact command that you pass to the remote system.
It's just a slick way of creating a script, nothing you can't do in a native X system like *nix.
The problem with running all your apps server side is that even the most powerful servers can only handle a modest load. Even low end UNIX systems can handle lots of ttys for old fashioned text based sessions. However, you will need high end servers with lots of RAM, multiple CPUs, and a 100Mbps network to handle running multiple bloated office suites remotely via X.
If you are in a large office, you will need to break up your one big LAN into smaller clusters, each with its own server. Fast SMP servers are expensive and low end PCs are so cheap that it is almost certainly cheaper to use one big LAN with one big file server and low end PC clients than multiple big servers feeding clusters of thin clients.
Dave Kingsland
daking@infinet.com
You can do remote admin of NT now, either through SMS, or remote console tools. Sure, it is a kludge compared to UNIX/X, but it is possible.
The reason why X terminals fared so poorly in the market was their price. Why pay essentially the same price for an X terminal as a standalone workstation. In fact, I first started using Linux when I wanted to buy an X terminal from DEC who wanted ~$3500 for them vs. $2000 for a nice PC.
I don't see how thin clients will ever catch on as long as they are priced in the same ballpark as low-midrange PCs.
Dave K
daking at infinet dot com
I don't get this fascination with X. Its just what we need. X is a world where given a web page with text and images, instead of transmitting the text as text and the images as highly compressed JPEGs you *instead* transmit the whole freakin' thing as one uncompressed bitmap. This explains his warning about upgrading to 100mbps. Every single graphical app will be chewing up bandwidth transmitting everything as huge uncompressed bitmaps. *That's * the way to stay ahead of the bandwidth curve/crunch.
Ugh. No thanks.
AC
He mentions in the beginning how linux is ready for the desktop,....and then goes into lengths descibing things desktop users, will not want, do not need,...and frankly will scare the shit out of them.
I thought it was a pretty good article about linux as a server, but that is not what the beginning of the article expresses the rest will be about. I was rather dissapointed.
SuSE may be what you are looking for. SuSE comes with YaST (awesome) SaX (SuSE Advanced X-config). SaX is graphical.. pretty much like the right click on a windows desktop. I rarely need to edit config files manually.. sax and yast do it all. Also, KDE 1.1 is sooo good looking - there have been many nice changes since KDE 1.0
.. Linux is now my primary OS.
Ive finally made the switch (with the help of SuSE and vmware)
I liked it, Personaly I dont use/abuse X networking capabilitys. But it did show me that its not just a cheap gimic.
What's the minimum specs of a Linux intel client you can buy these days? Celeron? PII?
I think it's ridiculous to run applications like Netscape or SO on the server and waste all the computing power on the client side.
I can still easily have all my data, netscape bookmarks, documents, preferences, etc centralised. The solution is to have your stuff on an NFS server. You can even store the binaries (ie, netscape, so) on the server side but IMHO, it makes more sense to run them on the client itself instead of letting all that computing power go to waste.
First of all, this is clearly labeled as an "Opinion" piece.
Secondly, all he seems to have done is told us that the we all ought to be buying X-terminals.
And we all know how successful they've been in
the marketplace. There's nothing there that
argues that Linux ought to be used as the client -- in fact it argues against it (compared to the cost/simplicity of an X-terminal).
Linux is improving faster than any competing OS product.
Analgous to this statement is people's (mistaken) belief that hot water freezes faster than cold water.
This is one reason why its rate of adoption in the corporate market at the server end is nothing
short of phenomenal.
Precisely. Linux (Unix, actually) makes one hell of a server OS. Sure has a long way to go toward being the top choice on the client side. (Hence the statement that it's "improving faster").
Overall, a ridiculous analysis.
When all the MIS guys read about this and realize that Linux IS the Zero cost way to do centralized thin client computing, Microsoft will be in really deep shit in the corporate world.
/windows/system32, registry, etc. That's just too messy. A powerful Unix server with Linux clients is definitely the wave of the future in corporate environments.
Yes, the X-Windows technology has been around for a long time, but it hard to justify paying $1000 for a SCO or Solaris to replace a $50 Win9x just for running X-Windows. With Linux for free, that's a different story.
Of course there is Hummingbird Xceed for Windows, but that is a very expensive solution as well.
Sure, MS has its own thin client technology, but because all MS OS are designed to be single user, FAT client OS, all the application are hobbled
by things like installing into
ST
One other thing that most people seem to be glazing over is the remote admin ability that X gives you. How many stupid implimenations of remote admin do all of the NT products have. If you need a graphical admin program that runs local to the server you are screwed on NT. You have to have a console on it. To remote admin a Linux box, even graphicaly, you don't need to be at the console. This Was apples biggest screw up. They reinvented the wheel (X11) for OSX and they didn't make it networkable. All of there great GUI config tools have gone to waste if you want to admin remotely.
As for using clients off of a server its a great idea. How many of you actualy use the full processing power of your PIII? Think about it. As I am reading web pages the machien is practicaly idle. And the comment about the minimum linux box being a celeron is a joke. I happily ran a P166 until this winter. I only upgraded because I wanted faster compiles. I still use my P-75 Libretto all the time. If I am near a network I plug in and run netscape off of my desktop because it is much faster. I don't need a powerhouse on the road but its nice to get speed when I get home. I think NFS mounted home directories are better if you have the power on the local machine. This brings up another wonderful UNIXism. The concept of the home directory is so multi user that its not even funny. Because of home directories I can simply mount my home directory and run netscape... viola! all of my settings. Netscape was designed to run with the concept of home directories.
>If you want to have dumb terminals, so be it. In that case Linux on the client is a complete waste of time and resources.
No it isn't. It has a much tinier footprint than most. There are several micro-linux installations
that can give a working X window System off two floppies, let alone a small harddrive - linux is excellent for cheap just-a-little-smarter-than-completely-braindead X termminals.
In theory it could be burned into a few eproms, too.
A standard linux distribution contains a world of tools, much more than anything you get from MS, but if you cut away all that, the core system is really quite small ( smaller than WinCE (wince))
A smaller footprint that isn't hopeless is
QNX, can go off one floppy (with its own GUI), linux two floppies, with X. Not bad all the same, though.
Our university department signed that fscking "all servers will be NT, all clients MS" deal with mickeysoft, "popular" in britain, so I routinely carry around a few floppies to reboot the clients into a decent OS, and login to my personal server to get some work done. I'm trying to fight their teaching undergrads the MS-drool way, since when they're final-year undergrads or postgrads, they'll have to use a UNIX anyway. Unfortunately, money talks much louder than me.
And MS's plan is obviously to control the youth of today, the professionals of tomorrow. Tossers.
Yeah, the trick is to use something like ssh. For instance, I have a windowmaker menu item which runs mathematica on a school solaris server. The menu shortcut runs xterm -e somescript where somescript does an ssh foohost 'mathematica > /dev/null 2>&1' And then convince your windowmanager to automatically minimize the xterm. For all this to happen automatically, set up RSA authentication for ssh.
...when folks are running on high-end hardware (such as your $150,000 server). In the far more common case of using a two-way SMP system for jobs that really don't require that much CPU power (web, FTP and SMB serving, for instance), however, linux does quite well.
Maybe this unsuitability very high hardware end does make Linux a "hacker wannabe OS". If so, however, it's a damn good one and I'm glad to use it.
It probably wouldn't be that tough to make a linuxconf module that would read hardware info out of the /proc structure, adjust isapnp.conf and the like.
Through your X server's configuration in there, too, and you've pretty much got it.
Since linuxconf isn't strictly graphical (but also allows modification via a web browser, a text interface and the like), this kind of solution would make the remote-administration folks happy and you as well.
Do you program? If so, I urge 'ya to give this a shot!
The author's solution, of always running the clients on one machine and using X windows to put the display on where-ever he's logged in, seems sub-optimal to me. I'd much rather run the clients locally, and use NFS mounted /home and /var/spool/mail so that my documents and mail are on any machine I'm on. Since you spend a lot more time editing without saving, I think my solution is considerably faster, too.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The idea is "install once, run anywhere". He also wants to run the same apps, regardless of the client platform.
Admittedly, there are other solutions such as export the apps via NFS and/or Samba and still run them on clients, but there is still another benefit to his centralized model. Only one box needs to be big, fast, expensive. He doesn't a mutli-gigabyte drive on every client along with 64MB of RAM and a fast proc.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Damm that guy is a suck up. I started to read his page because I am such a big fan of Larry Niven, but this guy is dense.(Sorry Larry) Every day there is a new problem with windows 95 or NT or 98 or 98.5 or something. (Windows NT crashes because I was running it too long.)
Complain complain complain that is all he does. I also like to know if he's got licenses for all those Windows installs he does.
23 Megabytes of his non-fiction careers is complaining about how Windows isn't working for him, but Linux is hard to configure! It's laughable! Hah! Linux is hard!
He started talking last year about trying out linux but when he tried he got scared and ran away. He never tried again.
But now he has someone writing about Linux.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Because Windows is increasingly more closed, there's just no way Microsoft can make it all things to all people. Not just that, but if your "thing" doesn't blip on their radar map (say, you're affected by MIDI bugs introduced in Win95) your up The Creek as they say.
What you want to do is trade in some control of the system for automation, and that's perfectly legitimate. Don't let this keep you away from following Linux, and don't let anyone tell you you're wrong and Linux is just not for you.
The fact that Linux does not do this well NOW does not mean it will never do it... there just needs to be a critical mass of people who absolutely require an easier interface. I know UNIX fairly well (not a guru), but administering Linux is so much different than running an X display to a Solaris box down the hall, and I get stuck trying to filter information from a myriad of README files, info pages, abandoned man pages and so on. Linux documentation is generally not very professional (which is fair, since most of it is volunteer based).
I like Gnome and AfterStep more, but perhaps KDE is what you need?
If World Domination(tm) is a goal then more user friendly pieces will develop and make it into the Linux distributions.
Talk about bad "user interfaces". The god forsaken thing is "un-navigable", I've never seen such a confusing bunch of drivel in my life. I can't believe anyone would want to look at it.
"Chaos Manor" is right. What a load.
support gun control: take guns from cops
If I'm running my window manager and desktop locally, but an app, say, netscape, remotely, is there an easy way (in Xfree) to have a menu item or desktop short cut that points to this app? Or am I stuck with telneting in and launching it from the command line?
...
Exceeed can do this
support gun control: take guns from cops
Finally some concrete reasoning to combat the "But it doesn't work like Windows" FUD. I am forwarding this one to Jerry Pournelle who seems to hold himself as Authority Supreme in judging the IT world.
If we could get Jerry to retire (or at least stop visiting Redmond so often) we would get more people converted sooner.
See what I am talking about at
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
When all the MIS guys read about this and realize that Linux IS the Zero cost way to do centralized thin client computing, Microsoft will be in really deep shit in the corporate world.
... and missing.
How many personal users have their own MIS team? Did you notice the focus of this guys post is corporate users?
A powerful Unix server with Linux clients is definitely the wave of the future in corporate environments.
Read that above statement and then think about your comment about running linux on the server. Why the hell are you arguing about something you both agree on?
Read before you flame.
---------------------------------------
The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
isn't this a reprint of petreley's linuxworld article on caldera 2.2?
If you can stand the limited hardware support, try the BeOS. It has a very nice device manager. Also, if you like imaginative software created by tiny companies, BeOS is heaven. Try it before it all gets overrun by the big guys.
D
----
It's worth remembering that CNN has a deal with IDG that allows CNN to beef up their tech coverage. The good news is that IDG seems to have good coverage of Linux.
I'm not so sure it's the case that you have a Linux advocate within CNN as much as it is that Linux is interesting right now, and like any media outlet, CNN tries to make itself interesting to its readers.
So, yes - I agree that it's good that CNN brings this coverage out to a mainstream audience, but the real credit for these articles should go back to IDG, Linux World, and the writers.
Not strictly speaking true: Running two instances of a 16MB program does not necessarily require 32MB - take the hardware requirements of WordPerfect Server for Linux (see http://linux.corel.com/linux8/sysreq.htm):
- 9 MB memory for first instance of Corel WordPerfect
- 2.5 MB memory for each additional instance of Corel WordPerfect (running concurrently)
And I'd be surprised if Corel were the only software company to write programs that take advantage of that perk (I think the Linux kernel does code sharing, but I'm not 100% sure)Of course you could farm out different tasks to different machines, letting one run your favourite WP, another one the favourite Browser. These "servers" could even be sitting on your desktop. Of course you'd have to nail these machines down hard and take away the reset button, but IMHO that's a "good thing"(tm). Now try doing that with Windows...
btw: Linus has stayed out of the KDE/GNOME battle. If he'd demonstrated a few machines running KDE or GNOME, then no doubt proponents of the other desktop environment would have flamed him (and everyone else) bitterly - Despite that I think Linus could probably have done Linux more justice, but hey - he's a coder, not a PR guy.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a nag - but threads are a good thing and often make more sense than forking a process. The difference is that on Unix/Linux threads behave just like another process except that they share the heap with the parent thread (ie the child thread may have been called using clone() with flags that tell the cloned process to use the same memory space but different stack - much faster than IPC). This means that UNIX/Linux may have many hundreds of threads in a single process (many DCE services do this to lessen the connection and init time as multiple requests arive). However, windows threads usually never exceed 32 for performace and sync problems.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Actually, how water does tend to freeze faster than cold water, at least in some places. Hot water allows certain gasses to escape more quickly than cold water (I think that chlorine is one of the main ones) and thus can freeze at a higher temperature. At least that's what my earth science teacher tought me back in the eigth grade. I don't know if it's true or not, but something about certain saturation diagrams I saw in chemistry seem to point to that conclusion.
Just a side note.
Oh, btw, Xterminals were and are a good idea, but they're virtually unavailable nowadays. Besides, can you get any that have great acceleration for 1024x768 at 24 or 32 bpp and have 10/100 support for full duplex ethernet?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Well i'm talking about the geek home user.. I want to use linux.. But I hate going back inforth typing in things to change my config.. I want the right click to change things, and I want a device manager.. I guess I got to spoiled.. I do have a linux machine at home.. But don't use it, not becuase of the above, it's becuase I blew out the monitor.. Opps. But If I had a good monitor, it would be used alot.. I love gimp, I want to tinker w/ some of the cool things.. LCD, X10, ect..
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I've used many diffrent OS's, 9x,NT, OS/2, many forms of unix. I would have to say the 9x interface is the nicest I have used.. I can change hardware from there, check problems, change monitor setting with ease...I'm not saying that it's the best os, i'm just saying it has the best interface...
I hope I'm on the topic.. I haven't a clue wtf i'm doing this morning..*falls on keyboard and sleeps*
"The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
This is the second or third time I'm aware of that CNN reprinted a pro-linux article from a Linux orented publication. (In this case Linux World.)
Although you would expect anything Linux World wrote about Linux to be pro-linux (DUH!), the fact that CNN is reprinting these pro-Linux articles indicates that we have a Linux advocate within their ranks.
Having a main stream news outlet that has at least one Linux advocate reporter, who obviously isn't fooled by MS FUD, is a wonderful thing for the Linux community.
The majority of main stream media reports about Linux run from the "It's user interface wasn't identical to Windows so the verdict is: 'it's too hard to use'", all the way to regurgitated MicroSoft FUD.
This is nice to see.
Thanks CNN!
CNN does what Linus, Alan, and Eric have failed to do.
Linus had a perfect opportunity to tell about all of the wonderful ways Linux is different, ie better, than windows. The unbelievable benifits that are a result of true multitasking.
I haven't heard this often enough, I hope we will sell the world that Linux is different than microsoft windows, better People want different, they have stuck with the junk from Redmond too long. We need to advocate the ways we are better. We don't need to tell people "Windows Sucks" because everyone already knows that.
We should tell them that we don't need threads, we have true multitasking. We don't need a stupid "Task Manager," we have ps. Almost all of the functionality of NT is more complicated than UNIX. We have a superior product let's let it win on its own merits
Precisely. One powerful reason for choosing Linux (or *BSD or Solaris or VMS or...) is that it is *not* MS Windows and doesn't work the same way. I chose these alternatives because they work *my* way. I do not work Bill's way, and I never will.
After all, if I like MS Windows, why would I want another one? And if I DISlike MS Windows, why would I want another one?
This is a reprint of an earlier Linux world article, but appearing on CNN does mean that more people gets to read it.
His points on running X may be debatable, but the point is that Linx (and other unixs) give you that option when needed.
Well done.
I'm using a single boot floppy for each machine, and they then mount root from an NFS server. Performance is great, you certainly would not know you were working on a 486. And, in addition to the cost savings and more than acceptable performance, administration is a breeze.
The kit I started with is developed by the author of linuxconf. You may find it here: xterm.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
I love X.
We're an NT shop at work, but being in the WAN field, I'm interfacing with *nix boxes every day to do my job.
I have to use OpenView and Newbridge's 46020 every day.
I have a laptop the NT on it (no heckling, please) with eXceed as my X Server.
Now, just because these NMS's (OpenView, 46020) run on *nix doesn't mean you get a genuis included to install the package or design the LAN/WAN that supports them.
It so happens, there's no windowing system to use on the OpenView system and the 46020 system only has OpenWindows.
To anyone who's used CDE (Common Desktop Envirnment)/HP-Vue/et al., you know that it provides a kind of functionality you can't do without.. Things the NT, OpenWin, etc environments just can't/don't do.
So, given the beauty of X, I can solve the problems created by our "wizards" mainting the NMS's.
I have an old Sparc 10 on my LAN that has CDE on it. I configure eXceed to connect to this Sparc 10 at startup time, I log into my account there, and run OpenView and 46020 in separate workspaced within CDE. With eXceed running in full-screen mode, it's "just like being there".
Utterly beautiful.