Slashdot Mirror
The Metcalfe-Peterely Fun Continues
A reader sent us the latest installment in the Metcalfe and Peterely debate that started roughly one week ago with doubts about Linux from Metcalfe, and a response from Peterly. In this round, Metcalfe repents a bit, and also brings up the current hot topic: How the Linux community reacts to questions. Short, but interesting reading, and again raises the point: Read the Linux Advocacy How-To if you have any questions.
This may sound like flame-bait, but in my experience geeks as a group tend to be a lot more immature than other societal groups seen in everyday life here in the late 20th century. Not to imply that every geek is immature, only that the bell curve tends to skew that way.
So, the flames will not stop until the geeks find a bigger burr [somewhere] and direct their energy elswhere or learn that in maintaining their narrow view of the world, they have been left behind. Their archane knowledge meaningless now in the new society. New geeks will have assumed their role as flame-throwers.
These new geeks will have not learned anything and they too will not understanding people different from themselves. They will assume that by hurling insults, people will suddenly understand.
To paraphrase an old disney short...
They're stupid, but they will now know that they are stupid, and that will almost makes them smart. Almost.
Cheers!
Could the problem be also that some companies that develop software for windows don't *want* to believe that there is really a large Linux user base (market) out there? Is it possible that some of this denial might be because they don't want to have to port their software, increase their costs and cut into profits?
Why even post this as a rhetorical question? Of course, companies won't cut into their profits to support Linux, unless it's with a long term strategy of making good money in the future with it. Very few commercial ventures can afford to operate as a charity in today's competetive market.
Nobody in the software industry should view Linux as a "charity case" and feel compelled to "Do the right thing" (what ever the h*ll that would mean). If companies start acting like that about Linux, the OS is in serious trouble. The companies who have extended their line to include Linux versions (i.e. ID) do it because it's in their interest, either financially or otherwise.
That's just the way of the world.
maybe what hes trying to say is that he compiled kernels, did some kernel programming A LOOONGG time ago...the days when "people who compile kernels" are actually.....REALLYY...KERNEL PROGRAMMERS and not just some wanabee, trying hard-Linux-user,trying-to-be-elite, if-i-use-linux-i-will-be-elite MORONS just like MOST (not all) of linux users...Most ppl posting their opinions here in slashdot are real lamers...They think dissing Windows and using Linux makes them a member of the linux community....a community which is composed mostly (again..not all) of Newbies and wanabbeees...I PITY all of you...
THE Linux advocacy-strategy:
1) Make Linux easier to use (KDE,GNOME, etc), so that idiots can use Linux.
2) Open-Source is the PANACEA!! horray to Programmers who supports open-source software, they can fix bugs and add enhancements in just a matter of hours.
3) Support for every piece of device you can attach to your PC!
4) Bill Gates Sucks!!! Windows must vanish!! Microsoft MUST DIE!!!
-------
With this 4 broad strategies, 90 percent of all "Linux advocates POSTING IN SLASHDOT" are doing Strategy 4....The rest are practically users..doing some sort of CGI programming, Sys Administration, Network configurations,...
What exactly have you done for Linux? the Open-Source Initiative? Or the Entire Computer Industry over all? Aside from "using" linux?
What? Before opening your wide-mouth shouting to everyone how "Linux didn't crash for 10 straight days" and how Windows sucks by being toooo easy..an OS for the lamers..crashes-alot-OS..ask yourself if your qualified to speak..
Programmers and Engineers surely doesnt need to react to this.
So if Metcalfe had to be placed in one of his "thirds" which do you think he'd fall into? Those who pointed out the shortcoming, those who pointed out the advantages, or those who flamed?
;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.
I'd put my money on "FLAME." Metcalfe is posting immature columns, and getting upset when others respond in the same manner. If his columns had ANY substance (other than the one he smokes
My point? Ignore the man. Unless he comes out with a column that points out anything specific, then don't bother with him. "Mine's better than yours" he cries, well let him cry. Just don't cry back. If he points out any flaw or weakness, then we can address that.. until then, ignore the fool. There's no point in arguing over nothing.
I challange Metcalfe: Post a column that says something. Why should we choose an OS? Technical merit, application availibility, ease of use... Pick an issue. Discuss. When you post a real column, you will get real responses.
X fonts less ugly than Win fonts? I'll give you some shiny beads if you perform the magic on my machine that you must've done on yours...
Mind the Gap
Counting the two groups, it'd be Linux, 10 million, W2k 0. Or if you count the people who've bought a W2k beta, pirated it, etc that would be what, several thousand? I'm not really sure what Metcalfe meant by that. He probably meant count NT users or something. That because there are more, it must be better.
Basically Metcalfe says Linux will collapse because of the flamers that come out. See ESR's trip to MS last month. There are overly enthusiastic MS people as well, therefore Windows will disappear in the next 16 hours.
Actually, Windows could disappear if MS suddenly folded under. On the other hand, with the source to Linux and everything out there, someone's bound to pick it up again if every developer called it quits this afternoon.
Great... Now Bob compares Linux users' reaction to "inferior" nations responding to some tacky ethnic insult, and feels that he still somehow has any other option than to shut up? I completely agree with him that his insults were at exactly the same level as insults, some uncivilized people direct toward nations that they consider "worse" than their own one. And that he displays approximately the same level of immaturity, arrogance and stupidity as in any case when individuals that belong to some self-proclaimed "superior" race throw derogatory comments about the ethnicity of their opponents.
Being Russian/Jewish I think, I am qualified to make this comparison, and I don't see any way to respond to such manners other than by reminding him that they are rejected and hated by civilized people. In other words, fuck you, Bob.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Didn't the word anti-American die out in the late 50's. Part of being American is being anti-American. There can be no evolution without revolution.
Well, some people in other countries are very anti-American, and this can be explained rather easily. Large amound of international umm... wrongdoing, prominent crooks and assholes come from US and "third world" countries. However while in "third world" they have some excuse (poor political system, poverty, underdeveloped education), US is supposed to be democratic, rich and refined. Yet for some reason for an outsider's eye Americans' activity abroad is as much civilized as one of dictator next door (or palace). What naturally makes people angry.
Since I live in US, I can observe that _within_ the country it's not as bad as in some others (if it was I wouldn't be here in the first place). Still Americans' claim of being so much developed that the only thing they have to do is to maintain status quo inside and subjugate everything outside, is extremely overstated. And of many things that people abroad don't like in US, is exactly the existence of certain software racket that affects their lives almost as much as it affects ours here.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Actually, I think they're using WINE.
And remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. ;)
This has been a problem with the MacOS and speech software. Companies are afraid to develop speech software for the Mac, because they are afraid Apple will make Speech software part of the Mac OS for free.
Gee, we can't think of ANY examples of this behaviour in the Microsoft world, can we?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
First, while good, your post rambles just as badly as Metcalfe's article. You start off with some good arguments and then veer off into "This is my world".
Second, for your (future) digital camera check out gphoto (search for it on freshmeat.net).
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
I haven't actually performed my own hacks on the kernel, but I have tweaked XFMail and a few other open source programs. Source code: that's one handy feature.
--
The number of Linux users is largely irrelevant at this point. There is a sufficient userbase for many companies to port their software to Linux, so whether there are in fact 5 million, 10 million or 25 million Linux users is unimportant.
What matters is whether Linux will do what you need it to do. In many cases, it will; in some, it won't. That's how you decide whether to use it; not on the basis of "who's winning."
--
"Also during 1998 [...] Windows 98 was 17.2 percent, up 39 percent over 1997."
Perhaps this is a trivial complaint, but Windows 98 came out in 1998. So how could its shipments possibly go up 39 percent from 1997 to 1998?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but "I told
6 233&cid=27
you so!"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/06/21/12
>Re:The bad reputation of Linux users grows larger_
??? You mean because we aren't going to let losers like yourself and Metcalfe get away with their shoddy articles we have a bad rep? Good. Maybe mags will think twice about publishing this kind of crap then.
I don't think that is a bad score, it is always the ones who feel strongly on a subject who replies.
Given that linux has been available commercially since 1993, and a lot of people still download linux from the net or copy it from friends, I think 10 million+ users sounds like a typical Linus understatement.
Also why does Bob Metcalfe think that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested that he's on some board? That sounds far more like self-promotion to me.
Aha! We take our freedom for granted. If the US was "as bad as" certain other nations, you would not have the option nor the capacity to leave. Even if you could leave your country, the country you wanted to go to might border-patrol your butt right back where you started.
"All nations is shite, and America is the best of the best."
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Specifically, I meant that the ORIGINAL (Metcalfe) article was posted minutes before I submitted it to Slashdot many days ago.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
That's embarassing. You spell Nick's last name in two different ways and both of them are wrong.
... or they can download it! For free! They're
aware you have to learn, that's why they haven't
given it a chance. Because you have to read
documentation.
I see. That's not YOUR opinion, that's
principal. Or common sense? And you don't fit
in that category, because you're one of the elite.
Correct?
Rambling is too weak a term to describe what he's doing. His (Metcalfe) article doesn't cut the grade as even a readable Usenet flame. What's the prior history on this guy, does he always not make sens? And Mr. Petreley, is he an idiot, to respond to garbage like that?
Here is a picture of a NT ATM. Not a place where I would place my money and conduct transactions.
Interesting--the quote you used says nothing about "by hand."
In any case, I think he's just once again trying to note how little use it will be for users to recompile their OS. And it is a tricky thing if you aren't used to it, y'know. Perhaps not brain surgery, but in any case I think we get his point.
Just as an aside, you may not need windows for your hypothetical digicam.
:)
I decided to try gphoto (see freshmeat for more info) last week and while it is early in development (0.38 i believe), i thought it worked rather well. While it would crash instantly if I attempted to view any of the pics from my camera onscreen, it happily downloaded them to my hard drive where i could XV and gimp them to my hearts content.
I am not affiliated with the gphoto project, just a happy user. Keep up the good work guys! And by the way, i was using a Fuji DX-7 with the DX-5 drivers
--
Posted with Mozilla
Just as pornography drove image file formats, I guess one must accept that something as (seemingly) pointless as gaming will drive computing technology. Heck, it has since long before Castle Wolfenstein.
Maybe if I played games, I'd be a bit more excited. All these advances in 3D technology don't seem to mean all too much for me, though.
Do compilers get anything from directx support? My uninformed leaning is toward "no."
Advocacy is getting to be a tired subject. Get used the level of ineptitude that comes along with free speech. Some people have utterly repellent methods of communication. These people will get what's coming to them, more likely than not at a job interview or on a date. Evil is its own punishment
A couple things i might point out about NT:
David Cutler is the guy who created VMS and went to work on NT; however, they based NT on the Mach kernel, not on VMS, and everything else was written from scratch.
How can anyone claim to be surprised by any of this? Bob Metcalfe wrote a column which was a puerile, ad-hominem flame of the the Linux community (known for its emotional flamers). He received a bunch of puerile, ad-hominem flames back.
Of course.
Go back and look at the original column. He starts with a terrible analogy in which compares the open source movement to various Communists. Then, halfway through the column, he admits it's a bad analogy and proposes one that's even more inappropriate. That back-to-the-earth metaphor lasts about a paragraph before he changes strategies again: He starts calling Open Source "Open Sores."
Now, most of us stopped making jokes about people's names sometime back in grade school. Those that didn't write puerile, ad-hominem flames. Or bad columns.
Is Bob Metcalfe surprised he got flamed? No. He set out to be flamed so he could talk about how irresponsible the Linux community flamers were.
I'm only surprised anyone was foolish enough to rise to his bait.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I really agree! I was gonna e-mail this guy, but
he probably doesn't care. I started usin' LinuX
to learn, and it can make you learn (Slackware).
Now, I think that it is good to learn, but there
is the percentage of people not interested. And
they (Windows users) aren't AWARE they'll have to
learn. They can have my LinuX when, they can pry
it from my cold, dead hands.
Ok then, how about
o kernel
o gcc
o make
o flex
o bison
o glibc
o util-linux
That's a good bit right there... And I bet that thousands if not millions have built all of those at one time or another, even on the same box...
Hell, hundreds of kiddies have built the rootkit.. What qualifies?
You put Quake support into the kernel? What kind of framerate improvement does that offer?
;)
After the origional article came out, I wrote a pretty hot, but non-flammable e-mail to Mr. Metcalf and the online editor at Infoworld, in which I predicted that he would use the flames he received as fodder for his next article. I even have the sendmail logs to prove it.
HA!
I'll post the e-mail later, when I get home from work (overtime sucks...).
There are three types of lies..
1) Lies
2) Damned Lies
3) Statistics
- M. Twain
It seems that it is actually Mark Twain (mis)quoting Benjamin Disraeli. The origional is slightly different. Wierd....
s ubindex and search for "Twain" in your browser's search function.
Look at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/1_2.html#
jf
What, does he mean by hand ? I have compiled Linux a couple dozen times over the last 3 years - but I used 'make'.
-- Jeff Paulsen
Agreed. It's actually really annoying the way people have to ennunciate their annoyance /every/ time some journo makes it up.
It seems to me a bit like those hoax virus messages where the actual virus is the propogation of the message willy nilly.
Is BOB trying to tell us that Statistics is proof enough for a desecion ?!??!?
.........
Well he should know (being one of the few people to have compiled a OS) more oftern than not the way statistical figures r read is the way answers will be.
The most important point which he he may not have understood or he greatfully ignores is actually society decides the life of a product and not the marketing force of a company.
This community has come together to do something good which they could all use. Now after finding it is good they are sharing the idealogy and the results of that with all others. Practically free of cost.
Over the years in Social Revolutions we have seen that the most successful once have been the once where comman man felt comfortable in a belief and started following and slowly everyone seemed to follow them. More often that not the person did it because he felt good and also someone else started feeling good and so on and on.
Here i think the primary problem is that many people for some vague reason have a inhibition against UNIX like system. This more of a pschycologial fear which has been there for as long as UNIX.
Yes in many ways LINUX does resemble UNIX and with more improvements which the UNIX market has also acknowledged. Why should LINUX not be like UNIX. I am yet to see a programming language which has replace C. I do not see that happenning. So effectively LINUX is an improvement of an idealogy which was born some 20 odd years ago. For sometime during in its teens it was wild then go into its business perspective and later matured to be dependable.
It is still growing......
Now Windows
I am yet come across a situation where people have pointed out that a particular feature was first implemented by WINDOWS which has been later on copied by UNIX world.
The point everyone is against is very simple. How many of us have not seen a WINDOZEEEEEEEEEEE or WINDOW crash ?
This factor has been going on and MS has been getting away with it so often that it does not seem to be of any use in testing one of their products. Either we whave not finished installing all the patches and upgrades and started our actual work or the product is killed by miscrosoft for something else.
Effectively the scoiety is being treated as a gueniea pig for MS whims and fancies. The best part is we pay them for that.
I think most of the problem MS is going to have in the coming years is the Quality of the product and NOT the product by itself. Because none of the products they have are their own creation, they are features added to idealogies which people had created long time ago.
Society has show once they do not believe in the quality of a commodity they do not have any qualms in turning their back on it.
This is something where LINUX might have a lead. Because it is the society which willingly doing the QC and the same society which make them work. So this might be just the edge that LINUX community has to prove that a society is more important than the product.
Well, this is sad but this guy sound like one of those '50 american guys looking for communists under carpets and ashtrays...
A technology has no political content, is just a way to do things. Metcalfe tries to bind microsoft success to the notion of "pro-american" and linux for contraposition to "anti-american"...well, I'm American, South American in fact, and I gladly perceive Linux as a "World" thing, not just one country thing, and there's were the magic lies at the end.
Then again, anti-social...well, I made MANY social contact with other linux users in the last years, and happily avoided contact with corporate "User Support" employes who are always 2nd years students that don't have a clue about what they are supporting anyway.
Anti-capitalism? Well, people who is actually porting apps to Linux must be happy for having another reason to get new contract time, more work os more services to sell.
Many companies are implementing Servers under Linux and I readed a Price Waterhouse Coopers manual for Linux, and if this guys are getting their employees used to linux, they must have a good reason...(And if PWC is not a good example of capitalism, I'm really lost)
I do not think that linux is anti microsoft, is just plain better if you got a clue, but if you are old and slow to learn, well, that up to you Bobo...I'm in command of my destiny and I choose the OS that will take me there...Is it clear? Right to Choose, that's not american, not capitalistic, not communist, not socialist, not social is UNIVERSAL)
Who cares how many users? Thanks god there's DIFFERENT CHOICES and people uses them, imagine a world where everybody dress the same, eat the same, drives the same and installs the same, PLAIN BOARING!
What' s the point with those numbers if at the end Bob accepts that nobody knows real numbers anyway?
What's the point of this article??!!
My Advise to Bob is to perform brain surgery on himself, it's clear he has nothing to loose anyway...
I think those who are saying Metcalfe is out of touch may have a point. Check out the bottom of the article- "Bob Metcalfe is one of very few people who've ever successfully recompiled an operating system." I can only wonder whether he has no clue about Linux, or he really counts the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Linux hackers who have done a kernel recompile over the years as "very few."
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
OK, I get it. Mea Culpa.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Yep that's it. It's extraordinary to see the creator of Ethernet going so low and making of himself a shameful picture.
Metcalfe's article is hatred. For what reason he is doing this I can only make guesses. But the worst is the blind way he makes his flamework. It sounds typical of Cold-War times when journalists and politicians droped cheap highly flamatory articles over each other. One may remind that sometimes this propaganda war went quite surrealistic. Disregarding any realities and good-sense, people went just flaming away its enemy.
That is what Metcalfe is doing. He even calls Linux Anti-American. We all know that Linux has a political flavour in it but anti-american?????? Hu-oh well Mr. Metcalfe can you tell me who boosted Linux distribution system more than anyone else? Yes, Linux is international. And this means the americans are in. And means they make a lot in it. Even Linus has gone to America. Strange thing for the founder of the "anti-american" OS...
Maybe for Mr. Metcalfe this "international" characteristic is seen as the greatest threat to America's establishment. Some sort of masonic conspiration to undermine America. If so then it is better to hunt down Intel too. And the founding fathers of the computer industry. And don't forget all those Russians over there. Oh! and the all those Jews, Indians, Chinese and Japanese of course. Save America Mr. Metcalfe, but don't forget to rip off the whole computer industry...
But there is one thing that amazes me more than anything else. The huge blindness of his hatred:
"let's count Linux versus W2K users"
I didn't know that NT and 9x could be considered as W2K... It is amazing how Mr. Metcalfe manipulates statistics. A "magic wand" and suddenly all Windows users become W2K statistics...
I perfectly understand Mr. Metcalfe's acrobacies. One of the reasons why people is turning to Linux is.. after seeing W2K in action. I hold my words on it because I saw this happening. And this seems to worry too much Mr. Metcalfe. So much that he doesn't worry to flame away in fury. and when he catches fire to drop hatred in all ways.
It is hatred and blind hatred. His article is nothing more than a "Hunt for Red October" in the cheapest tone.
My Grandfather once told me - "Never argue with a fool. Someone else might not know the difference."
So, that's fine Bob. I think you should just use Microsoft products. After all, isn't that what they're paying you for?
It was Benjamin Disreali who said that.
Wasn't it Disraeli who said that one?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I'm curious: out of all of the OSS operating system users out there, how many actually do fix bugs or add features to their kernel? I'm not talking about applying someone else's patch, either! This is constantly used as an argument for using Linux, but I think it's misleading.
Before all the flamers come after me, think about it for just a bit. I realize that it's nice to have this capability and I'm not trying to slam any advocates. It just seems a bit silly since very few of us ever try to do this in the first place. It's like saying DOOM was better than Wolfenstein just because id published information on how to make add-ons. A nice feature, yeah, but that's not the reason most people played the game.
It seems to me that perhaps we should be concentrating on the reasons Linux runs better than Windows that typical users would understand.
Or the "Linux cheerleaders" will point out that just like NT is a from scratch OS influenced by an older design, but with many newer features, Linux is a from scratch OS influenced by UNIX, with new features and tweaks. The NT version of libc/X11/pthreads/sockets called win32 is just a wrapper around system calls. I can only assume your attempt at humor is to hide the fact that your argument is ridiculous.
Metcalfe is saying nothing coherent at this point. His one weak attempt at lucidity -- his claim of the third reason why Linux is doomed, that being its flameful advocacy -- was implicitly contradicted just a couple of paragraphs above, when Metcalfe, in answering the 'first third' who claimed that more coding and less talking will allow Linux to push ahead, answered that he does not believe that will happen.
Which one? Is too much talking and not enough coding the reason why Linux is behind, or is it irrelevant to Microsoft's market penetration lead?
All in all, this article looked to me like Metcalfe's attempt, after having realized that he put both of his feet and his left hand into his mouth, to salvage what little is left of his face -- by kinda agreeing with his previous column, but without being either too aggressive or too comittal in stating his point (or so detailed and coherent as to have accidentally put the abovementioned appendages into his mouth once again).
Yet another under-informed over-opinionated person trying to back out of the corner they painted themselves into. Film at 11...
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
ROTFL!!!
:> Missed that one :> heh
Ooops..
Interesting though.. this is the first time I've actually
read a response to one of my posts..
(articalis interruptus)
Thanx
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
That was an article?
Really?
You're quite sure now.?
Hmmm... He should have cut out all the rambling,
and put the 3 sentances of _actual_ content as a
caption under a picture or something.
I'll wait for better stuff before I waste another
10 seconds reading that tripe.
As for all the flamers? Sheesh... grow up.. wouldja?!
Here are some tips for flaming...
1) Think carefully about your response
2) Refer back to the origional post you are flaming
frequently to make sure you aren't going off
topic.
3) Write your response.
4) USE YOUR SPELL-CHECKER!
5) WATCH YOUR GRAMMER!
6) Re-write, repeating steps 1-5 until it has you
chortling in self satisfaction for hours.
7) (and this is the most important one) DELETE IT!
8) Pat yourself on the back for being human and
resisting immaturity.
Save your flames for warming your loved ones on a
cold winter's eve.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
I don't know about you, but I didn't get a whole lot of fear, uncertainty, or doubt from reading this article. But then again, I didn't get any content of any other kind, either... *shrug* (Is my browser broken, or does the article really *end* with statistics? Hello? And these statistics mean...???)
You're only supposed to say that when people disagreed with you originally, and I, for one, have a hard time seeing that happening... :)
Consider Corel WordPerfect for Linux. Surely it didn't cost anywhere near as much to port to Linux as it did to originally develop for Windows? I don't think anyone here is suggesting developing commercial desktop applications for Linux *instead of* Windows, but rather for Linux *in addition to* Windows.
That page actually is a joke... :)
What was that quote? Something like there are more cockroaches on the planet than people, so does quantity really mean that much?
Bob Metcalfe (metcalfe@idg.net) is one of very few people who've ever successfully recompiled an operating system. But not recently, not Linux, not Windows, nor his trusty Macintosh. Neither has he performed brain surgery on himself.
Exactly what point is he trying to convey here? Is he trying to say that it's nearly impossible to compile a kernel? Or is he trying to imply that the majority of computer users will not have to compile a kernel, and that should be left up to the programmers?
If you're using Linux in a server environment, and you're the sysadmin, chances are you will have the need to compile yourself a kernel. He is arguing that Linux will never make it in the server market right?
I hope he's not trying to imply that compiling a kernel is hard. If so, he's obviouly either stupid (which I highly doubt since he created ethernet), or he has never tried it. The configuration and compiling of the kernel has been extremely simple ever since you could do a 'make menuconfig' or a 'make xconfig'. And even if you don't know what certain options do, just click on the help button and it will basically tell you if you need it or not.
I guess I just don't get what his point is. I recompile, and know many others who recompile their kernels to apply patches, get rid of features they don't need, add features, and to speed up their OS on a regular basis. I can honestly say that is probably the best features about Linux/*BSD. After you untar the source tree and read the first 20 lines of the README file, you should know how to recompile it. I have *NEVER* had a kernel compile fail on me, EVER.
Maybe he just can't get over the fact that you can get something good for free.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Actually, I can perfectly well envision a Windows based OS in ATM.
The NatWest bank in the UK has NT running in all over its ATMs. They don't seem to crash any more than other ATMs ( often OS/2 based I believe ) and they look prettier/better as well.
-- I'm drinking myself to sleep again...
Why do I think Linux won't kill Windows? Two reasons. The Open Source Movement's ideology is utopian balderdash. And Linux is 30-year-old technology. And he's contrasting this to Windows 2000? Ummmm....waitaminit...W2K is just NT5.
Windows NT was originally written by a bunch of guys from DEC who wrote VMS. Hence, NT can be said to have derived much from VMS, which is well over 20 years old. What does that mean for NT?
Clearly, that age doesn't mean a damn thing. Newer does not necessarily mean better. I'd rather have an OS that has evolved from decades of trial and error than something just out of Redmond, and I'm sure many others would as well.
I've been running Linux intermittently for several years (and exclusively for the last 6 months). I've also run windows 95/98, and NT4, and a beta of W2K when it was still NT5. NT5 is a pretty cool OS -- the relative (to win98) reliability and security of NT, and directx for games--yay.
This seems to be where everything is headed currently -- what used to be solely server/workstation operating systems are now becoming gaming platforms. NT is adopting directx6; Unix is getting XFree86 4.0 with all sorts of cool additions. This is A Good Thing (tm), which you should acknowledge even if you hate NT.
Curiously, the same reason that I used Windows is the reason I switched from Windows to Linux. Linux support for hardware used to suck. My TV card didn't work, there was no 3d acceleration (for my TNT), the games sucked. So, I used Windows and put up with the occasional reboot. Eventually, I got fed up with Windows. I hated having to run Exceed to be able to access some of the programs I needed for classes (Matlab, Maple, LaTeX, etc.). So I installed Linux and dealt with the lack of good hardware and game support.
I can get my TV card working with a 2.2 series kernel (which I still haven't gotten to work without breaking AFS, which kind of defeats the whole purpose), and now with NVidia releasing open source drivers, I don't have to worry about 3D acceleration. I really don't have a single qualm about not running Windows...the only games I play are Q/Q2/Q3 anyhow.
Simply put, I have no need for Windows. I haven't booted up Windows in months (I'm pretty sure mucking around with VMWare killed it anyhow), and if I do need it for anything (say, if I buy a digital camera and need to get the pictures off it), I can use VMWare (damn that's an impressive program).
Windows is not going to disappear any time soon. Neither will Linux. Both OSes have built up way too much steam to just roll over and die. Deal with it. Use whichever suits you best. Believe it or not, Linux is not the best OS for some (gasp! blasphemy!) -- my mom still has problems copying and pasting -- I don't think she's ready to be configuring XFree86 (which, while RedHat 5.2 has made some significant changes to make configuring XFree easier, still requires some knowledge about your computer's hardware, which most people haven't a clue about [horizontal refresh frequency? dot clock?]). If you want to use Linux, use it. But don't unnecessarily evangelize an OS that is not ready to replace Windows yet.
Better yet, use Linux conspicuously. Answer questions about Linux. Let them come to you -- don't force it down their throats. Then prove the esteemed Mr. Metcalfe wrong.
In the artical, windows 98 and 95 were counted as seperate products, with there own stats, so the 39% couldn't be from 95 to 98...
it also said that DOS sold more for the client then Linux (but I don't know how dos could be a "client" as in connected to a server)
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
People, relax. What you have to realize is that *this guy is not really all that serious* He's just playing the devils advocate, the sort of grouchy old man, stirring up controversy for the pure hell of it. In the article he *admitted* that he was flaming linux to begin with, and he didn't say that there was anything inherently wrong with people speaking out against him. He seemed to think that OSnic patriotism wasn't really all that uncommon. Besides this guy is so out of touch that he predicted that Internet would collapse in 1996, partly because it would be impossible to find any porn....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Columnists who are groping for a topic for the weekly grind are getting way too much mileage out of slamming Linux one week, then writing about getting flamed for what they said the next. There is nothing a "journalist" loves more than the feeling they are defending free speech. They can write a lazy column requiring no research or work at all on their part, then get all indignant and huffy about the flaming. It is really getting boring. The splenetic flaming by Linux users is getting cliched and boring. Especially when it is so obvious that that is exactly what the writer of the column wanted!
>I don't think anyone here is suggesting developing commercial desktop applications for
Linux *instead of* Windows
Right. My point was that the *incremental* cost of porting an app to Linux probably cannot be easily justified (in most cases, I would guess) by increased revenue. The point about getting sales because an app *is* cross-platform is certainly valid, although that may be even harder to predict than just the size of a potential Linux commercial software market.
Corel is a different example because they do already have an established product, with dwindling win32 market share, that obviously was ported to other platforms. In their case it may have been an easier decision since the windows word-processor market is obviously dominated by the competition, so making a Linux port was probably an easy business case.
I guess all I'm saying is that it must be problematic for companies to justify development of Linux software in tandem with Win32 projects because of the uncertain market for commercial Linux products in general. I'm not sure that's the kiss of death, just an observation to go along with the point that the number of Linux users is not easily measured.
In one of my previous jobs we regularly paid out the big $$ for this type research from IDG, Gartner and others. They always generated data that seemed to me to be clueless. They didn't properly qualify the data (i.e. this data is characteristic of InfoWorld readers that take the time to return questionaires) and would just characterize it as "our surveys of leading IT managers", discounting the known fact that most of the things people tell trade magazines is pure puffery (you have to say you are the descision maker for >$100,000 in computer purchases or they dont' send you the trade mag).
I can't think of any "prediction" that these
groups made that turned out to be both correct and valuable. The PHBs allocated money according to those predictions, which is part of why that company no longer exists.
I mean really; does anyone think Netware's market is actually growing?
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Let's say it did. I'd still take my chances with the flamers over hot air journalism any day.
Be courteous to our bright and afraid acolytes. Fuck the mainstream public. They're a bunch of whiny Fascists who can't have a good time without the latest UltraStrength Headache medicine.
Heck, Put the local Boys/Girls Club on Linux. Harvest a couple of geniouses.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Isn't he the guy who shilled OS/2 and that it would beat out windows? Or has my memory gotten that bad?
Charlie
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Now I have a third reason that Linux will not beat W2K, which is the obsessively anti-Windows, toxically anti- Microsoft, sometimes anti-capitalism, often anti-American, and always antisocial flaming that passes for discourse around the Open Source Initiative.
Is this Bob MetCalfe or Senator Bob McCarthy?
Didn't the word anti-American die out in the late
50's.
Part of being American is being anti-American.
There can be no evolution without revolution.
Maybe Linux and OSS is a revolution of some sorts?
A revolution that some people find threatening because it forces them to reevaluate how they
view capitilism and the marketplace.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
Bill Gates himself even shilled OS/2 and that it would beat Windows... As late as 1989, Microsoft was talking publicly about stopping Windows development by mid 1990, in favor of OS/2.
;-), defenses of Linux.
As for Nicholas Petreley, he is the "editorial director of LinuxWorld"... He continues to write well thought out, if somewhat religious
I think an improvement for Metcalfe would be to give up writing columns like these, until he actually has something to say/a point to make. I don't find it as necessary to use a whole column to say what he could have said in a paragraph; and a paragraph that wouldn't be too much of a thrill to read, I think. Anyway, I still fail to see how he thinks W2K will beat Linux..
Insert mind here.
"To each according to needs from each according to his means" Karl Marx.
So.... How does the development of Linux expropriate resources from me to give to those without resources?
Many people use Linux, which is the fruit of the labor of those with the means to produce an operating system. These people who use Linux may not have the means (ability) to produce any code, but they do have a need for the OS. SO, again, there is some communistic facets to the Linux community.
There is nothing preventing a convergence of Libertarianism and Communism. In fact, I would say Libertarianism would be an evolutionary step toward voluntary Communism. Of course, by that time there will be a new name for Communism.
I went ahead and skimmed the page mentioned above. I have come to the conclusion that it's a joke. I hope it is cause I can't stop laughing.
On the Linux=communism note:
I cannot completely disagree with the idea that Linux promotes some degree of communism. Let us take a look at the word:
communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
The areas that Linux falls under are the ones that touch on possession and wealth.
In the Linux community (notice the similarities between community and communism? I knew you could!) the code is open to all, everyone has an equal chance of utilising the code to suit their best interests. For those of you challenged ones, this is the abolation of the inequalities in the possession of [intellectual] property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
It's not a bad thing! Really. The communism of this century was not real communism. There was no equality. The communism that has been shoved down our throats is more of a beurocracy. Communism is a social system with one class, the USSR had two classes.
I am a communist. I dream of a world where everyone is seen as equal, not the backwards heirarchy we see today. Linux, to me, is a step in the direction of world-wide utopia!
From my [X]window, Linux is everything that is good about communism!
Yeah, the interface to exmh works a little differently than the interface to Netscape. So what? They're point and drool interfaces anyway; I could use 'em with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back. Speed? Only really an issue in games, so I run the SVGA version of Quake.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I thought his column seemed fairly level-headed. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I didn't interpret his writings as being inflammatory. It was an interesting read.
Then I read all the slashdot followups and, aside from being called "rambling" and "out of touch," every sentence is taken out of context and nit-picked to death. That hair-trigger defensiveness is what has been associated with "advocacy" since the Amiga days.
Metcalfe, as the inventor of ethernet, has demonstrated plenty of technical cred. If he was to venture into the OSS fray and make technical criticisms, I'd listen to him.
However, this isn't so much a technical argument as the work of a pundit. The man (or woman) who combines technical mastery with that of the written word is a rare bird indeed. Combining that with an operational nalyst's mind? An even rarer bird. Metcalfe, I'm afraid, is not the first kind of bird, and certainly not the second.
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
People are making the the mistake between equality and equal opportunity. While communism preaches equality of state, capitalism preaches equality of opportunity. This means that in communism, the person that actively takes the opportunities and works toward a goal is not rewarded. That's what capitalism is all about. That and greed, jealousy, brutal competition, and an ultra-materialistic society. You gotta love it!
Anyway, Linux is more like capitalism in this way because access to source code (and freedom to do cool things with it), means that every joe schmuck has an equal opportunity to contribute to the whole and make money as a reward. Provided Joe has a computer and preferably Internet access, but that really isn't Linux's problem to solve.
I myself dream of a world where everyone has the same chance, the equal opportunity to go out there and make themselves a fortune. A world where people are rewarded with their hard work. Unless you happen to dislike spending lots of money, like me, but I thoroughly enjoy making it so it all cancels out I guess. An equality of state (everyone's the same, and that's it) would be silly.
--Jean-Paul Alderac
Oh boy I explains how to that the Linus long-hairs are all commie pinko red commies at http://www.freeyellow.com/members7 /geraldholmes Its real enlitenin and will tell you good stuff.
1. "My original column was a troll; I was clueless on purpose. 2. If you flamed me, you fell for it, so I'm still smarter than you. 3. I'm actually rooting for Linux to overtake Windows, I just don't think that an open system with such fierce defenders (the flamers) can do it. 4. I still have absolutely no clue, and Emacs makes my eyes water.
---
Because the antisocial, unscientific flamage the Linux newbie/lamer community generates is so predictable?
Think of that?
Smug self-satisfaction seems to be a pattern in linux communities.
Psychologically, it's a demonstration of low self-esteem.
... it's all demonstrative of low self-esteem.
Not surprising really, as the definition of a nerd is :
a) someone with low ability to relate to others due to his fascination with computers and Star Trek, and inability to relate to others through more conventional converation...
b) thus a young man that doesn't get any sex....
leading to
c) an introverted, emotionally juvenile man, who's main outlet of frustration in life is to abuse the straw men enemies of his life through email, rather than addressing the deeper concerns of happiness that are fundamental to us as human beings
that
d) identifies with inanimate objects, such as operating systems, to reassure himself, much as an infant does a teddy bear.
I am not commenting on all programmers or the entire linux community even, just those that can't address their own impulse control and behave rationally.
cheers!
"I am right!! I am right!!
:-)
I am a very smart person!! Let me show you the email I posted that predicted this!!
(conveyed feeling: this guy is smug about himself)
(hidden meaning: acknowledge me, I am desperate for acknowledgement)"
Well that's the way I see it!
I am fucking impressed with the intelligence of your response.
I think you are right. I just think as engineers (well I think coders should be engineers if they want to right code to last) one needs to be able to see the field of debate in a rational light.
A lot of guys here really have hackneyed views on NT, but haven't used the APIs or seen the etensive software engineering in the O.S. There are no critiques of the software.
This is very poor.
Why do I hang out on an advocacy web site full of meaningless and ill-informed ranting? I don't know, this is not rational either....
.........to mingle with the commoners!!!
We so appreciate your unique point of view!!
Gosh, I guess I should just stop right now
because I'm an engineer and I surely don't
need to react to this. You are wise and smarter
than us. I will busy myself with writing songs
about you.
I wonder where all the hunters are today. --Daffy Duck
Yeah, it was a couple of carelessly written columns, but really the only thing that upset me greatly was the implication that Linux didn't have what it takes in part because it was "'60s technology." Petreley had the right answer to that ("... it's called Ethernet") but I think we have to allow for the idea that the latest, newest thing isn't necessarily the best! How many people have traveled to the moon using 90's technology? (0) How many spacecraft have left the solar system using 90's technology? (0) And, heck, I'm '60s technology (not necessarily a good example). But, I don't think we should rule out using technology just because it is old. Just my 2E-2 ($). Z
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
I say, Victor old chap, could you possibly close the "EM" in your signature? The second one lacks a slash, I believe. Drives my rum old browser to distraction. I'd be ever so grateful if you would consider it--thanks a mil.
The Knave raises his glass to all those who must still earn a living outside the Linux world. May your dream job come to you soon!
He has long battled entrenched monopolies--telcos of all stripes, and Microsoft, of most note. This latest "flame against Linux" was an attempt to challenge the Linux community to correct what Mr. Metcalfe sees as its worst shortcomings. It's similar to, but less clumsy than, when your father said "Bet you can't clean up your room in ten minutes flat." Except Mr. Metcalfe has your number pretty well, and judging by the vehemence of responses he reported, the Linux community never saw him coming. Stop and re-interpret his comments as if Mr. Torvalds or Mr. Stallman had made them instead. What could possibly cause them to say such a thing? Ah, now you are getting into the proper mindset!
What, you're still here browsing the web, instead of chasing bugs, cutting code, or writing docs? Why, exactly?
Okay, boys, coffee break's over--back on your heads!
"I can only wonder whether he has no clue about Linux, or he really counts the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Linux hackers who have done a kernel recompile over the years as "very few."
Um--note that the puff at the bottom of the column mentioned that he's recompiled an operating system. Which is a lot more than recompiling the Linux kernel.
You might also note that the puff is entirely in gest--its a joke. InfoWorld loves to do clever bio puffs to get readers to respond--as dozens here have.
Metcalfe isn't that out of touch. Remember that way back when 3Com sold an NOS, while Metcalfe was still CEO, you didn't just install the OS. You actually linked the OS from bunches of floppies. (The same thing was true with Netware before Netware 386. You linked the object code. Netware 86 shipped with 22 360K floppies and a *very* long install procedure.) So anybody who bought LanMan from 3Com in those days, at theoretically, compiled the OS.
That said, I just peeked at the LWHS web site, and looked at the student listings. All this happened before you were born. So maybe you don't remember. [smile]
He was yanking your chain. It appears he succeeded.
You're mistaken. That was his evil twin. This is the Petreley who insisted that OpenDoc would the be the death of Microsoft. And that CORBA would be the death of Microsoft. And that StarOffice would be the death of Microsoft. And that thin-client would be the death of Microsoft.
Give the guy credit--he's persistent.
Wrong--but persistent.