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.

Comments

Which third?

[Zack]

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?

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 ;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.

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.

What exactly is his point?

[Brian Knotts]

He seems to be rambling at this point.

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."

--

Re:What exactly is his point?

[Jburkholder]

Interesting. 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?

If I'm a successful software company and I write windows-only products, I have a known cost for developing and testing my software and a (pretty-well) known market for my product. I can forecast my sales revenue against my cost to produce the product and make a business case for Return On Investment.

But if that same company were to decide that there are 10 million potential customers for a Linux port, the business case may get a little hairy. Now your costs for development, testing and support are increased (not 2x, but by some factor). You probably have to decide if this increase in the cost to produce your product is warranted by the potential market increase.

If there is no reliable way to size a market for your product, it could be a tough sell to management based on the economics. Of course, a few companies (like id Software) have the luxury of putting economics on a lower priority than "doing the Right Thing", but this is the exception (for now).

Gotta wonder about his numbers

[Eccles]

"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?

Was that the article, or did I miss something?

[GreyFauk]

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.

I like the title...

[rm -rf /etc/*]

"Enough of the OSnic slurs, let's count Linux versus W2K users."

What was that quote? Something like there are more cockroaches on the planet than people, so does quantity really mean that much?

Linux will not die

[Milkman Ken]

I posted this before, in case it looks familiar :)

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.

Re:Linux will not die

[sgml4kids]

The success of Linux (or Unix in general) has nothing to do with the number of NT units sold (or, for that matter, shipments of MacOS, CP/M, or PalmOS). It seems that many pundits will only accept the success of Unix when Unix outsells NT in the "server OS" category. People: Microsoft _invented_ the term "server OS" to cover up the single-user-ness of their flagship product. Unix is an evolving technical solution for operating a tremendously wide variety of computers. NT is a toy operating system for a toy (fad?) architecture.

Think of what computers will be like 20 years from now. Can anyone honestly say that they can picture a Windows-based OS in their car? Or in ATMs? Or IP-based phone-switches? (Will we need to reboot your neighbourhood exchange when the phone company adds a new user?) Or in robotics? Of course not. Microsoft couldn't even maintain a PPC port of NT.
Can you envision Linux/Unix in any of these applications? Most definitely.

If you stare hard at the technology Microsoft is banking on, its pretty evident that they are on shaky ground.

I can't imagine Windows being around in 20 years but I also can't picture Unix not being around in 20 years.

Flame-baiting

[KirkKhan]

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!

McCarthyism Returns

[smutt]

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.

Metcalfe ascendant

[Scurrilous Knave]

Please do be aware that Mr. Metcalfe is not an idiot, uninformed, or a senile old fool. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote both articles. On that hand, he knew what he was doing when he predicted the collapse of the Internet. He's a wise old cat, and we would do well to look past his words into the meat of his message.

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!