Slashdot Mirror
Cringely on StarOffice, W2k, Alpha & more
Shturmovik[KGB] gave us the
hook-up for the latest piece by Cringely. Bob does what columnists are supposed to do-ties together all the disparate news that's been happening and makes a convincing argument about a certain-company being off the tracks.
Yes, he is exagerrating. Much closer to 0%
There is no way I would be reading this flame war if "SoftwareJanitor" weren't magically privileged.
I didn't ask to be 'magically privileged'. I'm not even sure what the mechanism is for getting auto-moderated up or down. Maybe there needs to be a facility that you can specifically exclude an account if you don't want to read them (maybe there already is -- I don't remember, as I haven't looked recently). Maybe there needs to be a way for those of us who are 'magically blessed' to choose to post at a lower level if we want, or maybe instead of 'auto-blessing' every post, we should get a pool of self-moderating points we can spend on posts to make us decide which ones we think are most important.
However, if you really don't want to read 'flame wars' (and this really doesn't qualify as such in the scheme of things), then you can always excercise your browser's scroll bar or your down arrow key. Nobody forces you to read on once you get to the first message in a 'flame war' thread.
Also, Sun will be launching their next-gen "JavaStation" in about 5-6 days, I believe.
You can download StarOffice 5.1 for free here - support for Solaris SPARC/Intel, Linux, OS/2, Windows 95/98/NT, and several languages. Unfortunately, you do have to register, but if you've already got a username/password for say the Java (or Solaris) Developers Connection then you can use that.
And finally, Sun will be making available Solaris 8 early access - ie open beta to the public, for the first time for a new version of Solaris. You'll probably see the source code available later...
They've been trying ever since the browser wars, with no success. Remember MSN? Neither do I. Then there's Hotmail, (what security hole?) and Ebay (sinusoidal behavior makes its debut on the Internet). The big players to be taken seriously on the Internet do not include Microsoft. They've failed miserably because the rules of the game have changed, and they're stuck with what made them what they are.
As Cringley's well-written article points out, the MS strategy no longer applies. Close standards which take advantage of market forces (PCs becoming the dominant hardware standard) is one thing when the technology is a stand-alone box. When the technology hinges upon the Internet, ie communication between many people, closed standards will always be ignored for open ones. It's simply the nature of the environment.
For MS to reinvent itself enough to survive in the Internet Age, they must inevitably abandon all that has made them profitable. Money is the only thing keeping the company in the game, it certainly isn't technological or innovative prowess. Their current dominance in office productivity software will not save them, Star Office being offered free will do to them what they did to Netscape (what sweet irony it is). Even better yet, a coordinated triumverate between StarOffice, WordPerfect Suite, and Applixware will but speed up the process. It is simply a matter of time before the Darwinian nature of the industry makes Microsoft the dinosaur of the PC industry.
That would give the end user an option of either using the fat or thin client. With no additional costs to the developer.
Has anybody ever tried it?
Behold! The new Web-based StarOffice written entirely in Java!
Now with the UltraSlow[tm] technology that makes it even more difficult to use.
New additions include InstantCore[tm] for faster and better coredumps..
Let's face it; web-based StarOffice is a bad idea, but the idea of running applications remotely is good.
.. but wait.. where have I seen that before? Hmmm..
isn't fully MSOffice compliant == unusable
That depends on your needs. I don't really have a need to be 'fully MSOffice compliant'. I find StarOffice to be usable for my needs, other than being a little bit hungry on the resource requirements side (which is a fully MSOffice compliant feature). For that matter, between different versions of MSOffice, they are often only one directionally compliant.
Compaq engineers quietly admit that Linux on Alpha runs better than Compaq's own Unix.
Well.. maybe, but AFAIK the compilers available for Linux still lacks good optimization for the Alpha.
(Doesn't the standard libraries need to be optimized too?)
Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.. my statements are based on somthing I think I read somewhere a while ago..
I work for Compaq (formerly Digital) in the ZKO facility, which does a large portion of the operating system work. We also recently had a visit from our CEO. I think it's safe to say that Tru64 (not "True64") Unix will be here to stay for quite a while. There are a bunch of people here who work with Linux for Compaq or just at home (like me). Linux will not replace Tru64 Unix (as far as Compaq is concerned) anytime in the near future. Both products will be in use: Tru64 Unix is being targeted at much higher end areas with capibilities such as TruCluster (what I work on) and Linux is for "normal" size servers or desktops. Most of the work going on is to make sure Linux and Tru64 Unix play well together, not to drop one or the other. In fact, we'll even be keeping OpenVMS around for quite some time.
Our new CEO is big on "enterprise level computing", which to him/Compaq means high-end Alphas running Tru64 Unix, possibly in large, highly-available clusters. Ask maddog sometime about Tru64 Unix; he'll probably agree that in many areas it is better than Linux from a "computer science" point of view.
(Flame gear on)
isn't XML (already) supported as a standard file format in Office 2000?
Microsoft's semi-proprietary almost-XML, more likely.
I've just done a 2 day intro course on these products and based on what I've learned I'd have
/etc/binlog.conf shows:
../cluster/members/{memb}/etc/binlog.conf
:-)
to say that chucking out the Tru64 kernel and replacing it with Linux is IMO not yet an option.
This is the biggest leap in technology that Tru64 has made during it's life so far, and the jewel in the crown for V5 has got to be the new filesystem, CFS (Cluster File System).
With CFS, not only can every system in the cluster see all the devices on the shared SCSI bus, but also all the devices on all the private SCSI buses too. When one system mounts a device, this appears in the mount table for all the cluster members.
The thing is that CFS is bound so closely to UNIX V5 and the kernel, that even on a standalone V5 system with no clustering there are tell tale signs that dormant cluster software is waiting with hooks at the ready. You can see this in the file system. For example an ls -l of
binlog.conf ->
Btw, {memb} is something new too. It's called a CDSL (context dependant symbolic link) and in this case resolves to "member0", changing the number where the cluster member number is different.
While I'm at this I can't resist telling you how clusters are installed, cos this was really neat too.
When installing a cluster you start off with one disk, which can be either local or shared, and install Tru64 UNIX on that. Then install the TruCluster software and select two disks on the shared SCSI, one for the Cluster disk and one for the system (member0) boot disk. When you run "clu_create" Tru64 UNIX is copyied from your current disk to the cluster disk and the boot disk containing the root f/s for member0. You then shutdown and boot of the boot disk. Hey presto, you're a 1 system cluster. The first disk you used can be junked now and reused for something else.
Want to add more members? No problem. You need to assign boot disks for each one, then run clu_add_member for each system. A system specific root is added to each, and member specific directories are setup on the common Cluster Disk. At this point you could take all your new systems out of their boxes, cable them up (though in practice you'd have done this first) power them on and then boot them straight off their new boot disks. No installation needed
The whole process is so quick we reckoned we could install and cluster of 4 x DS20's from scratch in about 1.5 hours.
I could ramble on now about the new System Management Station, that can be driven from a curses front end, a CDE GUI front end, or even a Java version of the CDE GUI from a Web browser. I could wax lyrical about the dynamicly updated pictorial system maps of the systems, their devices, buses, cluster members, etc, the new Event Manager, and lots of other things. But I reckon I've taken up enough of your time.
To wrap up I'd like to say that I think it would be very cool (and cost effective in the long term) if the Linux kernel could replace Tru64's. But I don't see that happening just yet, not for the next couple of years anyway.
Macka
There are two approaches to writing, say, an office app in Java: just rewrite the whole thing and have all of that run in the JVM on the client machine (which may be unplugged from the net at that point), or write it such that most of the crunching takes place on the server and the client side is just a smart user interface (something like the X Windows model but at a higher level).
Corel (AFAIK) tried the former, and at a stage when the Java language and JVM technology was in its infancy (no JIT, etc). It bombed. I don't know that Sun is taking the latter approach, but if they want to sell servers that's the way I'd bet. That could be very workable indeed. (I've done apps like this, where the core logic, data storage, etc took place on a Unix server but the GUI ran on an NT workstation. It's a very workable model.)
Since Sun is talking about having this stuff run in e.g. Java-enable cell phones, the later is almost certainly the model they're using.
-- Alastair
It has attracted some developers, and will attract more to bugfix, etc once it is released or nearly released.
If Sun goes by a proper open source license but keeps developing under their current style then that is a good thing. Even if no extra developers joined it's still good having the source as it'll make it easier for interested parties to submit bugfixes later or port to their preferred platform. Less people will bother even bug fixing if it's not a proper open source license
--
He made some good points, but others weren't so good.
For instance, he talks about WebTV:
"This puts Microsoft at both a price and platform disadvantage and virtually guarantees we'll soon see server-based office applications on WebTV."
Microsoft owns WebTV.
Doesn't he realize this is the exact reason MS bought WebTV in the first place? Right now, they don't even offer Java on that platform... so why on earth would they want to buy WebTV -- a company that could potentially a huge distributor of an alternate platform (Java)? So they can control it!
It was a fight just to get RealAudio (another MS foe) on WebTV. If MS ever finally decides to let Java onto WebTV, you can bet your sweet bippy that they will have their own java-enabled Office software ready and waiting. Or maybe their version of Java will lack a few things needed to run StarOffice applets...
The second problem I had with Cringely's article is that he makes the same assumption many Linux zealots make: If the software is free, everyone will use it! His last paragraph was almost a joke.
Linux is NOT a threat to Microsoft (or any user-friendly OS maker) at the *consumer level* until it is re-designed from the ground up to be USER-FRIENDLY.
Otherwise, you'll be limited to the sysadmins, networking dudes, geeks, academics, and programmers market. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but I'm sick of hearing about how Linux is going to take over the world. If you believe that, you're not living in the real world. I consider myself OS agnostic... I've used and liked quite a few (Windows, MacOS, Irix, BeOS, etc). This gives me the power to look around without tinting my view with a personal OS bias. I just do not see Linux invading the consumer market until it has a MAJOR overhaul.
This means, for starters: a uniform GUI across all applications, ease of (secure) maintenance, ease of installation, great USB/plug-n-play support, etc. To me, the UI is Linux's biggest detractor, followed by ease of installation/maintenance.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Which is more valuable to you, the operating system files or your own data?
... pity I can't do that for my personal stuff. True, I have a backup, but I'm still going to lose the current day's work.
I don't know about you, but I can always re-install the OS from CD
In short, the original poster had an excellent point. Best way to solve it? A few thoughts:
- Don't allow macros in document files - require that the macros be in program code files linked to documents. When the virus-laden document is emailed, the program code won't go with it. If program code is needed, send both files.
- Don't allow autoexec macros, or have a screen that pops up asking if you want to execute the auto-exec macro. Don't allow the user to switch off this protection.
I think those two changes would go a long way towards killing off macro viruses.
D
----
Thank you for getting me to smile!
Well, I am glad that someone enjoyed that comment, obviously some moderator didn't, as that post got marked down a point... Ah well.
Excuse me. You must have missed the part where I
::shudder:: configuring the
named all the different OS's I've used, so I'll do
it again: Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Irix, and Linux.
Currently I rank user-friendliness of those
systems as such:
1. MacOS
2. Windows
3. BeOS (still young, but can beat Windows
in this category very soon with some changes)
4. Irix
5. Linux
That's just my opinion, but I would challenge
anyone to show how Linux is any easier to use
than BeOS, Windows, or MacOS for the *average
user*.
"If you put Windows and Linux head-to-head in front of a computer-unaware beginner with the goal of installing exactly the same feature set, Windows would be so far behind that it wouldn't even figure on the user-friendly map."
Hahaha! I cannot describe how absurd this statement truly is. Sadly, it is very clear
that you are blinded by your Linux faith.
Instead, why not open your eyes and try to
realize where Linux's failings really are?
It can't hurt.
First of all, your argument hinges on Windows
only. My statement was that Linux is well behind
Windows, MacOS, and BeOS. Apparantly you agree
that Linux doesn't compare to MacOS or BeOS in
the user-friendliness category.
Secondly, you only speak of the installation
process. I am more concerned about the ease of
use of the operating system after installation.
However, installation is a key for seconday OS's
like BeOS and Linux.
I am a competent computer user (been using them
for 12+ years). I have been programming for the
past 3-4 years, and I am a CS major. In short, the
first time I installed Windows 3.1, Windows 95,
Windows NT, etc. I found them annoying, and
occasionally impossible due to hardware problems.
However, compared to the 5 different times I tried
or completed a Linux installation (all in the past
year or two), I felt like I had gone through HELL.
Reading HOWTO's out the wazoo for every different
piece of hardware, securing the system, navigating
the system, and
windowing systems. None of the entire process was
the least bit intuitive. Worst of all, most of the
installs I tried were downright UGLY. Not just in
what I had to do, but what I had to look at
on-screen. These things go a long way towards
user-friendliness.
Not that I like to defend the likes of Microsoft,
but they have spent millions on testing the window
system on people to see what makes things easier
to use. This has led to advancements in things
like access for the handicapped and sight-
impaired. I would rather inflict Chinese water
torture then turn over a Linux-based computer to a
handicapped friend or relative!
Instead of comparing Linux installs to Windows --
which as you said is not fair because Windows
comes pre-installed on most computers -- why not
compare it to BeOS?
BeOS installation takes roughly 10-15 minutes, and
is almost completely GUI based. Granted, it will
likely become a longer process once there is more
supported hardware and networking/multi-user
capabilities. However, don't expect it to ever
sink to the level of a current Linux install.
It's sort of a paradox that Linux's biggest plus
is also it's largest minus: it's development is
driven largely by computer geeks. I mean, the
reason Linux has come so far is because it has had
great people working on it. But it has now reached
a point where it needs the influence of designers
and GUI gurus if it wants to approach the consumer
level. I wish Linux the best of luck, but I'm not
betting on it at the consumer level.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Since StarOffice has a programming script, I don't see why it also won't be vulnerable to macro viruses.
Its not just having a scripting language in the product that causes the problem. It is allowing the scripts to automatically run on opening the document for one. It is also how much outside the "sandbox" of the application the scripting language is allowed to do. Scripting languages in applications are nothing new (for example JavaScript in browsers), however VBA in Microsoft Office basically has total access to the entire Windows machine, which is a problem in a highly networked world.
Even in a Linux environment such a virus could cause a lot of damage.
Perhaps, but only likely if someone runs their office suite as root, or some other similar user-related security hole. In general, it is users that are the biggest weakness in security.
All these posters seems to be misinterpreting what Sun hopes to gain through this. They aren't hoping that some huge assortment of hackers are going to leap in and do massive amounts of development. They fully expect to continue doing the vast majority of new development in StarOffice, Java, Jini, ClusterTools, etc. Since they aren't really trying for bazaar-style development, they don't need a bazaar-facilitating license.
Once you understand that Sun isn't trying to offload their development work on the hacker community, SCSL seems like a pretty good compromise between Sun's interests and the end users'.
Good things in SCSL for end users:
- The source is available.
- You can fix bugs that are more important to you than to Sun. Sure, they would probably fix your pet bug someday, but they might have better-paying customers who want other bugs fixed first.
- You can add features that Sun isn't interested in, or isn't interested enough in.
- You can port the software to non-Sun hardware.
Good things in SCSL for Sun (since no company does this stuff out of the goodness in their hearts):- Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Well, XML may be an open standard, but who knows, what I'd like to put into the DTD for my Format?
You've raised a valid point. XML does provide a lot of room for proprietarization of DTD. The real question there is will Microsoft be open about how they implement that? I am not really very optimistic there.
However, HTML is supposed to be an open standard, and it certainly hasn't stopped Microsoft from implementing proprietary tags in their implementation (to be fair, Netscape has also done so). I think it is entirely likely that we will see Microsoft try to do some significant 'embrace and extend' with both HTML and XML.
Excellent example. HP started off making electronic test equipment. They've recently spun that division off into a separate company, so you could say that HP is no longer even in their core business!
By opening the source, they are going to minimize the amount work they have to do (just management of releases). Therefore, this is another proof-of-concept. Use open-source to work in another area of the field, where doing it closed sourced would be to big a drain on resources.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
Over the next couple of years Microsoft's earnings growth and margins are sure to decline for the reasons Cringley outlined, but look for Gates to reinvent Microsoft as an on-line media company.
Even if Microsoft loses the Internet server and home user markets (although they'll eventually drop personal use Windows license prices - to zero if necessary), they'll have the business and office application markets for a long time as a cash cow. They also have a *huge* warchest.
If you look at all of Microsoft's cable aquisitions (some 20-30 investments - incl. the recent $600M or so in Rogers), the battle they appear to be starting to get in with AOL, and Gate's long standing desire to get into the "razorblade" business, you can see pretty clearly where they are headed...
when I last used it it didnt use a separate GUI lib, ie, it had its own. That'd be hard to change to GTK/QT
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Cringely made at least one good point even tho' it has been made before (ESR comes to mind). That is that M$ is afraid of open standards.
So, instead of getting on the StarOffice/Applixware/AbiSource/whatever soapbox, the Linux/Open Source community should be screaming and shouting about open standards. TCP/IP and HTML have proven what benefit there is to open standards. So, why not open standards for all software?
Word processors have been around for a long time, so why isn't there a WP standard? You basically need formatting (indentation, justification, margins, etc.), fonts, chaptering, indexing, etc. If that were standardized, then all WPs could import and export docs that all others could read.
The same can be said about spreadsheets and presentation packages. DBs already have SQL which is somewhat standardized. And there are probably applications that I never use that could be included.
Let's climb on the standards bandwagon, and ask the other OS backers to join us. If all the BSDers, BEOSers, UN*Xers, Hurders, OS/2ers, and any otherers could define standards and write all Open Source software to them, then a lot of the commercial companies that have come to Linux in hopes of saving themselves from the M$ juggernaut would pretty much have to play along. And thanks to the success of the Internet, open standards carries a lot of weight with business AND end users.
Would just like to make a comment on the Staroffice Web application.. it's a move in the right direction. Thin clients/fat server model is the ideal one for most home applications. The whole idea of spending $2000 or even $1000, to get a piece of equipment that is going to be used for a little bit of publishing and small-time number crunching, and which is going to be obsolete in a matter of years.. is ludicrous. Computers arent worth that much to many people. The javastation idea would have been really great if it was implemented correctly. A native java chip running remote apps? Expensive servers.. but far cheaper client machines? This sounds like the PERFECT model for a lot of businesses deploying computers to employees. It takes care of a lot of issues like consistency (everyone would run the same versions of apps, and everyone could have their customized preferences stored on the server), upgrading (upgrade 1ce), the path to obsolecence (the clients will not grow obsolete as fast. Perhaps the server.. but then, 1 server purchase v. 20/30/100/1000 client purchases is still a good deal). -Laxative