Posted by
Hemos
on from the up-from-the-grave-he-arose dept.
z4ce writes "It appears ZDnet it yet again reporting on UNIX and Linux here. " Little ditty about the resurgence of UNIX in the business environment and how Linux is changing the commercial world.
You need to change your approach
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3
You're discussing implementations and task-specific tools with your boss. This is always a waste of time and is certain to take the joy out of any job.
When my boss started in on how office B down the street did a wonderful job using WinNT for their email and saved money by centralizing print services and having to buy only 1 laser, 1 inkjet, and 1 dotmatrix, I knew what to do (Pay close attention, bunkie).
I refocused the conversation to goals. See paragraph one for reasons. I said I can get everybody for this many hours of my time and this many $ of your budget. Did the same thing with print services and internet browsing access. Added this to my performance review, 1 side of 1 sheet of paper. Notice no mention of any specific software.
Then I went to cheapbytes for a $2 CD, installed it on a box, changed the networking proto on the WinClients to TCP/IP, and the rest, as they say is sweet history.
It took him about a year to figure out that I wasn't using WinNT. I was ready, he's so easy to anticipate. I just pulled out a current price list of NT Server, Exchange Server, the boxen to run it on, the training and education fees, and all the other rubbish, along with a comparison of what I actually spent.
He ran down to the bathroom to clean out his shorts and hasn't said anything since. And I have my weekends.
Just do it.
Interoperability, my ass!
by
Kaz+Kylheku
·
· Score: 3
Interix (previously OpenNT) is a way for developers to ignore proprietary Windows interfaces and continue developing UNIX and POSIX software. They are not fully in the Windows trap because they can easily get out.
Microsoft wants all development to take place using its proprietary interfaces. It's obvious that they bought Interix because they want control. They probably want to exert pressure on Interix users to migrate to real Windoze.
I also predict that Microsoft will maim or kill the project. Whatever the outcome, they have no real incentive to provide a *quality* UNIX layer on NT. They want to be able to tell the customer---look, if you wanna write a real Windoze application that performs and scales, be sensible and use the real thing! Install Visual C++ and start calling Win32!
Now, a historic observation, for what it may be worth: all UNIX emulation layers in the past have bit the dust. Only real kernels have survived. The appearance of an emulation layer has also historically sounded the death knell of the host platform---recall VMS, Apollo Domain/OS, various mainframe platforms...
Maybe it's just too early on Sunday morning for me to understand, but I realy didn't see much analysis in that article. I can sum it up as:
Unix: a 25 year-old overnight sensation.
More and more people like Linux because it's cheap and doesn't crash as much as Windows. Microsoft is a little bit nervous, but they're nervous about everything. That's why they're so rich. So Microsoft bought a better Unix compatibility layer than their old one. There's not that many applications for Linux, but more are coming RSN.
Did I miss anything? That said the same thing as the article, but in four sentences and a title. Whee. Even ZD has done better analysis than that.
Oh and by the way - to the fellow who could run Linux if only his PowerPoint shows would work - I've tried mine with StarOffice 5.1, and they work fine. There's not quite as many transition effects, that's all I could spot easily.
-Josh (maybe I won't be as grumpy after I've had some coffee: Must Get Coffee...)
- -Josh Turiel
--
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
How to make *nix more popular in education
by
Nagash
·
· Score: 3
I'm talking classroom computers here - not network servers run by information departments (for the record).
At UWO (University of Western Ontario), I administer the computers for use in classrooms. These are computers professors will bring in material and do their presentations on. [aside - we have one class, called "SuperPsych" which has over 1000 students in it every year and we use all sorts of media to present class material - videos, movies, slide shows, etc.]
To cut a long story short, the primary program, without a doubt, is PowerPoint. This is the only reason I can't convince my boss to move to using Linux on the machines. He's sympathetic to Linux, but they *need* to run PowerPoint Presentations without a problem. (not that Windows does that, but hey - whaddya gonna do?:-) WINE is not something we are looking into. If Windows was on the machine, people would complain Linux was on there. No, really. People are very whiny about things. I have a few stories...
To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate (CompSci profs ask where the mouse plugs in - regardless of the label that says "Mouse"). I can set it up to boot seamlessly, easy to login to, look pretty, find programs quickly and run Emacs (for the CompSci people). The only thing it can't do is run a PowerPoint presentation.
I've got 20+ machines that I have to administer. Can't do it remotely with Windows without it being a big pain in the ass. That really sucks, because more machines are coming and the campus is big == lots of running around. Linux would be a dream to run.
Please get PowerPoint to work on it. Better yet, make a program that can do what PowerPoint does only better and can convert PowerPoint to it's format *extremely* easily. I have time to do such a thing after I graduate (approx. two years).
Re:How to make *nix more popular in education
by
Vladinator
·
· Score: 3
Well, two things: #1: WINE (WINE Is Not an Emulator) DOESN'T need an existing copy of Windows - It supports the API for windows NATIVELY on Linux/Unix - so you Don't need both Windows and Unix/Linux on the same Box.
#2: PowerPoint presentations can be save by powerpoint as HTML with FRAMES - and thus can be run from a Web Browser on ANY system in the world. "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
--
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Re:How to make *nix more popular in education
by
CJ+Hooknose
·
· Score: 3
To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate
Including the Comp Sci profs? *shrug* Well, one thing I've noticed is that the "computers are easy to use!" hype has been tested, swallowed, and believed by thousands of people... and many thousands more are reaping that whirlwind. Computers are the most complex devices that humanity has invented, and as such, will have problems when their operators are virtually untrained. Maybe we need a "Computers are difficult and arcane! chmod and vi are your friends!" ad campaign:-)
Getting back to the PowerPoint thing-- tried StarOffice? It seems to handle.ppt files fairly well, though I haven't checked its "slide show" functions out. PowerPoint is, on the whole, a huge time-waster, as people spend hours and hours making their presentations look pretty, and they forget to include any useful information. Or maybe I'm just bitter.
-- Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
why they are moving to Linux
by
josepha48
·
· Score: 3
I think the article missed the point of why people are moving from Microsoft and UNIX to Linux. I think it has more to do with cost and performance.
Linux costs a lot less than any commercial version of UNIX and NT.
Linux offeres many of the same features that most commericial version of UNIX have: sed/awk/perl/NFS and has many of the same commands as a commercial UNIX chmod, ls, etc, as it was designed originally to be a UNIX like system to run on Intel. Linux however costs less. Alot less. If you went out and bought a Solaris for Intel cdrom, for a commercial server you'd have to pay the commercial price which last I heard was around $500 (??). Yes it would give you a system that would be very stable, but it would also be very expensive. Solaris also does not support all the 'Intel' hardware that Linux does.
As far as NT goes, if you needed to get NT Workstation the cost is around $300 a copy. again Linux cost less at $50 a copy (or free).
Each system is about equal in performace. Some are beter in some areas and some in others. One can argue that one system is more stable than another and some can argue about uptimes, and crashes, but the fact is that the more you pay the less you get. A ~$34 dollar SuSE distribution gives you the distro and all the Office tools too, where as Solaris, and NT these office tools are Extra.
You decide for your self, don't let the FUD get you, just make an intelligent decision.
Beilinson also promises that you'll eventually be able to manage your Windows and Unix directories from one terminal, a significant improvement for hard-pressed network administrators.
That's funny, I've been able to manage all of my files from one terminal. I guess I just take that for granted.
All right, rant time: If they're trying to make things easier for "hard-pressed" admins, then why does Microsoft insist on using a GUI? Why aren't there any scripting languages? Don't scripts make things *easier* to manage then repetitive point & clicking? And no, batch files do not count as real scripts.
Someone please give a Stunner to M$
by
Platinum+Dragon
·
· Score: 3
Similar issues and gripes here at Ryerson...
I just started work in the audio library for the Radio-Televison Arts, Image Arts and Film students. The computers used to handle studio/equipment booking and file transfers between studios are both Win95, as is a spare computer in the room. On my first day of work, I had the pleasure of watching one computer BSOD once and white-box crash once (I knew M$ ported over tons of legacy code from Win3.1, but this is ridiculous...). As well, the damn thing locked up during a large file transfer. It's a good thing I remembered the files to be transferred, because the studio computers are regularly wiped clean of files; the student would have been justifiably angry. Complaints about the systems are legion.
The audio production studios all run NT so the students can use SAW, SAWPlus32, and Cakewalk. Students are warned to save often, because some of these computers die at the slightest sneeze from the user. ZIP drives would be lifesavers for those students who have the equipment and software to do some editing work at home. Not allowed. Why? Windows can't handle the parallel port drives being plugged in and used on the fly - it screws up the entire system.
A 10-terabyte server was brought online this year for the use of third-year students working on projects. It took three years to get this blasted thing working with Windows NT, otherwise I could have used it last year for my first-year projects.
I'd love to port the entire system over to Linux, BSD, or something else that could handle the load. MS Scheduler is one of the better pieces of M$ bloatware I've seen, but it's likely there's a Linux program that can do the same thing. File transfers would be a lot less dicey, and the 10-TB dream server would probably have been up 2 years ago if the audio crew hadn't had to fight NT.
So what's stopping me from bringing the revolution to Ryerson?
1) Windows-only audio software. I don't know about Cakewalk, but I don't know of any audio editing software comparable to the SAW series for Linux. I'm not sure WINE would be an option, since I don't know how it handles programs looking specifically for certain audio drivers. (I might be able to determine this myself soon.)
2) Familiarity with Windows. Quite frankly, there are a lot of computer illiterate people on this planet, people who are comfortable with a happy little Start button and colourful icons that look familiar to them. StarOffice would be a great replacement for Word and PowerPoint, but I find it likely the "I-just-want-to-do-work" people would freak out not knowing how to handle Linux, BSD, X, whatever. I've seen some comments dumping on fvwm95, but it might be exactly what newbies need to become comfortable with Linux. It provides a similar interface while still having the power of Linux. GNOME might also be an option soon; its style reminds me a lot of Win95 (don't hurt me, please:)
There's still the stumbling block of the Windows-only programs though. I don't blame anyone for this lack of software; I don't think Linux was ever considered for uses like this until now. I kinda hope these gaps are closed fast, before I have to console first-years who lose major parts of projects thanks to a BSOD crash.
Windows isn't just an RTA disease; Windows computers are strewn throughout campus. PowerPoint presentations infest classes. Multimedia lecterns were installed a couple years back; the computers, naturally, run NT and PowerPoint. Once again, people are too bloody familiar with Windows, crashes and all; as well, no one considered Linux/BSD/whatever for these purposes until now, just as M$ tries to achieve a final, lasting hammerlock on the computer world. Perhaps someone with far more programming know-how than me can help make Linux a viable option for editing audio, video, and creating presentations (not just showing them:)
Fortunately, the central server for Ryerson is AIX...seems to be an old version, but I haven't seen it go down yet. At least the admins have the sense to use a real operating system for mission-critical stuff; I have to wonder if the Windows infestation is one of those decisions made by higher-ups who listened to M$ marketing.
I eagerly await the day when Ryerson can throw off the shackles of BSODs and lockups once and for all. SAW for Linux, anyone?:)
It's very interesting that Corel thinks Linux's future is in the sub $500 computer -- it probably reflects how they intend to divide their own attentions between NT and Linux. They are correct in stating that only Linux will scale downwards well, but no evidence is given for the price cutoff. The article also made it sound like Linux is succeeding because of Corel rather than the reverse, or better, succeeding together.
The Interix thing is sure interesting. Either Microsoft is worried about users wanting Unix, or about developers using Unix to develop for NT, or of course, both. Sure sign that Linux and the high end Unices are scaring them a bit.
The idea that Unix is "resurgent" is laughable. Unix has always been with us. What has happened is that the big applications have always been on Unix, especially database applications built around Oracle. And when you really wanted solid performance, you run it on a mainframe from IBM/Hitachi/Amdahl. With all due respects to Unix, it has its own faults and limitations.
But then, all of a sudden, we got Windows NT. We were supposed to have a magical Posix layer when Windows NT 3.1 was first introduced. It was supposed to provide an "easy" migration path from Unix to Windows NT. The same Windows NT version that also provided OS/2 1.x support (and that was dropped when NT 4 was introduced).
Well, we've been working with Windows NT since 1992, and here we are seven years later and reality has finally begun to sink in. And that reality is Windows NT can't scale, can't run 24/7 for arbitrarily long lengths of time, and can't provide seamless interoperability. It's stuck on the desktop where Microsoft marketing shoved it down vendor's throats.
Microsoft's attempts over the years to move out into server apps has been checkered at best. The fact that it buys technology such as Interix is a tacit admission its in-house Unix efforts are lame and that companies have learned the hard way not to trust critical distributed systems to Windows NT.
My advice is this: If you want to run an app or system on a Unix-like OS, then run it on Unix. For low-end, non-critical uses evaluate at Windows NT or FreeBSD 3.x. For more critical apps (such as an ISP environment), pay the bucks and use BSDi or Solaris. For truly critical work (a nation-wide system running SAP, for example), then you're looking at very-high-end Unix servers and/or mainframes.
I don't know about you, but I won't make the mistake of choosing any OS/hardware platform strictly on politics or emotionalism. I'm going to be damn careful what I choose, because whatever it is, I'll have to live with it for a long time. And sometimes the best choice is the conventionally obvious choice.
I swear these things are more rabid than mosquitoes in the Texas heat. Ugh.. That shall, let the beatings continue!
"In the latest round of developments, Microsoft is increasing support for Unix and Windows NT interoperability while Corel is entering the desktop operating system market with its own release of an application-oriented version of Linux."
Hmm. I just can't wait to run my Unix programs on Window NT! It will cost me more, and I'll lose efficiency as well..? That's sooo cool.
Anyway.. Application-oriented version of Linux? What is that supposed to mean? The only thing they can really do to it is add in some more applications. It's not like they had to write an OS from scratch. I mean, what else would they come out with? A stripped-down version of Linux?
"In contrast to a similar 1997 survey that didn't produce conclusive results about Linux usage, 13 percent of those surveyed now say they use Linux."
Does the media have to force this same quote down my throat with almost every single article? Even Joe Public can repeat these figures ad nauseam by now.
"Linux is seen as a potential competitor to Unix and Windows NT for some server applications, according to Dan Kusnetzky, program director for IDC's Operating Environments and Serverware research programs."
Some? NT just flat out sucks.. Anyone who actually/wants/ to use that thing, well, for anything (much less as a/server/) probably has no clue what Unix is (and if they do, doesn't think it has a GUI.. yes, still). And most Unices use archaic code since they are direct descendants of the original Unix. GNU/Linux has already come a long way, and before long (at the rate it gets developed), most Unices won't seem so damn slick anymore (especially with that price tag.. ooh.. ouch).
"Linux is also making inroads in the desktop market because of the increased availability of Linux applications such as Corel WordPerfect 8, Sun's StarOffice, and a host of new offerings promised for the next year."
Most of this stuff seems aimed toward Joe Public. Is he really buying GNU/Linux like crazy already? Somehow, I just can't see him having a fun time trying to install it, even if it's Red Hat. Maybe others find interest in this stuff, but I'm not particularly excited. Most of what I need is already/in/ GNU/Linux (if it has a shell, a compiler, and a debugger, and all of which/work/, then it is good), and since not many computer companies make GNU/Linux desktops with modems.. Anyone know if Joe Public is actually getting all excited and putting Linux on his desktop..? Otherwise I can't see that comment making much sense, because most people I know of that have Linux are hackers who could care less about WordPerfect..
"A lot of our customers are interested in moving to the Windows platform from mixed environments that include the Unix platform. This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine," says Craig Beilinson, lead product manager for Windows 2000."
Straight from the people who say that Linux/will not run/ on a multi-processor system. You saw it here first.. a liar in action.
" "Lots of users are moving from Windows and Unix to Linux because it has a very particular value proposition: It fits into some specific areas where users are very task-specific, Web-oriented, and in need of performance stability," says Derik Belair, manager for Corel Linux."
"Some specific areas"? As in.. Linux is only "good for a few things"? Or perhaps, "Linux is a one- or two-trick pony"? I'd like someone to please tell me what Windows has that Linux doesn't (and that you'd actually/want/).
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
I wonder where these people get their figures and estimates from.. Who does their intelligence for them? Do they go around calling people who run Linux and interrogate them? Personally, I'd rather have Windows on an entirely different box, if for no better reason than I'd rather it not corrupt the hard drive that Linux is on.;)
"Corel believes the future of Linux as an independent operating system is in the sub-$500 PC market and the increased range of Web-connected appliances that will be available to consumers in the near future."
Corel.. not as smart as they think. I'm all for cheap computers, but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to/use/ for any significant amount of time. Sure, Linux scales down well.. but do you really want to waste it like that? It could do.. so much more.. Personally I'll be all excited when Debian gains support for all of the planned architectures. An almost unrestricted choice of hardware platform makes me one happy camper.
" "Forty percent of people in the U.S. are not yet in the PC market. The last thing these people want is more complexity. In the long term, Linux makes technology easier to use," says Belair. Since Linux can be pared down to very simple levels with a great degree of stability, it's a very appealing option for people who just want to switch something on and have it work rather than have to deal with operating system complexity."
What..? Point and click is complex? I.. guess.. Then again, I think someone here mentioned the other day some ad that said "Clicking is hard work" in a serious manner.;) Why does Corel seem to think that Linux is the epitome of simplicity? "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
In summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability.. Does this mean that most people would/hate/ to have stability for/everything/, and that Linux is not any good for "general computing purposes"!? I'm pretty sure I can send email, browse the Web, and.. well, what else does the average end-user use their computer for, anyway?;) I guess they think that Joe Public is more addicted to Wincandy's visual attractiveness than a computer that doesn't crash 4-5 times a day.
Personally, I'm not so sure. My mom, once a diehard Windows supporter, has had the oppurtunity to actually use her computer since I moved out a while back. Before she used to blame anything that went wrong with it on me, but since she bought a new computer, the reality has hit her pretty hard. Now she can't wait for Linux to hit the desktop, easy to use and fully functional.. and stable! Windows 98, despite it's attractive look, apparently doesn't hold too much appeal for her anymore.
By the way, since I've never actually used CorelDraw, anyone care to explain to me what you can do with it, and why I would bother with it instead of something like the GIMP? Remember, I've not looked into it in the slightest.:)
The promise of NT 3.1 was that Micro$oft would ship a better Unix than Unix. ($250 for unlimited users....it WAS a threat to Unix.)
The KEY from the article was "This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine,"
Prediction:
Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.
To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)
And because the Linux Standard Bianry movement won't have its act together, the BSD variant, with Micro$oft 'extensions' will become the de-facto Linux compatiblity, only because of the large Windows sales volume.
Remember: Ya read it here 1st on/. News for Nerds, stuff that makes ya really scared.
--
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Comments about UNIX->Windows middleware
by
gblues
·
· Score: 4
Oh boy, Microsoft is going to add Interix to their product line. Yippie. Pardon me if I don't start doing backflips and cartwheels.
I've been down the "run native unix apps in Windows!" road before. The results are not pretty.
The software in question is Cygnus' cygwin32 environment. Now, for what it does, it's actually kind of neat. You get to use bash, run shell scripts, and use the familiar UNIX development environment. You can even use special commandline options to the compiler to produce pure win32 code (read: no cygwin.dll dependencies).
The ugly part is when you try to do debugging. Debugging under cygwin is a nightmare. You don't get a corefile--you get a foo.exe.core file (where foo.exe is whatever program crashed). This core file contains a stack dump in raw hex addresses. You don't get any variables, function names, nada. In other words, it's pretty useless.
Running the program through gdb works, sometimes. Othertimes you get a blank call stack. Or the call stack is mangled beyond recognition.
Meanwhile, take the exact same code, upload it to a UNIX server, compile it, run it, crash it. A quick examination of the core tells you that you're dereferencing a null pointer, you fix the bug, you're done.
Microsoft wants to make Interix a migration tool to get UNIX programs ported quickly to Windows. In reality, it's likely to make developers realize why they don't develop for windows in the first place and go back from whence they came.
Nathan
How To Make Linux Take Over Your Work-World
by
Seth+Finkelstein
·
· Score: 5
Slowly, slowly... The following doesn't work everywhere, but it's a good strategy.
1) Get the camel's nose under the tent. This is the hardest part. Get Linux on your own machine. Either ask, mention it offhand, or just do it with the assurance it's hard to fire a good developer.
2) Be a light unto nations. One day one of your fellow-Dilberts will scream "Gates-ing Windows machine, it crashed on me again!!!". Then smoothly say "Hmm, my machine doesn't crash on me - would you like to try Linux?". Most programmers will try anything new, especially if it comes credibly endorsed as making their life easier. Now if all goes well you have converts.
3) Be aware of geeks bearing gifts. There will come a meeting where a manager will say "Should we get a web site?" or "How can we set up a server to do widget-processing". Volunteer. Implement it on your Linux box. Hopefully, the disciples you made in step 2 above will help. This establishes the beachhead before the wrong solution is foisted on you. Note - it may seem unpleasant to take on tasks, but trust me, you'll enjoy implementing the right-Linux-way in the first place a lot more than debugging the wrong-Microsoft-way later.
At this point, you should be well on your way to having Linux take over the world, or at least your portion of it.
Slashdot Mirror
When my boss started in on how office B down the street did a wonderful job using WinNT for their email and saved money by centralizing print services and having to buy only 1 laser, 1 inkjet, and 1 dotmatrix, I knew what to do (Pay close attention, bunkie).
I refocused the conversation to goals. See paragraph one for reasons. I said I can get everybody for this many hours of my time and this many $ of your budget. Did the same thing with print services and internet browsing access. Added this to my performance review, 1 side of 1 sheet of paper. Notice no mention of any specific software.
Then I went to cheapbytes for a $2 CD, installed it on a box, changed the networking proto on the WinClients to TCP/IP, and the rest, as they say is sweet history.
It took him about a year to figure out that I wasn't using WinNT. I was ready, he's so easy to anticipate. I just pulled out a current price list of NT Server, Exchange Server, the boxen to run it on, the training and education fees, and all the other rubbish, along with a comparison of what I actually spent.
He ran down to the bathroom to clean out his shorts and hasn't said anything since. And I have my weekends.
Just do it.
Interix (previously OpenNT) is a way for developers to ignore proprietary Windows interfaces and continue developing UNIX and POSIX software. They are not fully in the Windows trap because they can easily get out.
Microsoft wants all development to take place using its proprietary interfaces. It's obvious that they bought Interix because they want control. They probably want to exert pressure on Interix users to migrate to real Windoze.
I also predict that Microsoft will maim or kill the project. Whatever the outcome, they have no real incentive to provide a *quality* UNIX layer on NT. They want to be able to tell the customer---look, if you wanna write a real Windoze application that performs and scales, be sensible and use the real thing! Install Visual C++ and start calling Win32!
Now, a historic observation, for what it may be worth: all UNIX emulation layers in the past have bit the dust. Only real kernels have survived. The appearance of an emulation layer has also historically sounded the death knell of the host platform---recall VMS, Apollo Domain/OS, various mainframe platforms...
Maybe it's just too early on Sunday morning for me to understand, but I realy didn't see much analysis in that article. I can sum it up as:
Unix: a 25 year-old overnight sensation.
More and more people like Linux because it's cheap and doesn't crash as much as Windows.
Microsoft is a little bit nervous, but they're nervous about everything. That's why they're so rich.
So Microsoft bought a better Unix compatibility layer than their old one.
There's not that many applications for Linux, but more are coming RSN.
Did I miss anything? That said the same thing as the article, but in four sentences and a title. Whee. Even ZD has done better analysis than that.
Oh and by the way - to the fellow who could run Linux if only his PowerPoint shows would work - I've tried mine with StarOffice 5.1, and they work fine. There's not quite as many transition effects, that's all I could spot easily.
-Josh (maybe I won't be as grumpy after I've had some coffee: Must Get Coffee...)
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I'm talking classroom computers here - not network servers run by information departments (for the record).
:-) WINE is not something we are looking into. If Windows was on the machine, people would complain Linux was on there. No, really. People are very whiny about things. I have a few stories...
At UWO (University of Western Ontario), I administer the computers for use in classrooms. These are computers professors will bring in material and do their presentations on. [aside - we have one class, called "SuperPsych" which has over 1000 students in it every year and we use all sorts of media to present class material - videos, movies, slide shows, etc.]
To cut a long story short, the primary program, without a doubt, is PowerPoint. This is the only reason I can't convince my boss to move to using Linux on the machines. He's sympathetic to Linux, but they *need* to run PowerPoint Presentations without a problem. (not that Windows does that, but hey - whaddya gonna do?
To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate (CompSci profs ask where the mouse plugs in - regardless of the label that says "Mouse"). I can set it up to boot seamlessly, easy to login to, look pretty, find programs quickly and run Emacs (for the CompSci people). The only thing it can't do is run a PowerPoint presentation.
I've got 20+ machines that I have to administer. Can't do it remotely with Windows without it being a big pain in the ass. That really sucks, because more machines are coming and the campus is big == lots of running around. Linux would be a dream to run.
Please get PowerPoint to work on it. Better yet, make a program that can do what PowerPoint does only better and can convert PowerPoint to it's format *extremely* easily. I have time to do such a thing after I graduate (approx. two years).
I think the article missed the point of why people are moving from Microsoft and UNIX to Linux. I think it has more to do with cost and performance.
Linux costs a lot less than any commercial version of UNIX and NT.
Linux offeres many of the same features that most commericial version of UNIX have: sed/awk/perl/NFS and has many of the same commands as a commercial UNIX chmod, ls, etc, as it was designed originally to be a UNIX like system to run on Intel. Linux however costs less. Alot less. If you went out and bought a Solaris for Intel cdrom, for a commercial server you'd have to pay the commercial price which last I heard was around $500 (??). Yes it would give you a system that would be very stable, but it would also be very expensive. Solaris also does not support all the 'Intel' hardware that Linux does.
As far as NT goes, if you needed to get NT Workstation the cost is around $300 a copy. again Linux cost less at $50 a copy (or free).
Each system is about equal in performace. Some are beter in some areas and some in others. One can argue that one system is more stable than another and some can argue about uptimes, and crashes, but the fact is that the more you pay the less you get. A ~$34 dollar SuSE distribution gives you the distro and all the Office tools too, where as Solaris, and NT these office tools are Extra.
You decide for your self, don't let the FUD get you, just make an intelligent decision.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Beilinson also promises that you'll eventually be able to manage your Windows and Unix directories from one terminal, a significant improvement for hard-pressed network administrators.
That's funny, I've been able to manage all of my files from one terminal. I guess I just take that for granted.
All right, rant time: If they're trying to make things easier for "hard-pressed" admins, then why does Microsoft insist on using a GUI? Why aren't there any scripting languages? Don't scripts make things *easier* to manage then repetitive point & clicking? And no, batch files do not count as real scripts.
Similar issues and gripes here at Ryerson...
I just started work in the audio library for the Radio-Televison Arts, Image Arts and Film students. The computers used to handle studio/equipment booking and file transfers between studios are both Win95, as is a spare computer in the room. On my first day of work, I had the pleasure of watching one computer BSOD once and white-box crash once (I knew M$ ported over tons of legacy code from Win3.1, but this is ridiculous...). As well, the damn thing locked up during a large file transfer. It's a good thing I remembered the files to be transferred, because the studio computers are regularly wiped clean of files; the student would have been justifiably angry. Complaints about the systems are legion.
The audio production studios all run NT so the students can use SAW, SAWPlus32, and Cakewalk. Students are warned to save often, because some of these computers die at the slightest sneeze from the user. ZIP drives would be lifesavers for those students who have the equipment and software to do some editing work at home. Not allowed. Why? Windows can't handle the parallel port drives being plugged in and used on the fly - it screws up the entire system.
A 10-terabyte server was brought online this year for the use of third-year students working on projects. It took three years to get this blasted thing working with Windows NT, otherwise I could have used it last year for my first-year projects.
I'd love to port the entire system over to Linux, BSD, or something else that could handle the load. MS Scheduler is one of the better pieces of M$ bloatware I've seen, but it's likely there's a Linux program that can do the same thing. File transfers would be a lot less dicey, and the 10-TB dream server would probably have been up 2 years ago if the audio crew hadn't had to fight NT.
So what's stopping me from bringing the revolution to Ryerson?
1) Windows-only audio software. I don't know about Cakewalk, but I don't know of any audio editing software comparable to the SAW series for Linux. I'm not sure WINE would be an option, since I don't know how it handles programs looking specifically for certain audio drivers. (I might be able to determine this myself soon.)
2) Familiarity with Windows. Quite frankly, there are a lot of computer illiterate people on this planet, people who are comfortable with a happy little Start button and colourful icons that look familiar to them. StarOffice would be a great replacement for Word and PowerPoint, but I find it likely the "I-just-want-to-do-work" people would freak out not knowing how to handle Linux, BSD, X, whatever. I've seen some comments dumping on fvwm95, but it might be exactly what newbies need to become comfortable with Linux. It provides a similar interface while still having the power of Linux. GNOME might also be an option soon; its style reminds me a lot of Win95 (don't hurt me, please:)
There's still the stumbling block of the Windows-only programs though. I don't blame anyone for this lack of software; I don't think Linux was ever considered for uses like this until now. I kinda hope these gaps are closed fast, before I have to console first-years who lose major parts of projects thanks to a BSOD crash.
Windows isn't just an RTA disease; Windows computers are strewn throughout campus. PowerPoint presentations infest classes. Multimedia lecterns were installed a couple years back; the computers, naturally, run NT and PowerPoint. Once again, people are too bloody familiar with Windows, crashes and all; as well, no one considered Linux/BSD/whatever for these purposes until now, just as M$ tries to achieve a final, lasting hammerlock on the computer world. Perhaps someone with far more programming know-how than me can help make Linux a viable option for editing audio, video, and creating presentations (not just showing them:)
Fortunately, the central server for Ryerson is AIX...seems to be an old version, but I haven't seen it go down yet. At least the admins have the sense to use a real operating system for mission-critical stuff; I have to wonder if the Windows infestation is one of those decisions made by higher-ups who listened to M$ marketing.
I eagerly await the day when Ryerson can throw off the shackles of BSODs and lockups once and for all. SAW for Linux, anyone?:)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
It's very interesting that Corel thinks Linux's future is in the sub $500 computer -- it probably reflects how they intend to divide their own attentions between NT and Linux. They are correct in stating that only Linux will scale downwards well, but no evidence is given for the price cutoff. The article also made it sound like Linux is succeeding because of Corel rather than the reverse, or better, succeeding together.
The Interix thing is sure interesting. Either Microsoft is worried about users wanting Unix, or about developers using Unix to develop for NT, or of course, both. Sure sign that Linux and the high end Unices are scaring them a bit.
The idea that Unix is "resurgent" is laughable. Unix has always been with us. What has happened is that the big applications have always been on Unix, especially database applications built around Oracle. And when you really wanted solid performance, you run it on a mainframe from IBM/Hitachi/Amdahl. With all due respects to Unix, it has its own faults and limitations.
/or mainframes.
But then, all of a sudden, we got Windows NT. We were supposed to have a magical Posix layer when Windows NT 3.1 was first introduced. It was supposed to provide an "easy" migration path from Unix to Windows NT. The same Windows NT version that also provided OS/2 1.x support (and that was dropped when NT 4 was introduced).
Well, we've been working with Windows NT since 1992, and here we are seven years later and reality has finally begun to sink in. And that reality is Windows NT can't scale, can't run 24/7 for arbitrarily long lengths of time, and can't provide seamless interoperability. It's stuck on the desktop where Microsoft marketing shoved it down vendor's throats.
Microsoft's attempts over the years to move out into server apps has been checkered at best. The fact that it buys technology such as Interix is a tacit admission its in-house Unix efforts are lame and that companies have learned the hard way not to trust critical distributed systems to Windows NT.
My advice is this: If you want to run an app or system on a Unix-like OS, then run it on Unix. For low-end, non-critical uses evaluate at Windows NT or FreeBSD 3.x. For more critical apps (such as an ISP environment), pay the bucks and use BSDi or Solaris. For truly critical work (a nation-wide system running SAP, for example), then you're looking at very-high-end Unix servers and
I don't know about you, but I won't make the mistake of choosing any OS/hardware platform strictly on politics or emotionalism. I'm going to be damn careful what I choose, because whatever it is, I'll have to live with it for a long time. And sometimes the best choice is the conventionally obvious choice.
I swear these things are more rabid than mosquitoes in the Texas heat. Ugh.. That shall, let the beatings continue!
"In the latest round of developments, Microsoft is increasing support for Unix and Windows NT interoperability while Corel is entering the desktop operating system market with its own release of an application-oriented version of Linux."
Hmm. I just can't wait to run my Unix programs on Window NT! It will cost me more, and I'll lose efficiency as well..? That's sooo cool.
Anyway.. Application-oriented version of Linux? What is that supposed to mean? The only thing they can really do to it is add in some more applications. It's not like they had to write an OS from scratch. I mean, what else would they come out with? A stripped-down version of Linux?
"In contrast to a similar 1997 survey that didn't produce conclusive results about Linux usage, 13 percent of those surveyed now say they use Linux."
Does the media have to force this same quote down my throat with almost every single article? Even Joe Public can repeat these figures ad nauseam by now.
"Linux is seen as a potential competitor to Unix and Windows NT for some server applications, according to Dan Kusnetzky, program director for IDC's Operating Environments and Serverware research programs."
Some? NT just flat out sucks.. Anyone who actually /wants/ to use that thing, well, for anything (much less as a /server/) probably has no clue what Unix is (and if they do, doesn't think it has a GUI.. yes, still). And most Unices use archaic code since they are direct descendants of the original Unix. GNU/Linux has already come a long way, and before long (at the rate it gets developed), most Unices won't seem so damn slick anymore (especially with that price tag.. ooh.. ouch).
"Linux is also making inroads in the desktop market because of the increased availability of Linux applications such as Corel WordPerfect 8, Sun's StarOffice, and a host of new offerings promised for the next year."
Most of this stuff seems aimed toward Joe Public. Is he really buying GNU/Linux like crazy already? Somehow, I just can't see him having a fun time trying to install it, even if it's Red Hat. Maybe others find interest in this stuff, but I'm not particularly excited. Most of what I need is already /in/ GNU/Linux (if it has a shell, a compiler, and a debugger, and all of which /work/, then it is good), and since not many computer companies make GNU/Linux desktops with modems.. Anyone know if Joe Public is actually getting all excited and putting Linux on his desktop..? Otherwise I can't see that comment making much sense, because most people I know of that have Linux are hackers who could care less about WordPerfect..
"A lot of our customers are interested in moving to the Windows platform from mixed environments that include the Unix platform. This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine," says Craig Beilinson, lead product manager for Windows 2000."
Straight from the people who say that Linux /will not run/ on a multi-processor system. You saw it here first.. a liar in action.
" "Lots of users are moving from Windows and Unix to Linux because it has a very particular value proposition: It fits into some specific areas where users are very task-specific, Web-oriented, and in need of performance stability," says Derik Belair, manager for Corel Linux."
"Some specific areas"? As in.. Linux is only "good for a few things"? Or perhaps, "Linux is a one- or two-trick pony"? I'd like someone to please tell me what Windows has that Linux doesn't (and that you'd actually /want/).
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
I wonder where these people get their figures and estimates from.. Who does their intelligence for them? Do they go around calling people who run Linux and interrogate them? Personally, I'd rather have Windows on an entirely different box, if for no better reason than I'd rather it not corrupt the hard drive that Linux is on. ;)
"Corel believes the future of Linux as an independent operating system is in the sub-$500 PC market and the increased range of Web-connected appliances that will be available to consumers in the near future."
Corel.. not as smart as they think. I'm all for cheap computers, but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to /use/ for any significant amount of time. Sure, Linux scales down well.. but do you really want to waste it like that? It could do.. so much more.. Personally I'll be all excited when Debian gains support for all of the planned architectures. An almost unrestricted choice of hardware platform makes me one happy camper.
" "Forty percent of people in the U.S. are not yet in the PC market. The last thing these people want is more complexity. In the long term, Linux makes technology easier to use," says Belair. Since Linux can be pared down to very simple levels with a great degree of stability, it's a very appealing option for people who just want to switch something on and have it work rather than have to deal with operating system complexity."
What..? Point and click is complex? I.. guess.. Then again, I think someone here mentioned the other day some ad that said "Clicking is hard work" in a serious manner. ;) Why does Corel seem to think that Linux is the epitome of simplicity? "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
In summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability.. Does this mean that most people would /hate/ to have stability for /everything/, and that Linux is not any good for "general computing purposes"!? I'm pretty sure I can send email, browse the Web, and.. well, what else does the average end-user use their computer for, anyway? ;) I guess they think that Joe Public is more addicted to Wincandy's visual attractiveness than a computer that doesn't crash 4-5 times a day.
Personally, I'm not so sure. My mom, once a diehard Windows supporter, has had the oppurtunity to actually use her computer since I moved out a while back. Before she used to blame anything that went wrong with it on me, but since she bought a new computer, the reality has hit her pretty hard. Now she can't wait for Linux to hit the desktop, easy to use and fully functional.. and stable! Windows 98, despite it's attractive look, apparently doesn't hold too much appeal for her anymore.
By the way, since I've never actually used CorelDraw, anyone care to explain to me what you can do with it, and why I would bother with it instead of something like the GIMP? Remember, I've not looked into it in the slightest. :)
~ Kish
Remember Windows NT 3.1?
/. News for Nerds, stuff that makes ya really scared.
The promise of NT 3.1 was that Micro$oft would ship a better Unix than Unix. ($250 for unlimited users....it WAS a threat to Unix.)
The KEY from the article was "This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine,"
Prediction:
Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.
To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)
And because the Linux Standard Bianry movement won't have its act together, the BSD variant, with Micro$oft 'extensions' will become the de-facto Linux compatiblity, only because of the large Windows sales volume.
Remember: Ya read it here 1st on
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Oh boy, Microsoft is going to add Interix to their product line. Yippie. Pardon me if I don't start doing backflips and cartwheels.
I've been down the "run native unix apps in Windows!" road before. The results are not pretty.
The software in question is Cygnus' cygwin32 environment. Now, for what it does, it's actually kind of neat. You get to use bash, run shell scripts, and use the familiar UNIX development environment. You can even use special commandline options to the compiler to produce pure win32 code (read: no cygwin.dll dependencies).
The ugly part is when you try to do debugging. Debugging under cygwin is a nightmare. You don't get a corefile--you get a foo.exe.core file (where foo.exe is whatever program crashed). This core file contains a stack dump in raw hex addresses. You don't get any variables, function names, nada. In other words, it's pretty useless.
Running the program through gdb works, sometimes. Othertimes you get a blank call stack. Or the call stack is mangled beyond recognition.
Meanwhile, take the exact same code, upload it to a UNIX server, compile it, run it, crash it. A quick examination of the core tells you that you're dereferencing a null pointer, you fix the bug, you're done.
Microsoft wants to make Interix a migration tool to get UNIX programs ported quickly to Windows. In reality, it's likely to make developers realize why they don't develop for windows in the first place and go back from whence they came.
Nathan
1) Get the camel's nose under the tent. This is the hardest part. Get Linux on your own machine. Either ask, mention it offhand, or just do it with the assurance it's hard to fire a good developer.
2) Be a light unto nations. One day one of your fellow-Dilberts will scream "Gates-ing Windows machine, it crashed on me again!!!". Then smoothly say "Hmm, my machine doesn't crash on me - would you like to try Linux?". Most programmers will try anything new, especially if it comes credibly endorsed as making their life easier. Now if all goes well you have converts.
3) Be aware of geeks bearing gifts. There will come a meeting where a manager will say "Should we get a web site?" or "How can we set up a server to do widget-processing". Volunteer. Implement it on your Linux box. Hopefully, the disciples you made in step 2 above will help. This establishes the beachhead before the wrong solution is foisted on you. Note - it may seem unpleasant to take on tasks, but trust me, you'll enjoy implementing the right-Linux-way in the first place a lot more than debugging the wrong-Microsoft-way later.
At this point, you should be well on your way to having Linux take over the world, or at least your portion of it.
If all else fails, sacrifice a few penguins
-Seth Finkelstein