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.
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
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