Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Rolls Out Latest NC - With Linux
pants95 writes "It looks like Larry and the folks at Oracle are having another go at the world of Network Computers for $199 a pop. This time, they will run Linux and come with Navigator. Is it just me, or does the term `disposable' computer not sit right with you? I still get plenty of use out of a few old 486s!"
AFAIK, most of the problems that cause netscape to crash are due to a bus error.. caused by a problem with netscape calling malloc() in the glibc version.... It was easily fixed for me, I downloaded the libc5 version and have been merrily browsing for months without a crash. This would tend to explain the slackware/netscape "uncrashable team" since it is the only distribution that still puts the libc5 netscape in their dist. The reason, it seems, that the glibc version is under the "unstable" directory in the netscape ftp archive is for this exact reason.
My university currently has a large NT network deployed, all authenticating and file serving off 2 servers (for 10,000 students). It takes upwards of 15 minutes to log in -- the 486s that were hanging around when I started here actually let me get my work done faster (but God do I feel old saying that).
Does this affect student-owned hardware as well? Are students asked/forced to login by default?
Please contact me.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
P.S. He has no email address listed.
Much of this has been because everyone was planning to build StrongARM-based systems where they knew the CPU cost only $25, failing to realize that the only way to get costs down was to have mass production of StrongARM motherboards and other components.
Net result: They hadn't yet generated quantities of product, so price wasn't down to an economical level to allow it to be cheap enough for anyone to even consider.
The sort of model that they need to follow is similar to that of the Nintendo 64/Sony PlayStation game systems; those units are getting sold these days for around $100-$150, and probably are sold at around cost. Several years ago, there was an April Fools Article on Linux on Nintendo 64; I've had a more serious assessment of this for a couple years now.
Down to details...
Way back when, everyone thought that they should be using "cheaper" StrongARM (or perhaps MIPS or PPC) chips that were greatly cheaper than the Intel stuff. The fact that you're left custom-building motherboards was the "kiss of death" to cheapness.
Now that prices of IA-32 chips have fallen through the floor, an Intel Celeron or AMD K6 may be economical enough.
The big deal is to have a compact IA-32 motherboard with integrated video, perhaps sound, and integrated Ethernet, along with some FlashRAM in lieu of a hard drive.
If there's a Taiwanese vendor selling such motherboards for $50 in quantity, add in $40 for CPUs, $15 for a plastic case, $40 for a stick of RAM, and $5 for power supply, and you've got a $150 internal cost.
That only leaves $50 for the costs of pushing the box through retail channels, which seems low. Of course, as with Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation, the real money comes in selling software, and it will certainly be in Ellison's interests to have both service and software offerings for these boxes so as to extract more than $200 from the average user of them...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I hope these is one of the right questions that the GUI researchers you mention are asking. Sometimes they seem to make decisions about what people like wihtout asking them first.
Microsoft does have (smart and worthy) people doing GUI research, but I think many people would argue that this is more of an art than a science. The *nix world now has thousands of people doing practical research by releasing themes to the several existing desktop environments. You can choose how you want your computer to look and act, starting from any of many decent possible points.
People have different preferences and find different things "intuitive," not to mention their practical needs! So there are still "geeks dragging buttons together and calling it a browser," although probably with mandates for finishing dates, corporate aesthetics, etc. And while their result may be an acceptable choice (a lot of people like IE, say), expertise among designers does not equal acceptance or agreement of users. (Think Edsel.)
MS is probably a good fit for some people; sounds like it is for you. Great! I wish I was as happy with my computer
I honestly don't see asking the questions is "a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you"" -- I'm not a developer by any means, but I actually would like those who are developing software (for any OS!) to both pay attention to users and create programs which respect what they want. If the original poster were to do say what features he likes best / dislikes most in the browsers he's used, it might help create a better browser.
I think failing to ask enough people those questions, or expecting users to like software or live with it anyhow is a more arrogant attitude.
And regarding the end-userness of UNIX / Linux
Good question, but it demands a response of "Good enough for what?" X is Good Enough to run high-end graphics programs on workstations. I see comments on improvements to / problems with X all the time here on Slashdot, am unfortunately not savvy enough to understand most of these complaints -- but X has been refined over many years and (like I said, with my midle-to-low-end ATi video card) works charmfully.
That there are fewer cards supported than under Windows is the biggest complaint I can see about X Window (and for many of them, the "lack of support" is not utter, but only of acceleration and other proprietary features). This is changing rapidly, though -- look at the support Linux has gotten from ATi, nVidia, Matrox
True that neither provides this at the moment, but then again, neither does Apple anymore, with the exception of the iMac. Apple's HI is leagues above MS's, but really
If it works for you, it works for you. We all have different needs. I'm not much of a gamer, and I hate the way Outlook and Word seem to crash all the time, not to mention how Word creates documents in inherently non-portable documents by default, has poorly chosen default "fuzzy-logic" settings for grammar-checking, capitalization, bullets, etc.
And as to whether StarOffice or WordPerfect are alternatives for "serious users," what do you mean? For several reasons, I don't agree, but what makes you say it? Some people may prefer the look / feel of WordPerfect to Word (I certainly do), but that aside there are alternatives of all sorts, and think one good clue of a user's seriousness would be his attention to portability and future cost. If I were to use Word for documents I wanted to share, I would be saving them in RTF or as HTML
I've got no real trouble with MS as a company -- selling whatever they want to whoever wants it. Some of my favorite people work there, too. I object to threats and intimidation as poor sportsmanship and in some cases they seem to have broken contracts, reneged on promises, etc. (Ask anyone who bought an Alpha to run WinNT.) but my beef with Microsoft is mostly that they sell products which I find irritating and crash-prone. (I have no sympathy with AOL or Netscape whining that MS included a Web browser that they wrote and didn't want to install the competitors' products. That's not suprizing or immoral. Neither is integrating a Web browser with the OS. I also have no problem with them insisting resellers who want to load their OS. Tough cookies, contractural obligations, etc.)
Cheers,
timothy
(all of this on the assumption that this was not flamebait
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
My university currently has a large NT network deployed, all authenticating and file serving off 2 servers (for 10,000 students). It takes upwards of 15 minutes to log in -- the 486s that were hanging around when I started here actually let me get my work done faster (but God do I feel old saying that).
Anyhow, this NT network doesn't do this (unfortunately, neither does Linux yet). I still have to close my apps before I can log out and start them up again when I log back in. I *like* the idea of just sitting down anyplace and picking up exactly where I left off - the same documents, the same web sites, the same work.
It seems to me that these things are mistargeted. They should be all about seamless desktop computing at an enterprise scale, not a "cheap" computer targeted at people who can't afford a machine. Chances are that if I can scrape together $200, I can afford to do something else (like one of those pimp-myself-to-Prodigy deals). After all, if I'm dropping my hard-earned cash on a computer, why not get one that my kids can play Quake on?
NCs belong in the office. The first business that really seriously starts targeting them as such will make a killing.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Opponents of NCs always point out that before PCs existed everything was done on NCs connected to micros or mainframes, and thus a move towards NCs would be a step backward which is doomed to fail.
/* none of whom read "/.", BTW */ spending more than a couple hundred dollars on something which they will only use to (check e-mail || engage in some e-commerce || do a little research || do some word-processing) is out of the question.
/* Watch the Sun - StarOffice integration */. Plus, it's as simple as turning on the computer and opening the application home-page with (Netscape || Arena || IE). No apps to buy, install, upgrade, etc. Sure doesn't leave much for JoeBloeConsumer to complain about.
I, on the other hand, think that NCs may be the missing link to connect the portion of the population who still does not own a computer with the rest of the world, for two reasons: cost, and ease-of-use.
For alot of people
Server-side apps can easily be written to perform these tasks in an adaquate manner, with more complex apps in the woodworks
I know it doesn't sound like fun to us technical types, but hey, we stopped being the target market for home computer manufacturers some time ago.
fR0993R
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who understand unary, and those who don't.
...they're missing that critical element: usable application software.
Let's face it, the most viable NCs possible right now are stripped-down Linux/*BSD boxes that act as X-Terminals on steriods. The hardware and the base OS/operating environment (think GNOME/KDE) is there and ready-for-prime-time. However, think who the real end user is and what they want: Stupid User Apps.
That's right. These things go on the desktop of secretaries, marketing droids, and PHBs. People who need really-simple-to-use software that allows them to do they're job in a completely non-technical way.
In other words, they need a good Office Suite, a fully-integrated mailer/calendar/meeting planner, a reasonable draw/paint/photo editor, and random small apps that aren't immediately obvious, but nonetheless important (Quicken, anyone?). There are apps in all the above categories available for Linux (StarOffice, Netscape, GIMP, XPaint, etc.), but let's face it, none of them can really be considered ready-for-prime time. In a year or so for several, but not for awhile for many others.
Also, there are all those nice little specialty programs that people need that aren't available yet. I mentioned Quicken. A good D-P program like PageMaker is also a need. As is something like Visio and MS Project. These are things that the target audience uses on a daily basis, and until 1st-rate programs are available for Linux NCs, the NCs are doomed to fail.
A long step in the right direction would be for Oracle to seriously fund the Blackdown Java project (I mean, to the tune of a dozen developers and a $1m or so). Having a seriously good JVM for Linux would really help - it would stimulate the development of Java-based apps, since the ISVs could count on having both the NC and PC markets to sell to.
The concept is sound. If Oracle really wants it to sell, then they need to either (a) create an evnironment that ISVs will willingly plug the needed holes, or (b) fund development of such work themselves. I don't see either happening, though I could be wrong. Until then, NCs will be a curiousity.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
> Opponents of NCs always point out that before PCs existed everything was done on NCs connected to micros or mainframes, and thus a move towards NCs would be a step backward which is doomed to fail.
Yeah. But then again, it was pointed out many years ago while I was at uni that the industry swings back and forth between integrating FPUs on CPUs, between putting networking, sound, graphics (in particular) into the CPU... so just because it's the same as something that's already happened doesn't mean that it's wrong, or "doomed to fail".
I'm not sure where you're getting at with the >$200 restriction though. Unless it's that a lot of folks have already gone out and got far more expensive toys than that to do as little as that with. But something like $200 instead of $1400 is definitely lowering the boundary between the information-haves and info-have-nots, which is probably a good thing.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
One thing I have noticed is that Communicator crashed regularily under Enlightenment 0.15. This was a fairly common event when closing a window when several browser windows were open. I first put this down to Communicator bugs, but when I switched window manager to Blackbox, the crashes were markedly decreased. From suffering a crash roughly three or four times a day, now I'm down to one or two crashes a week.
Communicator is definitely crash prone, but I put this down to the difficulty in maintaining the 'classic' version. In fact, the convoluted nature of the classic code is what prompted the drastic rewrite of Mozilla (and the consequent ignorance about why Mozilla deadlines slipped).
As for Network Computers, they are simply a repackaged version of things like X Terminals - and could even be seen as anextension of the old dumb terminals connected to a mainframe.
Whether we really need dedicated NC's is questionable. A friend who works runs a medium sized PC and network installation asked me just this weekend about how viable stripped down PC's running Linux would be. As recently reported on Slashdot, a UK based financial firm did just this, so now my friend wants to try it as well.
Chris Wareham
Sean:
What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?
Why do you like IE better? What features would you like to be supported in a browser for it to be as good as you find IE? Have you tried any of the other browsers available for Linux, and if so how did you think they stood up either to Netscape or to IE?
What makes Windows more efficient for you? (Desktop style? Inter-application consistency? Does it crash less for you? Better applications available for what you use your computer for?) It would be helpful for developers reading this list to know what users would like to see. [Note: I fall only into the second and not the first group.]
I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment. It's so tight, in fact, that it can't be extended or modified as extensively as Linux or other GPL'd / UNIX-based system
Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon!
In contrast, my own experience is that Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did. [Another disclaimer: I'm supremely non-intuitive with computers in general; if I weren't maybe I wouldn't note that difference.]
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Computing in the future will see many platforms, with multiple OS's running on them. Developers and power users will still buy standalone desktops, while basic home users will get all they need from web-enabled game consoles.
Network computers could be a great thing in many business settings where tens or hundreds of people use identical systems. Maybe the Linux/Netscape/Oracle vision isn't quite right, but the fact is the current model won't work forever.
Microsoft will start bleeding when the cost of ownership starts rising faster than employee productivity. By some measures this has already happened for many people and shops, and will spread. No marketing or FUD will stop that tidal wave, only a radical adjustment on Microsoft's part which leads to a better, more maintainable product.
And isn't that what we all want anyway?
-cwk.
Wouldn't that be a problematic combination, as Linux (Unix) Netscape normally crashes every few mintes ?
I've got a netscape 4.6 session on my home Linux box that has been running for weeks, and it gets daily use. So if you are getting crashes every few minutes you must have something screwed up on your system or something.
You're making the mistake of confusing your own beliefs and priorities with those to whom this technology is targeted.
Do you own all of the equipment you use on a day-to-day basis to do your job? No? Oh, that's right - your company, or University, or ohter sundry organisation does, correct? And guess what - he who pays the piper calls the tunes.
Large organisations need standardisation. Wherever you hear the words "budget", "organisation" and/or "IT Department", it's a natural consequence that control is required of the IT infrastructure within that organisation. Standardisation of Hardware, Software and even configurations of same is the only way in which control can be exercised. Consider the plight of the IT manager who is organisationally responsible for the computing infrastructure, but not for the platforms on which that infrastructure is provided. Think s/he can support that? Think s/he can provide support under those conditions to the 90% of users who don't know computers but have to use them anyway?
Now consider the plight of the IT manager who needs to enable his/her users to communicate both amongst themselves and with the outside world. Communication here includes such things as e-mail, file exchange (think documents, or presentations, or sales data), and probably access to shared information resources (think Web, or Notes, or Exchange, or any one of any number of custom applications). Care to imagine how that can be achieved without standards? Think how many dollars it costs to send someone to a PC to change it's settings away from whatever the User thought looked nice, into something that works. In a 300,000 employee company for example.
Right now, to provide this infrastructure most IT organisations on the planet are forced to build, distribute, support and maintain for themselves a "common platform" made up from off-the-shelf PC software: pick an OS, a productivity suite and a connectivity suite. Even so, you end up with hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of drones^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployees wandering the planet, packing processors, disks, batteries, memory and extremely complex software configurations. All of which can be broken, lost, corrupted or altered. But at least the IT organisation knows what it *should* look like.
IT departments are all over themselves (or at least they should be) for anything which makes this easier. Enter the NC, promising "dumb clients, smart servers". And the servers not only sit in well-maintained, well serviced locations , but they're entirely under the control of the IT organisation.
Of course, it's a new technology, and what's more it's got to fit in and build on what IT departments have already got - can't convince the finance guys to throw out what we've got and start again, can we? Makes us look incompetent. Which is why we see these mutant abortions of solutions like Metaframe, Windows Terminal Server et al. But consider these as stepping stones on the path to a true NC nirvarna. One which can be summarised with the catchphrase "Distributed Computing. Centralised Management".
I've been peripherally involved in an unsuccessful pilot of an NC solution which failed because the technology was too immature, the goals (replace all desktop PCs) too ambitious, the organisation too process bound and politically motivated to adapt to new technology, and because the solution proposed really wasn't easier than giving people desktops - because the investment's already been made in getting that solution working.
All of which means "NC" is a dirty word around here, which is great. Means I can lay hands on hundreds of the things - and they make excellent X Terminals. And X-Terminals are great for running web browsers, or e-mail packages, or as telnet clients to large numbers of unix machines requiring remote administration. Or as displays for network management applications. Even in a highly computer literate organisation!
Are NCs right for everyone? No way. Are they going to replace PCs? No chance. Are they going to result in slimmed-down IT budgets and departments? Nope - they just provide organisations with different (not necessarily "better" or "more efficient") ways of using those resources.
If you're one of the vast majority of computer users on the planet that doesn't actually understand the computer, or even want to, but just wants to write a letter, or send an e-mail, or surf the web, then an NC or NC-like solution may be the best for you. It's like TV ownership - why should you care about how the programs get made? you just want to watch them. Or Telephones - I don't care about echo cancellation, or plesiochronous digital signalling, or time-division multiplexing,I just want to call my Mother in Australia. Why should a user have to care about configuring a network connection, or a printer, or a web browser?
It's not a "freedom" thing, it's not about centralisation of IT. It's about providing higher and higher levels of service, and IT infrastructure in a cheap, controllable way to a large population.
henley
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
"Your response is absurd. On one hand, you criticise a Unix user for requesting clairification on user needs while simultaneously claiming that Microsoft researches this very thing. You unjustifiably flame a Linux Advocate for the same thing you credit Microsoft with doing."
Doing research is quite different from just asking a user what he wants. It is more about anticipating what a user wants. Many unix developers think ok my user wants windows and buttons, start hacking in TCL/TK and are really surprised if the users are unhappy with the result. "What are you whining, you wanted buttons I gave you buttons". This type of developer simply doesn't understand the users real needs. I see a lot of postings like "but hey, we have wordprocessors on linux, or hey, emacs is a great editor". As long as the apps for linux remain on this level, most people will continue to use windows.
"Furthermore, your attitude about 'special purpose GUI experts' is truely the elitist sentiment here. It's also quite ironic considering how much of the early PC software base was made up by users that were also developers"
That was 15 years ago, companies developing at that time have grown up/were bought by another company/gone bankrupt. So linux is about 15 years behind in professional attitude towards software developement (and catching up real fast). 15 years ago there was no alternative, now there is.
"You have no real awareness of what your needs and wants are. You are an incompetent consumer, like some moron who always votes with the party line regardless of the circumstances."
A very cheap statement. It is in line with my earlier statement "shut up you stupid user, I know what's good for you". Quite funny, you are the living proof what I just said.
"What microsoft really does is allow other players to take the risks, create the innovations, market them and then once someone else has established that something is useful and profitable, THEN Microsoft steps in.
You are a big Microsoft proponent. We can see the blinders from here."
I'm not a big MS proponent. I'm a java programmer (SUN's java not j++) and a framemaker user. I do use some MS products and am quite happy with them. Windows 98 is my biggest annoyance right now since it is a bit too unstable, but otherwise I'm fine.
Jilles
It's good and all that Linux is starting to get some notice, but I don't exactly like the direction of this. It seems like Ellison is just trying use the inclusion of a Linux OS as a gimmick to bring some life to his hopeless network computer push. Anyway, in response to the article... I thought it was a worthless briefing which would have benefitted from the actual inclusion of any details.
Firts, maybe it's just the vagueness of this article, but I have a lot of unanswered questions here. How will he be able to price this at $199? Obviously the answer is by cutting down on the components' quality, but I think it would be of great interest to know what actually comes with the computer. It seems that Ellision is purposely trying to be sketchy with the details so that he can pass off his new plan without actually revealling the obvious cuts from the model. Maybe he's assuming that since Linux supports less than top of the line hardware, he can skimp like hell on components to be able to price the computer at an appealing price.
Also I would like to know how Ellison plans to address the current questions about network computing. Namely this issue of data security comes to mind. Obviously the whole mess of data will have to be stored at some central location... and if so how are they going to secure that? How does he intend to insure that users will be able to feel safe about storing all their data away on a remote server? Not to mention the potential damage that could result if one of the main servers crashed, or got cracked, etc. I can see how this would work at an office or school, but on a large scale network computing is nothing more than a pipe dream. It's a lovely sounding idea, as apparently Ellison thinks, but the whole idea is so impractical that even his little Linux marketing gimmick won't help.
Oh well I guess Larry is gonna have to realize the whole futility of the situation someday.
"What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?"
:) But there are other movements in the *nix world as well; Berlin for one."
Wrong question. It is not up to users to tell developers what they want. It is the developers job to figure out what the users want. This is MS in a nutshell. They do market research to figure out what people want, implement it market it and get rich. It's a simple model. They don't let some geeks drag some buttons together and call it a browser, they have researchers specialized in designing GUIs to do that sort of stuff.
This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.
"Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon!
Berlin at this point is an experiment, it is years away from becoming serious competition for windows. apple, etc. XFree 4.0 is an incremental update over XFree 3.0. Sure its much better, but good enough?
"Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did."
Good for you, but users just want to plug their computer in and use it like you do with an Apple. That is the ultimate userexperience (neither windows or linux provides it at this moment).
"I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment."
I like to think of myself as somewhat more critical. I don't like MS as a company but I use their products anyway and not just because I absolutley have to. If I wanted I could install linux both at home and on my work. But I don't. Why? Windows provides all I need. It's the simple truth. From a ordinary user perspective a linux install would probably be a downgrade: flaky browser, decreased software functionality (WP for linux and star office are no alternatives for ms office for serious users), lack of games. I would have a hard time convincing non techies that linux was better for them (remember "I know what's good for you"). They would probably just shrug at the increased stability argument or better performance argument (ask a non techie to descrtibe the interior of their box and cry).
It may seem that I am a big MS proponent. I'm not, I have seriously considered using other stuff then MS stuff. I abandoned office for framemaker for instance. I'm not ready to abandon their OS though nor their browser. IE is probably the best browser for the win32 OS at this moment. Mozilla has a large coolness factor which is why I will try it when it comes but nevertheless I'm sceptical about its succes.
Jilles
Enlightenment began as a rewrite of fvwm, and although they are supposed to no longer share any code, there could be similarities. These similarities (possibly in the way they handle X events) could be the cause of your Netscape crashes under fvwm2 and mine under E. I suggest giving Blackbox a whirl (http://blackbox.alug.org/), and seeing if this solves your problem. If it does, then a bug report to the fvwm2 maintainer is in order.
Just for the record, the Communicator crashes didn't seem to occur under E 0.16, but I have upgraded from Communicator 4.51 to 4.7 since I last ran E 0.15.
Chris Wareham