I've used GNU/Linux since early '98, and I haven't posted to USEnet since 1996, sooo.... what good are your figures?
Seriously, most of us have better things to do with our time than chat in newsgroups or IRC (I finally gave up MUDding in 1997, and I still miss it...), like work for a living!
Sheesh. This doesn't even qualify as FUD; your 'logic' is ^severaly^ flawed!
1) Q: Where are the Itanium computers? A: Still vapour.
2) Q: Where are the PPC64 computers? A: Any late-model RS/6000. I have quite a few at work; don't you? *grin*
3) Q: How many people own an S/390? A: A great many large corporations. Duh. What could anyone do with one in their living room! For that matter, how many people owned VAXen when they were new? Again, corporate hardware.
4) Q: And where is a semi-usable UltraSPARC distribution? A: Try SuSE; you'll be glad you did.
I have a number of rs/6000s at work, running AIX currently. It's nice to know that as soon as I don't need AIX (read: as soon as I don't need V4 CATIA or CATIA is ported to GNU(!)) I can run GNU/Linux on those bad boys!
For those of you who haven't used a late model rs/6000, I highly recommend them. Those chips are darned fast!
I solve this problem by refering to the system as 'GNU,' not as 'Linux.' If you have to choose one or the other, GNU makes more sense.
Think about it this way. ~28% of a typical distribution is comprised of FSF software. ~3% is the Linux kernel. Much of the remainder is copylefted, so can easily be called part of the GNU project, even if not officialy so. Linux is useless without GNU, and is completely wrapped up in it; therefore, the system is GNU.
Furthermore, would you call Windows NT 3x 'OS/2' instead of 'NT,' because that's where the kernal came from! *grin*
Regarding your discussion of the origins of Linux... You're way off base. Linus wrote Linux using GNU tools and every part of his 'operating system' was comprised of GNU tools. Compiler, C libraries, shell, editor, etc. etc. What possible good does a kernel do without any way to interface with it?!
Also, the GNU project has been working on HURD for a LONG, LONG time. They ^did^ start work on a kernel, but not first. No one, I mean NO ONE could have started a kernel first if the goal is to write a complete, free system. You obviously know nothing about either OS development, Linux and GNU history, or both. How, exactly, do you write a kernel without a compiler, libraries, and an interface? Stallman started in the right order, and Linus stepped in and wrote a kernel that worked with it. If he didn't want it to be used with GNU he wouldn't have built it on top of GNU!
How is it in the interests of users and developers? Variety is what Unix is ^all^ about! Nearly every major tool exists in multiple versions. You don't have to use them all, but they exist for the people who want to do the same task differently.
Think about the shell. Bourne sucked for interactive use, and CShell was born. CShell sucked for programming (unless you ^wanted^ incompatibility!), and Korn was born. At this point, you have to ask why we needed another shell, right? Korn is now Free Software, and has all of the features Bash has, so why continue to develop Bash? Answer: because Bash is very cool, and deserves to exist. Ditto TCsh, Zsh, etc. If someone is unhappy about the way a particulr shell implements something, they have a choice.
Furthermore, as the article points out, the two environments ^can't^ be merged. KDE uses C++; GNOME uses C. KDE uses Qt; GNOME uses GTK+. Their fundamental architecute, ^AND^ their stated goals are different.
Your argument seems to rest upon the assertion that they are attempting to accomplish the same goal, and this just isn't true. GNOME is not targetting Windows users, and KDE is. Think about it- you're a Windows-slave and you want to try GNU/Linux. Sit down at a GNOME box and figure out how to do something. I've seen it happen over and over- they get utterly lost trying to accomplish simple tasks that they can do in Windows. KDE, conversely, decreases the learning curve dramatically.
This is not to say that GNOME isn't as 'good;' we all know how subjective the term is. I'm just saying that their audience differs. I have used GNOME on a number of systems over the last two years (I even compiled on rs/6000 to make it easier to use for some end-users), but KDE ^is^ more polished and Windows-like.
I've taken KDE 2 and applied SGI themes to it. A little creativity and it can be both Unix-y and still friendly enough for newbies. Besides, according to the developers, KDE targets the Windows/Mac converts, not the hard-core Unix fans.
// slightly off-topic//
On a side note, if you're looking for a Unix-y desktop, try XFce. It mimics the look-and-feel of CDE using the GTK+ toolkit. Very intuitive and fast. I'm using it on Citrix terminals I'm putting together to host Windows applications, using minimal Intel hardware (Pentium 100, 24mb, etc.). So far I've been quite impressed.
Why should I 'forget SuperDisks?' No matter how many mb you cram on a floppy, they're still obsolete. LS120 uses IDE bus and holds 120mb, which means it's faster, holds more data, and is 'non-legacy.' Floppies should have been discarded years ago....
Personally, I hope Applix is opened up, if Vista won't be making any more money off of it. I agree that the market for office apps. on Linux is getting a wee crowded (what lack of applications?!), but ApplixWare was a fine office suite. It'll be a shame to see them go. I've enjoyed their products immensely.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used GNU/Linux since early '98, and I haven't posted to USEnet since 1996, sooo.... what good are your figures?
Seriously, most of us have better things to do with our time than chat in newsgroups or IRC (I finally gave up MUDding in 1997, and I still miss it...), like work for a living!
Sheesh. This doesn't even qualify as FUD; your 'logic' is ^severaly^ flawed!
1) Q: Where are the Itanium computers?
A: Still vapour.
2) Q: Where are the PPC64 computers?
A: Any late-model RS/6000. I have quite a few at work; don't you? *grin*
3) Q: How many people own an S/390?
A: A great many large corporations. Duh. What could anyone do with one in their living room! For that matter, how many people owned VAXen when they were new? Again, corporate hardware.
4) Q: And where is a semi-usable UltraSPARC distribution?
A: Try SuSE; you'll be glad you did.
I have a number of rs/6000s at work, running AIX currently. It's nice to know that as soon as I don't need AIX (read: as soon as I don't need V4 CATIA or CATIA is ported to GNU(!)) I can run GNU/Linux on those bad boys!
For those of you who haven't used a late model rs/6000, I highly recommend them. Those chips are darned fast!
I solve this problem by refering to the system as 'GNU,' not as 'Linux.' If you have to choose one or the other, GNU makes more sense.
Think about it this way. ~28% of a typical distribution is comprised of FSF software. ~3% is the Linux kernel. Much of the remainder is copylefted, so can easily be called part of the GNU project, even if not officialy so. Linux is useless without GNU, and is completely wrapped up in it; therefore, the system is GNU.
Furthermore, would you call Windows NT 3x 'OS/2' instead of 'NT,' because that's where the kernal came from! *grin*
Regarding your discussion of the origins of Linux... You're way off base. Linus wrote Linux using GNU tools and every part of his 'operating system' was comprised of GNU tools. Compiler, C libraries, shell, editor, etc. etc. What possible good does a kernel do without any way to interface with it?!
Also, the GNU project has been working on HURD for a LONG, LONG time. They ^did^ start work on a kernel, but not first. No one, I mean NO ONE could have started a kernel first if the goal is to write a complete, free system. You obviously know nothing about either OS development, Linux and GNU history, or both. How, exactly, do you write a kernel without a compiler, libraries, and an interface? Stallman started in the right order, and Linus stepped in and wrote a kernel that worked with it. If he didn't want it to be used with GNU he wouldn't have built it on top of GNU!
How is it in the interests of users and developers? Variety is what Unix is ^all^ about! Nearly every major tool exists in multiple versions. You don't have to use them all, but they exist for the people who want to do the same task differently.
Think about the shell. Bourne sucked for interactive use, and CShell was born. CShell sucked for programming (unless you ^wanted^ incompatibility!), and Korn was born. At this point, you have to ask why we needed another shell, right? Korn is now Free Software, and has all of the features Bash has, so why continue to develop Bash? Answer: because Bash is very cool, and deserves to exist. Ditto TCsh, Zsh, etc. If someone is unhappy about the way a particulr shell implements something, they have a choice.
Furthermore, as the article points out, the two environments ^can't^ be merged. KDE uses C++; GNOME uses C. KDE uses Qt; GNOME uses GTK+. Their fundamental architecute, ^AND^ their stated goals are different.
Your argument seems to rest upon the assertion that they are attempting to accomplish the same goal, and this just isn't true. GNOME is not targetting Windows users, and KDE is. Think about it- you're a Windows-slave and you want to try GNU/Linux. Sit down at a GNOME box and figure out how to do something. I've seen it happen over and over- they get utterly lost trying to accomplish simple tasks that they can do in Windows. KDE, conversely, decreases the learning curve dramatically.
This is not to say that GNOME isn't as 'good;' we all know how subjective the term is. I'm just saying that their audience differs. I have used GNOME on a number of systems over the last two years (I even compiled on rs/6000 to make it easier to use for some end-users), but KDE ^is^ more polished and Windows-like.
I've taken KDE 2 and applied SGI themes to it. A little creativity and it can be both Unix-y and still friendly enough for newbies. Besides, according to the developers, KDE targets the Windows/Mac converts, not the hard-core Unix fans.
On a side note, if you're looking for a Unix-y desktop, try XFce. It mimics the look-and-feel of CDE using the GTK+ toolkit. Very intuitive and fast. I'm using it on Citrix terminals I'm putting together to host Windows applications, using minimal Intel hardware (Pentium 100, 24mb, etc.). So far I've been quite impressed.
Why should I 'forget SuperDisks?' No matter how many mb you cram on a floppy, they're still obsolete. LS120 uses IDE bus and holds 120mb, which means it's faster, holds more data, and is 'non-legacy.' Floppies should have been discarded years ago....
Applix is not open source, so this has nothing to do with it. Applix is (was?) a commercial Unix product.
First "real" post for me, then, eh?
Personally, I hope Applix is opened up, if Vista won't be making any more money off of it. I agree that the market for office apps. on Linux is getting a wee crowded (what lack of applications?!), but ApplixWare was a fine office suite. It'll be a shame to see them go. I've enjoyed their products immensely.
Last I checked, both Darwin and Be were based on microkernels, too. Don't pick on microkernels; they definitely have their uses.