Also, I thought linux was always considered to be competing with NT in the server space, and not the desktop?
Yes, I thought that was absurd logic also. Because Linux isn't "great" as a Desktop OS, it is not a viable solution anywhere? Come on, the real strength of Linux is in a server. The desktop really doesn't have anything to do with whether Linux "survives", if Linux *does* take over the desktop, it's just another market segment.
I wonder why we don't see reports like this in other markets. For instance, the automobile market. Will we tommorrow see a headline proclaiming "Ford fails again with the release of their new sub-compact car to make a vehicle that will stand up to the demands of hauling 40,000 lb loads across the US." Or how about "Chrysler see Kiss of Death with their new SUV which doesn't provide economic method of travel for weekday commuters." How about food, "Tony's makes a new Pepperoni Pizza which won't appeal to the vegetarian market." Or just about anything.
But I disagree about the Gartner Groups analysis of the desktop market. As if they've ever been right. Anyways, the consumer desktop market is changing. And with that change a new OS is poised to take over the Desktop. If Microsoft isn't ready to embrace the new desktop, then Linux (and others) will take the desktop market handily.
Answer me this then. If WinNT is so secure, then why does it require very expensive virus protection? Or do rogue programs wandering around screwing up your system not count as security holes?
You were asking PC Week, right?
Personally, I would never use an OS where features are specifically added that allow you to do malicious things, and requires more software, not to "prevent" it, but to stop it ASAP after it happens.
NT Security model is the worst that I could ever imagine. At least security holes in Linux and other Unixes rely on bugs that can be fixed without breaking a lot of legitimate stuff
-Brent --
Re:Just my 2 cents, ... Dancing Paper Clip
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 2
How is the "Dancing Paper Clip" any different from Xeyes, Oneko, Xant, Xroach, or any other X toys?
Hehe, that's easy. Xeyes didn't have Millions of Dollars spent in R&D to create it. Er, I mean they weren't developed by Microsoft.
My favorite part is at the end where a 'spokesperson' (no name, of course) for HP says that Linux isn't 'robust' enough yet. If that truly is someone who works for HP, I guess they haven't been to their web page lately.
The article was a little confusing because the journalist was jumping rapidly from one market segment to another. One minute he was talking about low-end servers, the next minute high-end servers, with distinguishing between the thoughts.
The HP spokesperson was not saying that Linux was not viable at all. In that statement Linux was being compared to their HP-UX product. HP-UX is a high end enterprise OS, which doesn't even compare to Linux. Linux supplements HP-UX, it doesn't/shouldn't/will never replace HP-UX.
So Linux isn't robust enough to replace their HP-UX product. However, as you pointed out, they do believe it is robust enough to replace NT. It's all about markets. Linux has been designed to compete in the market that Microsoft has generally focused NT in, not the HP-UX market, or the Solaris market.
I'm glad they were careful to ask Microsoft if Linux was making a dent in NT sales. Glad to see the Linux threat we heard about in the DOJ case has already been vanquished and it's business as usual for the red-blooded innovators of Redmond.
Yes, Microsoft is *so* K-RAD. They are the elite of the marketing powers. A threat which threatened to doom them for eternity can be evaded by just posting an "'X' Myths" page.
I reckon powerpoint is the big missing X. I *still* use MS powerpoint. Everything else linux.
Oh, close, very close. The missing app is the... Dancing Paper Clip. Linux will never make it into the mainstream with that important piece of functionality missing.
Do I want a server to do that? No. A server should have the top of the line, state of the art hardware in it, at all times, if possible. Can Gateway do that?
Please remember that Gateway is going to be reselling these Cobalt Qubes and RaQ's. Gateway won't have control over the hardware. Cobalt will continue the same kind of quality as they had before. Gateway will just provide greater product visibility.
Actually you know EXACTLY what the service pack is installing, if you read what the service pack fixes and updates.
Yes, but I figure if administrators don't want to take the time to read the README with the patch under Linux and check out the RPM, they probably don't bother with the effort of reading the txt file with the service pack under NT.
Clueless as usual, they didn't do the research, but assumed (probably based on the feedback they got) that the *only* way to patch Linux was to use autorpm and that the process went something like this:
# autorpm
Checking current installed packages.... Downloading new packages.... Installing packages.... Done...
Your server is now secure. Please do this at least once a day. Please note that this will *not* run from cron. #
Of course, a few minutes on Red Hat's site would have shown that they could download the patch manually and verify what it did. *Then* they could use autorpm to automate the process of getting the patches on all the servers
So, how does running "setup.exe" to install a service pack provide you with any more ability to see what's being done the the server then PC Week's idea of AutoRPM?
What's with every ZDNet writer thinking they're a pundit lately?
You missed the last page where they have the "PC Week Labs recommends..." chart. The second to last recommendation is "Install all vendor-recommended updates: Assign this task to a specific person within the organization. Allocate budget for it. Also subscribe to hacker magazines such as '2600' and patrol hacker Web sites. Read all CERT advisories."
After saying that a corporation wouldn't want to install patches as they were released, they certainly have a funny recommendation for NT adminstrators. Allocate budget?Subscribe to hacker magazines? All that, and all we asked for was 21 measly patches.
Sorry, PC Week. Get your act together, or step aside. I've got work to do...
The point they miss, though, is that code matures from people looking at it, fixing holes, and changing the packages to be distributed in a default tightly-locked state.
They don't miss this point because it doesn't exist. NT *never* matures. Everytime it gets a chance Microsoft tears it out and replaces it with newer, better code.
We see that though, because our code does mature. We see no need to replace code that works, just because it was written more then a year ago:)
Ah, I can just imagine PC Week debunking the "mature code" claim by saying that because Linux has thousands of developers working on it, the code must be being continually rewriteen and replaced for no need at all;)
They can't make it easier then that, and unlike Microsoft's update site you don't need to click through gobs of advertisements.
You must have missed a paragraph half way done the first page.
This problem is exacerbated by the distributed nature of today's enterprise and the need to test and verify any patch before it is installed on a mission-critical server. The only option for Linux is to use a utility called autorpm, which polls a server for updates and automatically installs them. But no administrators in their right minds would use this sort of utility because they would have no idea what was being installed on their servers.
Now the problem isn't *testing* the patches. They've learned that that won't fly anymore. Now they've done a 180 and decided that you *can't* test the patches. Of course, number 1, the claim that you *have* to use autorpm which doesn't allow find out what you are installing is ludicrous. And 2, when you click on the executable to install an NT service pack, and it's grinding away for 30 minutes, you really don't know what exactly its installing, do you?
I am sorry. I was willing to give PC Week a chance when they announced their project. But it's obvious that not only is it very biased toward who pays the bill, but they'll keep changing their "story" to keep Microsoft looking better.
Kernel patches can be obtained from a verified source such as kernel.org, but most other components have no central infrastructure.
No central infrastructure, as in you *have* to get patches to Microsoft OS's from Microsoft, and you can get patches for Red Hat's product from, none other then, Red Hat!
Of course, you can *also* follow freshmeat.net, or other freely available "portals" to also keep Linux up to date. Then again, NTBugtraq is just as good a resource for keeping up on Microsoft issues as anything.
Microsoft has a "central infrastructure? Yeah right! How many times have you heard of a security problem from Microsoft first? The difference is not the infrastructure, it's that with MS OS's you have to *wait* until Microsoft responses before *you* can do anything about it.
Will this enable microsoft to track everything I do, what effect will this have on my day to day purchases?
Microsoft has NO fear of free software. In their latest monopoly they go one step further. They can now give away (and even pay you to use) Windows 2000 because every purchase you make will line their pockets. Every single purchase adds more $$$$$$$'s to the coffers of Microsoft.
But only if you use Microsoft software. And everyone will.
...Except me. It's Y2K but yet worse. Even as I type this I am buying a shack in the middle of nowhere with no connections to the outside worlds so that I may not be scared by evil.
-Brent --
Re:The Mystery of the Missing Killer App
on
$200 Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
Here's how it's relevant to the PC situation. Back when the average PC cost $2000, a $100 license for the OS was only 5% of the total. So nobody worried too much about the price of the OS.
It's amazing that in Microsoft's Anti-trust trial they *still* tried to argue that the cost of a typcial PC was $2000.
HOWEVER -- for a PC that costs $400, the OS is now the BIGGEST COMPONENT COST. Vendors have a tremendous incentive to try and reduce that cost... and guess what they're all thinking about right now?
The concept of the black box. People buying a "computer" to do a few limited tasks. They don't care one bit what OS it runs as long as the web browser lets them use eBay.
How can Microsoft compete when the OS is no longer important? They can't. I predict that we'll see a lot of marketing by Microsoft saying that the sub-$200's PC's are a "bad thing". (IE, Microsoft will keep computer out of reach of the consumer). Then when they realize they can't stop it they will subsidize the licensing of Windows to "Black Box" OEM's. But hopefully by that time it will be too late. OEM's won't want to give up their freedom to have their product dictated by Microsoft just to accept money from Microsoft.
-Brent --
Re:Performance grading $200 PC for software select
on
$200 Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
Although really cheap PCs are viable, there is one problem: What kind of software will run well on it? It is pretty obvious that bloated software like Win 2000 + Office 2000 + IE 5.0 won't run very well on these systems... but a lot of excellent software will!
It says right in the article. These "PC's" will be running Linux.
It is a misnomer to consider these as "PC's". Because they are not. They will never replace the PC's that are typically imagined when a PC is mentioned. They aren't intended too. They are market to consumers who just want to surf the internet, get e-mail and do word processing.
Maybe there should be a cheap PC labeling system to help people decide what software to get for their new $200 PC.
These devices have no CD-rom. You won't "get" software for them. You'll get them to use the software that comes setup and ready to run.
The people who these devices are marketed to are people who heard they could shop online, or do email, or perhaps some word processing, or typical use like that. Instead of spending $600 on a PC just to get e-mail and surf the internet, they go to Best Buy and buy one of these $200 devices. The salesperson sets them up with an internet account, not unlike is done now, and they go home.
Once they are home they open the box, take out the device. Plug in the power cord, monitor, and telephone cord. Turn it on. When the Wizard comes up type in your name, account name, ISP number and GO!. All the important information which the user wouldn't understand was, of course, filled out on the quick-start card at the retail store. Once they've done that they get the "desktop" with the icon for email, web and word processing, and perhaps a few other standards apps. Turn it off from the menu. Turn it on, it boots right up to the "desktop" and there are their icons again.
And this is the killer app on the desktop for Linux. Linux is extremely user-friendly in this use, much more so then Windows. It has all the apps that the user needs. WordPerfect and Mozilla. And there's no need to worry about running 3rd Party software. OEM's are free to customise however they want, something that Microsoft won't allow with Windows. And it is "their" package. Not Microsoft's.
Ah, yes, the future is bright for Linux in low-cost computing devices.
A good goal is to produce the world's best browser. If you do that, then Microsoft will be "beaten", but better yet, you'll have a good browser.
And don't you think that's what Mozilla's goal is? To make the best browser no matter how much time, or even how much effort it takes. If they were just trying to beat Microsoft, they'd have released something decent as fast as possible. But they are not. They are putting in the effort and time required to develop a great browser.
So that's what people are complaining about. That Mozilla isn't about beating Microsoft. Give it the time it takes, because when it's finished, then it'll be good. Don't rush it. There's no need, because we aren't in a race. When it's finished, it's finished.
Oh, so they're letting the media drive the development of the product? There is no use arguing about it now, but I think the alternative method would have shown much more clearly how the open source development process actually works.
Perhaps they haven't chosen their specific development decisions based on how the media responds, but they certainly could have done a lot worse. In this day, where Microsoft has such a control over the media, we must accept that the media is part of the battle. If we just give them wide open holes to shoot through, then they will destroy us.
There are relatively few projects that leap, fully grown from the thigh of Zeus, fully formed like Athena.
Nope, as the Mozilla project clearly shows. But let's not say that it's finished before it's really finished.
Even if this forced the development cycle to be even longer at least we (the users and maybe some developers) would have something to wrap our hands around. Instead of having something that is 100% funcational with 10% of the desired features, then 20%, then 30%, etc.. we've had something that implements 100% of the functionality we desire, but only work 10% of the time, then 20%, then 30%...
Er, yes. That would have had more people really using Mozilla along side or their regular browser earlier. But can you imagine the press coverage then? It would have been no better, and probably *much* worse. Instead of having an article stating the demise of Mozilla, they'd really shoot barbs. "Mozilla released with only 10% of the functionality of IE. Open Source is a failure, because you can't develop all the features. Mozilla doesn't render complex pages. The browsers wars are over. IE supports dozens of more standards then Mozilla. Mozilla is a step backward. The latest failure of the Mozilla Project..." You get the picture.
I'm sure its just that I have a different development methodology than the Mozilla leaders, which is fine, its just annoying, that's all.
Yes, and it's not really that bad either. But with the bias in the press the way it is, I think that releasing a fully-functional browser suite is the least condemning.
Do you think Netscape 5.0 would have taken as long as Mozilla if the project had remained closed source?
There are really 2 answers to this question.
One is no, *if* they had used the old codebase. But in that case we'd probably have something like 4.7 now labelled as 5 but had a few more incomplete web standards. However, that would have hardly been a solution that would have been able to compete with MS on the Windows platform, and wouldn't have nearly had the external functionality that the current product does.
If they'd started over in a closed source development cycle and planned on ending up with what they do now, I have absolutely no doubt it would have taken longer. Even if they didn't have other developers working on it, having thousands of people doing QA has certainly sped up development by finding bugs that would have taken a lot longer to find with a limited QA.
Has the open source paradigm slowed it down?
No, see above. Even if they benefitted from nothing else, finding bugs is a major hurdle in software development. The only drawback is that the development cycle is exposed to people who don't really understand what software development cycles are like. The Mozilla development cycle is really quite impressive. The major difference between the Mozilla development time and the IE development time probably amounts to no more then one you can see, and one you can't.
If time to market were important for this project, Mozilla would be dead already.
Yes.
Okay not really. Microsoft released most of their products after competing products had a strong foothold in their respective markets, and Microsoft has always been able to overcome that. There's no special powers that Microsoft has (Except perhaps some anti-trust power) that allows Microsoft to compete better then anyone else. If Microsoft can do it anyone can. In fact, Netscape was in the position with the browser marketshare that Microsoft is in now. And it could change again in a year.
But as was mentioned in other places we can't compete against Microsoft. We aren't just here to destroy Microsoft (although that'd be a nice side-effect). We need to give users what they want in a manner that drives them more then Microsoft does. And that is what secures the future. If we don't have that now, that not as important as never having it. The battle will wait until we are ready to fight. A lousy weapon now, will lose the battle, but a strong weapon later will win.
Fortunately there is no significant lock-in that prevents users from switching browsers if something better comes along.
Exactly. Browsers are built on none-vendor specific architectures. This isn't like Office 97 we are competing against. If you are using IE because it's the only thing that will (ever) work, then you are using the tool wrong.
That's the only reason I gave up on Netscape and started using IE. When Mozilla is done, I'll be able to dump IE and use Mozilla with no consequence. Then I'll be thanking Microsoft for providing the browser I needed to bridge the gap between when Netscape was a good browser, to when Mozilla is a good browser.:)
When Mozilla says they are not going to release until its finished it's accepted as fact,
Did you read the article? The guy was basically saying that the development was a failure because Mozilla wasn't churned out in 2 months. That hardly seems accepting, and less as fact.
On the other hand, he probably has absolutely no second thoughts of waiting and waiting and waiting for Microsoft to release Windows 2000 after they delay it and delay it. So whos the hypocrite?
Maybe Janus (the two faced god) would be a good logo for some of the Linux zealots around here.
I personally don't care whether MS releases W2K or not. I'll never use it. I don't see how you could accuse be of being a hypocrite for pointing out that people have unreasonable expectations of *only* projects that aren't Microsoft controlled. As if Microsoft is the only entity who could ever release good software.
Exactly. And that means that you don't release crappy source code fast just to have something. It means you release your product when it is absolutely solid.
Some media guys has seen that Mozilla is behind schedule -- and started a feeding frenzy.
I heard of another major project behind schedule. Oh, umm, memory eludes me for the minute........... Oh, yes, Windows 2000, that'd be. Windows 2000 is a whole lot further behind any possible schedule that you could find, yet I don't see any journalists promising its demise.
The media just cannot understand that unlike a "normal" development process, Mozilla is being developed to be stable, robust, standards compliant browser. They are not going to release it until it's finished.
What company releases software before its finished..... Oh, that'd be Microsoft again.
No bias, eh? A project that is behind because they are doing what's best is sure to fail. A project that is behind because of... well you decide... wil be the OS to replace all OS's.
I've got an even better idea. Why don't they hire some damn developers and get the thing out the door? I would willingly pay for a decent browser for Linux and I bet tons of other people would too...
They have hired some developers. If you check bugzilla, there's something in common with most of the people that are assigned bugs. They have e-mail addresses with the @netscape.com domain. IE, Netscape (AOL) employees.
I need to rant a bit. You just can't please everyone. Some people say that Netscape has too many people working on the Mozilla project. The other people say that Netscape doesn't have enough. Netscape has what they have, and the project is going smoothly. And what's more, they've been choosing strong software models over fast development cycles. The next browser will kill IE. And that's all there is too it.
But the thing I really hate is the concept that consumers/non-programmers have that software development is rather quick. I mean, how many of you have had the experience of letting marketing know of a new product coming up so they could prepare for it. 3 weeks later they come back and ask when the product will be done, not understanding the development is a major process and takes time. They just expect it too be whipped out in no time flat. Oh, and bug free too. And they don't realize that you've spent 6 months on it already, just to get it to the point it is.
People usually don't see development time. The Mozilla Project is an eye-opener for most people because they have no idea how the development cycle works. Mozilla isn't being developed any slower then anything else, but people don't see anything else to compare it to. MS announces IE in beta and then releases it 3 months later. They don't realize that MS has spent much time on it before the beta to get it to that point.
Think of Windows 2000. That's been in development for a long time. But we don't hear the same conclusions about that? Why not? I'm not going to get into any pro/anti-Microsoft reasons here, but for one thing, the closed development cycle is hidden. Therefore it's not percieved the effort put into it. It's the same for any industry. The cars that a manufacturer releases this year weren't developed and prepared for manufacturing in 3 weeks. It takes years. For anything.
No, the battle isn't over. In fact, it hasn't even begun. When Netscape releases their Mozilla-based browser, then we'll see the real battle. And Mozilla has been developed, not to just ship crap out faster then MS, but to ship a product that beats IE hands-down. And it doesn't matter how long it takes Mozilla to achieve that, that's the only thing that counts right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I thought that was absurd logic also. Because Linux isn't "great" as a Desktop OS, it is not a viable solution anywhere? Come on, the real strength of Linux is in a server. The desktop really doesn't have anything to do with whether Linux "survives", if Linux *does* take over the desktop, it's just another market segment.
I wonder why we don't see reports like this in other markets. For instance, the automobile market. Will we tommorrow see a headline proclaiming "Ford fails again with the release of their new sub-compact car to make a vehicle that will stand up to the demands of hauling 40,000 lb loads across the US." Or how about "Chrysler see Kiss of Death with their new SUV which doesn't provide economic method of travel for weekday commuters." How about food, "Tony's makes a new Pepperoni Pizza which won't appeal to the vegetarian market." Or just about anything.
But I disagree about the Gartner Groups analysis of the desktop market. As if they've ever been right. Anyways, the consumer desktop market is changing. And with that change a new OS is poised to take over the Desktop. If Microsoft isn't ready to embrace the new desktop, then Linux (and others) will take the desktop market handily.
-Brent--
You were asking PC Week, right?
Personally, I would never use an OS where features are specifically added that allow you to do malicious things, and requires more software, not to "prevent" it, but to stop it ASAP after it happens.
NT Security model is the worst that I could ever imagine. At least security holes in Linux and other Unixes rely on bugs that can be fixed without breaking a lot of legitimate stuff
-Brent--
Hehe, that's easy. Xeyes didn't have Millions of Dollars spent in R&D to create it. Er, I mean they weren't developed by Microsoft.
-Brent--
The article was a little confusing because the journalist was jumping rapidly from one market segment to another. One minute he was talking about low-end servers, the next minute high-end servers, with distinguishing between the thoughts.
The HP spokesperson was not saying that Linux was not viable at all. In that statement Linux was being compared to their HP-UX product. HP-UX is a high end enterprise OS, which doesn't even compare to Linux. Linux supplements HP-UX, it doesn't/shouldn't/will never replace HP-UX.
So Linux isn't robust enough to replace their HP-UX product. However, as you pointed out, they do believe it is robust enough to replace NT. It's all about markets. Linux has been designed to compete in the market that Microsoft has generally focused NT in, not the HP-UX market, or the Solaris market.
-Brent--
Yes, Microsoft is *so* K-RAD. They are the elite of the marketing powers. A threat which threatened to doom them for eternity can be evaded by just posting an "'X' Myths" page.
What'll we see next? ;)
-Brent--
Oh, close, very close. The missing app is the ... Dancing Paper Clip. Linux will never make it into the mainstream with that important piece of functionality missing.
-Brent--
Yes, somewhat faster then a modem but still a ton slower then a 10baseT network.
Does anyone know if the Dreamcast even supports null-modem connections?
-Brent--
Please remember that Gateway is going to be reselling these Cobalt Qubes and RaQ's. Gateway won't have control over the hardware. Cobalt will continue the same kind of quality as they had before. Gateway will just provide greater product visibility.
-Brent--
Yes, but I figure if administrators don't want to take the time to read the README with the patch under Linux and check out the RPM, they probably don't bother with the effort of reading the txt file with the service pack under NT.
-Brent--
Clueless as usual, they didn't do the research, but assumed (probably based on the feedback they got) that the *only* way to patch Linux was to use autorpm and that the process went something like this:
Checking current installed packages....
Downloading new packages....
Installing packages....
Done...
Your server is now secure.
Please do this at least once a day.
Please note that this will *not* run from cron.
#
Of course, a few minutes on Red Hat's site would have shown that they could download the patch manually and verify what it did. *Then* they could use autorpm to automate the process of getting the patches on all the servers
So, how does running "setup.exe" to install a service pack provide you with any more ability to see what's being done the the server then PC Week's idea of AutoRPM?
-Brent--
You missed the last page where they have the "PC Week Labs recommends ..." chart. The second to last recommendation is "Install all vendor-recommended updates: Assign this task to a specific person within the organization. Allocate budget for it. Also subscribe to hacker magazines such as '2600' and patrol hacker Web sites. Read all CERT advisories."
After saying that a corporation wouldn't want to install patches as they were released, they certainly have a funny recommendation for NT adminstrators. Allocate budget? Subscribe to hacker magazines? All that, and all we asked for was 21 measly patches.
Sorry, PC Week. Get your act together, or step aside. I've got work to do...
-Brent--
They don't miss this point because it doesn't exist. NT *never* matures. Everytime it gets a chance Microsoft tears it out and replaces it with newer, better code.
We see that though, because our code does mature. We see no need to replace code that works, just because it was written more then a year ago :)
Ah, I can just imagine PC Week debunking the "mature code" claim by saying that because Linux has thousands of developers working on it, the code must be being continually rewriteen and replaced for no need at all ;)
-Brent--
You must have missed a paragraph half way done the first page.
Now the problem isn't *testing* the patches. They've learned that that won't fly anymore. Now they've done a 180 and decided that you *can't* test the patches. Of course, number 1, the claim that you *have* to use autorpm which doesn't allow find out what you are installing is ludicrous. And 2, when you click on the executable to install an NT service pack, and it's grinding away for 30 minutes, you really don't know what exactly its installing, do you?I am sorry. I was willing to give PC Week a chance when they announced their project. But it's obvious that not only is it very biased toward who pays the bill, but they'll keep changing their "story" to keep Microsoft looking better.
-Brent--
No central infrastructure, as in you *have* to get patches to Microsoft OS's from Microsoft, and you can get patches for Red Hat's product from, none other then, Red Hat!
Of course, you can *also* follow freshmeat.net, or other freely available "portals" to also keep Linux up to date. Then again, NTBugtraq is just as good a resource for keeping up on Microsoft issues as anything.
Microsoft has a "central infrastructure? Yeah right! How many times have you heard of a security problem from Microsoft first? The difference is not the infrastructure, it's that with MS OS's you have to *wait* until Microsoft responses before *you* can do anything about it.
-Brent--
Microsoft has NO fear of free software. In their latest monopoly they go one step further. They can now give away (and even pay you to use) Windows 2000 because every purchase you make will line their pockets. Every single purchase adds more $$$$$$$'s to the coffers of Microsoft.
But only if you use Microsoft software. And everyone will.
...Except me. It's Y2K but yet worse. Even as I type this I am buying a shack in the middle of nowhere with no connections to the outside worlds so that I may not be scared by evil.
-Brent--
It's amazing that in Microsoft's Anti-trust trial they *still* tried to argue that the cost of a typcial PC was $2000.
HOWEVER -- for a PC that costs $400, the OS is now the BIGGEST COMPONENT COST. Vendors have a tremendous incentive to try and reduce that costThe concept of the black box. People buying a "computer" to do a few limited tasks. They don't care one bit what OS it runs as long as the web browser lets them use eBay.
How can Microsoft compete when the OS is no longer important? They can't. I predict that we'll see a lot of marketing by Microsoft saying that the sub-$200's PC's are a "bad thing". (IE, Microsoft will keep computer out of reach of the consumer). Then when they realize they can't stop it they will subsidize the licensing of Windows to "Black Box" OEM's. But hopefully by that time it will be too late. OEM's won't want to give up their freedom to have their product dictated by Microsoft just to accept money from Microsoft.
-Brent--
It says right in the article. These "PC's" will be running Linux.
It is a misnomer to consider these as "PC's". Because they are not. They will never replace the PC's that are typically imagined when a PC is mentioned. They aren't intended too. They are market to consumers who just want to surf the internet, get e-mail and do word processing.
Maybe there should be a cheap PC labeling system to help people decide what software to get for their new $200 PC.These devices have no CD-rom. You won't "get" software for them. You'll get them to use the software that comes setup and ready to run.
The people who these devices are marketed to are people who heard they could shop online, or do email, or perhaps some word processing, or typical use like that. Instead of spending $600 on a PC just to get e-mail and surf the internet, they go to Best Buy and buy one of these $200 devices. The salesperson sets them up with an internet account, not unlike is done now, and they go home.
Once they are home they open the box, take out the device. Plug in the power cord, monitor, and telephone cord. Turn it on. When the Wizard comes up type in your name, account name, ISP number and GO!. All the important information which the user wouldn't understand was, of course, filled out on the quick-start card at the retail store. Once they've done that they get the "desktop" with the icon for email, web and word processing, and perhaps a few other standards apps. Turn it off from the menu. Turn it on, it boots right up to the "desktop" and there are their icons again.
And this is the killer app on the desktop for Linux. Linux is extremely user-friendly in this use, much more so then Windows. It has all the apps that the user needs. WordPerfect and Mozilla. And there's no need to worry about running 3rd Party software. OEM's are free to customise however they want, something that Microsoft won't allow with Windows. And it is "their" package. Not Microsoft's.
Ah, yes, the future is bright for Linux in low-cost computing devices.
-Brent--
And don't you think that's what Mozilla's goal is? To make the best browser no matter how much time, or even how much effort it takes. If they were just trying to beat Microsoft, they'd have released something decent as fast as possible. But they are not. They are putting in the effort and time required to develop a great browser.
So that's what people are complaining about. That Mozilla isn't about beating Microsoft. Give it the time it takes, because when it's finished, then it'll be good. Don't rush it. There's no need, because we aren't in a race. When it's finished, it's finished.
-Brent--
Perhaps they haven't chosen their specific development decisions based on how the media responds, but they certainly could have done a lot worse. In this day, where Microsoft has such a control over the media, we must accept that the media is part of the battle. If we just give them wide open holes to shoot through, then they will destroy us.
There are relatively few projects that leap, fully grown from the thigh of Zeus, fully formed like Athena.Nope, as the Mozilla project clearly shows. But let's not say that it's finished before it's really finished.
-Brent--
Er, yes. That would have had more people really using Mozilla along side or their regular browser earlier. But can you imagine the press coverage then? It would have been no better, and probably *much* worse. Instead of having an article stating the demise of Mozilla, they'd really shoot barbs. "Mozilla released with only 10% of the functionality of IE. Open Source is a failure, because you can't develop all the features. Mozilla doesn't render complex pages. The browsers wars are over. IE supports dozens of more standards then Mozilla. Mozilla is a step backward. The latest failure of the Mozilla Project..." You get the picture.
I'm sure its just that I have a different development methodology than the Mozilla leaders, which is fine, its just annoying, that's all.Yes, and it's not really that bad either. But with the bias in the press the way it is, I think that releasing a fully-functional browser suite is the least condemning.
-Brent--
There are really 2 answers to this question.
One is no, *if* they had used the old codebase. But in that case we'd probably have something like 4.7 now labelled as 5 but had a few more incomplete web standards. However, that would have hardly been a solution that would have been able to compete with MS on the Windows platform, and wouldn't have nearly had the external functionality that the current product does.
If they'd started over in a closed source development cycle and planned on ending up with what they do now, I have absolutely no doubt it would have taken longer. Even if they didn't have other developers working on it, having thousands of people doing QA has certainly sped up development by finding bugs that would have taken a lot longer to find with a limited QA.
Has the open source paradigm slowed it down?No, see above. Even if they benefitted from nothing else, finding bugs is a major hurdle in software development. The only drawback is that the development cycle is exposed to people who don't really understand what software development cycles are like. The Mozilla development cycle is really quite impressive. The major difference between the Mozilla development time and the IE development time probably amounts to no more then one you can see, and one you can't.
If time to market were important for this project, Mozilla would be dead already.Yes.
Okay not really. Microsoft released most of their products after competing products had a strong foothold in their respective markets, and Microsoft has always been able to overcome that. There's no special powers that Microsoft has (Except perhaps some anti-trust power) that allows Microsoft to compete better then anyone else. If Microsoft can do it anyone can. In fact, Netscape was in the position with the browser marketshare that Microsoft is in now. And it could change again in a year.
But as was mentioned in other places we can't compete against Microsoft. We aren't just here to destroy Microsoft (although that'd be a nice side-effect). We need to give users what they want in a manner that drives them more then Microsoft does. And that is what secures the future. If we don't have that now, that not as important as never having it. The battle will wait until we are ready to fight. A lousy weapon now, will lose the battle, but a strong weapon later will win.
Fortunately there is no significant lock-in that prevents users from switching browsers if something better comes along.Exactly. Browsers are built on none-vendor specific architectures. This isn't like Office 97 we are competing against. If you are using IE because it's the only thing that will (ever) work, then you are using the tool wrong.
That's the only reason I gave up on Netscape and started using IE. When Mozilla is done, I'll be able to dump IE and use Mozilla with no consequence. Then I'll be thanking Microsoft for providing the browser I needed to bridge the gap between when Netscape was a good browser, to when Mozilla is a good browser. :)
-Brent--
Did you read the article? The guy was basically saying that the development was a failure because Mozilla wasn't churned out in 2 months. That hardly seems accepting, and less as fact.
On the other hand, he probably has absolutely no second thoughts of waiting and waiting and waiting for Microsoft to release Windows 2000 after they delay it and delay it. So whos the hypocrite?
Maybe Janus (the two faced god) would be a good logo for some of the Linux zealots around here.I personally don't care whether MS releases W2K or not. I'll never use it. I don't see how you could accuse be of being a hypocrite for pointing out that people have unreasonable expectations of *only* projects that aren't Microsoft controlled. As if Microsoft is the only entity who could ever release good software.
-Brent--
Exactly. And that means that you don't release crappy source code fast just to have something. It means you release your product when it is absolutely solid.
-Brent--
I heard of another major project behind schedule. Oh, umm, memory eludes me for the minute. .......... Oh, yes, Windows 2000, that'd be. Windows 2000 is a whole lot further behind any possible schedule that you could find, yet I don't see any journalists promising its demise.
The media just cannot understand that unlike a "normal" development process, Mozilla is being developed to be stable, robust, standards compliant browser. They are not going to release it until it's finished.What company releases software before its finished. .... Oh, that'd be Microsoft again.
No bias, eh? A project that is behind because they are doing what's best is sure to fail. A project that is behind because of ... well you decide ... wil be the OS to replace all OS's.
Well, whatever....
-Brent--
They have hired some developers. If you check bugzilla, there's something in common with most of the people that are assigned bugs. They have e-mail addresses with the @netscape.com domain. IE, Netscape (AOL) employees.
I need to rant a bit. You just can't please everyone. Some people say that Netscape has too many people working on the Mozilla project. The other people say that Netscape doesn't have enough. Netscape has what they have, and the project is going smoothly. And what's more, they've been choosing strong software models over fast development cycles. The next browser will kill IE. And that's all there is too it.
But the thing I really hate is the concept that consumers/non-programmers have that software development is rather quick. I mean, how many of you have had the experience of letting marketing know of a new product coming up so they could prepare for it. 3 weeks later they come back and ask when the product will be done, not understanding the development is a major process and takes time. They just expect it too be whipped out in no time flat. Oh, and bug free too. And they don't realize that you've spent 6 months on it already, just to get it to the point it is.
People usually don't see development time. The Mozilla Project is an eye-opener for most people because they have no idea how the development cycle works. Mozilla isn't being developed any slower then anything else, but people don't see anything else to compare it to. MS announces IE in beta and then releases it 3 months later. They don't realize that MS has spent much time on it before the beta to get it to that point.
Think of Windows 2000. That's been in development for a long time. But we don't hear the same conclusions about that? Why not? I'm not going to get into any pro/anti-Microsoft reasons here, but for one thing, the closed development cycle is hidden. Therefore it's not percieved the effort put into it. It's the same for any industry. The cars that a manufacturer releases this year weren't developed and prepared for manufacturing in 3 weeks. It takes years. For anything.
No, the battle isn't over. In fact, it hasn't even begun. When Netscape releases their Mozilla-based browser, then we'll see the real battle. And Mozilla has been developed, not to just ship crap out faster then MS, but to ship a product that beats IE hands-down. And it doesn't matter how long it takes Mozilla to achieve that, that's the only thing that counts right now.
-Brent--