OK, yes, you're right and my post was somewhat off-topic. I would say, that based on my experiences, Linux/isn't/ ready for the non-technical user yet UNLESS it's set up and locked down by a Linux Friend.
Basically, my entire post can be summarised by saying "Use the right tool for the job". Sorry that I wittered on for so many paras.:)
OK, I'll bite. Charles is right that Linux, even with KDE or Gnome, isn't suitable for SOHO environments where the user doesn't have a 'Linux Friend' handy. And I don't see this changing without us ditching the UNIX underpinnings. If we do that, then Linux isn't Linux anymore. These users aren't interested in learning UNIX. Maybe a SOHO OS will be derived from Linux for precisely these users. Good for them; they'll end up with a more stable platform than Windows is right now.
Now, this doesn't mean that non-technical users can't make use of Linux; it just means that their boxes will have to be set up by a Linux Friend and locked down so they can't break anything. Imagine a KDE/Gnome box with Netscape, Star Office (or KOffice for the more radical amongst you) and a big red button on the desktop that says 'shutdown'. I think/most/ office users would be happy with that, especially once Star Office's import/export filters are perfected.
Finally, for technical users, Linux is probably fine as it is. Usable, reliable and easy enough to set up. If it was any easier, it wouldn't be fun, would it?!:)
I see no reason why the/volunteer/ development community should be/required/ to target the first group I listed and attempt to make Linux easier to use by them. If a corporate wants to sponsor that work; fine, let them. That's what the GPL is all about and the rest of us/might/ get some benefit from it.
To say the Linux and Free Software community doesn't listen to it's "customers" is incorrect. It's gotten where it is by doing precisely that. It's just that Linux's "customers" are technical users for whom Windows and MacOS are inadequate; and also those who need to deploy stable, secure systems for non-technical users in a traditional office environment.
Perhaps Windows (and MacOS) does suit the first group best. Perhaps it will for a long time. But I think the best fit of all would be "none of the above", but some kind of information appliance. Look at what Nokia/Intel are doing with their Linux-based box and Sony appear to be planning for the PlayStation 2 to get an idea what I'm on about here.
Linux isn't for everybody and doesn't need to be in order to "win". This isn't about dominating the market like Microsoft does, and Sun would like to do. This is about making computer systems that don't suck (Thanks ESR).
...because if internal web pages require ActiveX or Java for navigation, most users will leave those features switched on all the time, even when surfing untrusted sites.
If internal sites no longer require mobile code to be executable, then it will be easy (well, easier) to disable those features in the browser permanently with little impact on legitimate use.
Maybe I'm judging too harshly, but hey, I've just been asked to spell 'ls' by one of my users...
Firewall-1 is a tricky product to install securely, so if you aren't completely happy doing it yourself, it's probably best you get someone with plenty of hands-on experience to do it for you. That's why my employer and many others don't generally provide over-the-phone installation support - it causes more problems than it solves.
Secondly, FW-1 doesn't work out your license requirement by any kind of maths. It simply counts all the IP addresses it hears on your non-external interface. Either you were using DHCP with a large pool size (cut it down to what's necessary), you hadn't set external.if properly, or you really do have more than 25 internal hosts.
Thirdly, you won't generally get patches/upgrades unless you pay for maintenance. I'll agree with anyone who says that bug-fix patches should always be gratis! Feature upgrades are another matter...
Marcus Ranum's company, NFR, has a product, which I believe can be convinced to work OK on Linux.
Marcus, BSD-phile that he is though, believes that the Linux kernel's packet capture facilities are not and will not be fast enough (at least compared with BSD), so this is not an Officially Blessed Solution (TM).
These chips were used in many, MANY EIDE controllers between about 1994 and 1997, particularly on 486 and early Pentium boards. (Check using eidete17.zip)
These chips have a multitude of bugs (quote from/usr/src/linux/drivers/block/cmd640.c - "these chips are basically f*cked by design") all of which could cause serious data loss. I even complained to my motherboard manufacturer who asked what video card I had (S3 864) and dismissed my complaint saying that all PC hardware around including that specific chip has serious bugs...
Then there's the UltraSparc bug that causes problems if you run it in 64-bit mode...
I can't say I've stopped worrying, but I don't see there's much that can be done to fix the situation...:(
I'm surprised no-one's picked up on it, but I really wonder if those mis-spellings *are* mis-spellings or merely a clue to be used in the final paragraph...
It looks like a lot of effort has gone into this - I'm not sure the creator would make mistakes like that without a reason...
Research, ISPs and Education - all superb markets for Alpha - they're clued, they generally run Linux already and price/performance isn't as much as an issue as performance alone (Alpha price/performance *ratio* isn't as good as Intel, IMHO - think Irish Guiness vs. Special Brew Lager and you're someway there...)
I suggested that strategy to my former employer, but they didn't follow it, continued to (try to) sell on price/performance and went bust about three months after I left, having sold five machines.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, yes, you're right and my post was somewhat off-topic. I would say, that based on my experiences, Linux /isn't/ ready for the non-technical user yet UNLESS it's set up and locked down by a Linux Friend.
:)
Basically, my entire post can be summarised by saying "Use the right tool for the job". Sorry that I wittered on for so many paras.
OK, I'll bite. Charles is right that Linux, even with KDE or Gnome, isn't suitable for SOHO environments where the user doesn't have a 'Linux Friend' handy. And I don't see this changing without us ditching the UNIX underpinnings. If we do that, then Linux isn't Linux anymore. These users aren't interested in learning UNIX. Maybe a SOHO OS will be derived from Linux for precisely these users. Good for them; they'll end up with a more stable platform than Windows is right now.
/most/ office users would be happy with that, especially once Star Office's import/export filters are perfected.
:)
/volunteer/ development community should be /required/ to target the first group I listed and attempt to make Linux easier to use by them. If a corporate wants to sponsor that work; fine, let them. That's what the GPL is all about and the rest of us /might/ get some benefit from it.
Now, this doesn't mean that non-technical users can't make use of Linux; it just means that their boxes will have to be set up by a Linux Friend and locked down so they can't break anything. Imagine a KDE/Gnome box with Netscape, Star Office (or KOffice for the more radical amongst you) and a big red button on the desktop that says 'shutdown'. I think
Finally, for technical users, Linux is probably fine as it is. Usable, reliable and easy enough to set up. If it was any easier, it wouldn't be fun, would it?!
I see no reason why the
To say the Linux and Free Software community doesn't listen to it's "customers" is incorrect. It's gotten where it is by doing precisely that. It's just that Linux's "customers" are technical users for whom Windows and MacOS are inadequate; and also those who need to deploy stable, secure systems for non-technical users in a traditional office environment.
Perhaps Windows (and MacOS) does suit the first group best. Perhaps it will for a long time. But I think the best fit of all would be "none of the above", but some kind of information appliance. Look at what Nokia/Intel are doing with their Linux-based box and Sony appear to be planning for the PlayStation 2 to get an idea what I'm on about here.
Linux isn't for everybody and doesn't need to be in order to "win". This isn't about dominating the market like Microsoft does, and Sun would like to do. This is about making computer systems that don't suck (Thanks ESR).
There was a review on lwn.net a couple of days ago. They didn't like it much.
Linux Core Kernel Commentary
Linux Kernel Internals
The Linux Kernel Book
Linux IP Stack Commentary
Plus, this book has some kernel stuff in as well...
...because if internal web pages require ActiveX or Java for navigation, most users will leave those features switched on all the time, even when surfing untrusted sites.
If internal sites no longer require mobile code to be executable, then it will be easy (well, easier) to disable those features in the browser permanently with little impact on legitimate use.
Maybe I'm judging too harshly, but hey, I've just been asked to spell 'ls' by one of my users...
Firewall-1 is a tricky product to install securely, so if you aren't completely happy doing it yourself, it's probably best you get someone with plenty of hands-on experience to do it for you. That's why my employer and many others don't generally provide over-the-phone installation support - it causes more problems than it solves.
Secondly, FW-1 doesn't work out your license requirement by any kind of maths. It simply counts all the IP addresses it hears on your non-external interface. Either you were using DHCP with a large pool size (cut it down to what's necessary), you hadn't set external.if properly, or you really do have more than 25 internal hosts.
Thirdly, you won't generally get patches/upgrades unless you pay for maintenance. I'll agree with anyone who says that bug-fix patches should always be gratis! Feature upgrades are another matter...
For quirk one, get a motif license feature, use the motif GUI and be happy.
For quirk two, upgrade to Solaris 2.6 and be happy. (Check with your reseller if you're still
on FW-1 v3.0b as there are some gotchas...)
See http://www.phoneboy.com/fw1/faq/0289.html for information on how to resolve this issue.
Marcus, BSD-phile that he is though, believes that the Linux kernel's packet capture facilities are not and will not be fast enough (at least compared with BSD), so this is not an Officially Blessed Solution (TM).
Good Luck!
These chips have a multitude of bugs (quote from /usr/src/linux/drivers/block/cmd640.c - "these chips are basically f*cked by design") all of which could cause serious data loss. I even complained to my motherboard manufacturer who asked what video card I had (S3 864) and dismissed my complaint saying that all PC hardware around including that specific chip has serious bugs...
Then there's the UltraSparc bug that causes problems if you run it in 64-bit mode...
I can't say I've stopped worrying, but I don't see there's much that can be done to fix the situation... :(
Try www.hoontech.co.kr - .com didn't work for me.
...is doomed.
Betcha Monterey gets dropped in favour of Linux.
Maybe Sequent or SCO carry on alone, but it'll probably not amount to much.
Then you really should have made them change the contract before you signed.
I did.
I'm surprised no-one's picked up on it, but I really wonder if those mis-spellings *are* mis-spellings or merely a clue to be used in the final paragraph...
It looks like a lot of effort has gone into this - I'm not sure the creator would make mistakes like that without a reason...
Take a look at:
:)
Sinus -
http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/ikm/SINUS/firewall/
The TIS Firewall Toolkit -
ftp://ftp.tis.com/pub/firewalls/toolkit/
VCS -
http://www.ktgroup.co.uk/products/inetindex.htm
WatchGuard -
http://www.watchguard.com/
spf -
ftp://ftp.interlinx.bc.ca/pub/spf/
If you're after 'market leading' firewalls, try hassling your sales contact.
...that "Linux would *never* get any sexy apps like voice recognition"? :)
(Never mind that kvoice was already under development.)
Research, ISPs and Education - all superb markets for Alpha - they're clued, they generally run Linux already and price/performance isn't as much as an issue as performance alone (Alpha price/performance *ratio* isn't as good as Intel, IMHO - think Irish Guiness vs. Special Brew Lager and you're someway there...)
I suggested that strategy to my former employer, but they didn't follow it, continued to (try to) sell on price/performance and went bust about three months after I left, having sold five machines.
Shame, 'cos I enjoyed playing with 500MHz Alphas.
At least you can download the contents of the floppies from ftp.replay.com (Netherlands, .com TLD notwithstanding)