Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 12:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb (Robert MacGregor)
Re: Linux based software to US government? (Steve)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Edward)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("mr_organic")
Re: Giving up on NT ("mr_organic")
Re: Open Software Reliability (Edward)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Craig Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Edward)
GAWD - Backhanded Compliments?! (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Pjtg0707)
Re: Salary? ("Daniel Kingshott")
Re: Open Software Reliability ("mr_organic")
Re: Disproving the lies. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Question (Codifex Maximus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:12:15 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Now Novell has really scraped the bottom of the barrel. They have thrown in
> the towel and are offering NDS for Linux.
>
> It is like watching two iMac users try to install Quake! Funny as shit and a
> losing proposition at best.
>
>
>
*plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk* *plonk*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux based software to US government?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 Mar 2000 15:25:22 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:55:59 +0100, John wrote:
>Hi there!
>
>We are currently evaluating Linux (RTLinux to be more specific) as the
>operating system for our control software. Part of our products are sold to
>the US government. Does they accept products which are 'equipped' with
>Linux? Is there a place where I can find more info on this?
Ring them up and ask them, how should we know, they're your customers.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:35pm up 12:01, 4 users, load average: 1.23, 1.14, 1.09
------------------------------
From: Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:29:35 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) wrote:
> _Today_, VMS has the following markets:
>
> 90% of worldwide microprocessor production
> Runs 17 of the world's 20 largest stock exchanges (and over 100 worldwide)
> Handles 60% of electronic bank-to-bank transacations
> Runs 30 top telecommunications billing systems worldwide
So basically, you're saying VMS is the big dog in a market where the
hardware is ancient and the problem (finances/stocks/billing) does not
change significantly. That's hardly surprising.
UNIX is big in the engineering/technical/web market -- a place where
newer, faster hardware is needed and the problems (the
web/microchips/rockets/aircraft) are constantly changing.
What it boils down to is what gets the job done, and VMS is amazingly
stable running the same billing program for 20 years straight. But when
it comes to developing new things fast and reliably, UNIX is the way to
go.
Edward
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:37:22 -0600
Oh, that's just _too_ funny! :-D
"W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Itchy wrote:
> >
> > As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save
> > money. We switched from Apple to IBM when Apple's pricing became too
> > much to handle. I recently tried Redhat Linux in the hopes that I
> > could save some money.
> >
> > Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating
> > system and for the life of me can't figure out why in the world
> > anyone in business would want to waste time on this obviously hacked
> > together, half finished program.
> >
> > Maybe some day when it is completed I will try it again but for now,
> > it has been thrown in the garbage can where it belongs. I have a
> > business to run and can't waste time searching the internet looking
> > for ways to accomplish simple tasks.
> >
> > Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of running my programs and as a result
> > running my business. Linux had better wake up, fast.
> >
> > Aimee
>
> OK, on behalf of the Linux developers let me issue an apology and this
> check; here's your money back.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> | |
> | LINUX DEVELOPERS 1029 |
> | 123 Main Street |
> | Helsinki, Finland Date _ 14 March 2000_ |
> | |
> | Pay to the $ ___0.00_ |
> | order of: Aimee |
> | -------------------------------------- |
> | _0_ |
> | Zero and 100 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dollars |
> | --------------------------------------------------- |
> | Bank of Finland |
> | est. 1827 |
> | |
> | memo: full refund signed: Linus T&^%$# |
> | ----------------- ------------------------ |
> |_________________________________________________________________|
>
> Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:28:10 -0600
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-SG2dt1VsfdFC@localhost...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
> > On 11 Mar 2000 23:31:56 GMT,
> > Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
> Vi(m) is high on my list of things to learn. I heard vim has some sort
> of WP-emulation, which would be cool. Emacs just seems too... well,
> _huge_.
IMHO, Emacs is unfairly denigrated as "difficult to learn" due to its size.
To be sure, it has lots and lots of functionality. There are still lots of
Unix folk who fire up Emacs in the morning, live in it all day, and close it
down before they go home. It surfs the web, it reads news, it reads and
sends mail. It slices, dices, and makes julienne fries. But it's still
just an editor; if you go through the built-in tutorial, you can get up to
speed in a couple of hours.
Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
web-surfing and news reading.
The "Emacs vs. vi" thing is one of the ages-old religious debates within the
Unix community. I think it'll probably persist until the heat-death of the
universe.
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
> ========================================================
> "How to make God laugh?"
> "Tell Him your plans."
> (paraphrased from "Foundation's Fear" - Gregory Benford)
> ========================================================
>
>
------------------------------
From: Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:33:37 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) wrote:
> recent report that said something like 25% of potential e-commerce
> transactions due to server problems - this is Unix unreliability
> costing companies billions of dollars. All to blame on Unix.
Did the report give a breakdown of how many of these "server problems"
were UNIX-related and how many were NT-related?
Edward
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 09:27:49 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blithered:
>
> : > It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
>
> : So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
> : boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
> : best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
> : OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
> : running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
> : Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
>
> On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
> Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
> selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
> distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
> does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
$29.95
I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
way since Slackware 1.0.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:29:58 +1000
"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > What children learning software and games are there for your children
> > on Linux?
> >
> > What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
> > Browsing the web?
> >
> > What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
> > your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
>
> Yeah, the guy is "overly biased" probably cuz he doesn't want to
> buy from an organized crime gang, which is all M$ is. Actually
> I have found that the more ignorant a person is, the more they
> think Crimosoft is a cool corporation. That's the way I was
> until I ran Losedoze for a while and went on the Internet and
> found out about how wicked and terrifying this corporation
> really is.
Yep, that paragraph really paints you as a rational and objective
individual.
> Chad, you may be interested to know that that is why a lot of us
> hate M$. We don't hate them cuz they are "too successful." We
> are not fans of excessive government regulation. We don't hate
> them cuz they make lousy products. We don't hate them cuz they
> are a monopoly.
>
> We hate them cuz they are an organized crime gang that, through
> an illegal monopoly, killed a bunch of superior products, set
> computing back 5-10 years, and then rammed their lousy,
> overpriced crap down our throats. Why is that "overly-biased
> and ignorance-founded"?
Uh huh.
Please explain which superior products they killed (and how).
Please explain how they set computing back 5 - 10 years.
Please explain how they rammed anything down your throats.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 09:30:46 -0700
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : When I want to tinker, I do it at home, not at work. Perhaps this is
> > : why none of the linux companies are making money?
> >
> > Maybe linux companies aren't in it for the simply making money. They (and
> > developers) are in it to simply make a better product. So would you
> > rather get stuff from someone who wants to make money or someone who wants
> > to make a better product?
>
> and... you... actually... believe... that???
>
> Oh my god.
>
> ahh... pine... .edu...
>
> kids...
Yet another person who doesn't understand the new marketplace.
Figures.
Even most engineers at Microsoft understand it.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:39:57 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) wrote:
> Unix users are proud of the World Wide Web, but in fact, I would be
> extremely ashamed if my OS choice controlled that (and if it was still as
> unreliable as it is now), and would try to downplay its dominance..
> Please
> point to a Unix SUCCESS, not a failure.
Uhhh... practically every high-tech project with any modicum of
engineering involved uses UNIX. You don't really think high speed
microprocessor design, ultrasonic airliner design, or any other
high-tech endevour is accomplished on Windows or VMS, do you?
Additionally, it's quite possible the internet would be more reliable
than it is today if the backbone of the entire network ran on VMS
instead of UNIX -- but why live in dreamland?
Edward
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: GAWD - Backhanded Compliments?!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:45:08 -0600
Robert MacGregor wrote:
>
> I'm in year 2 with Linux and STILL every little thing I want to do on my
> humble Linux server is a big pain.. And I curse and I whine..
>
> BUT------ Then I find the solution on the Web and fix it.. And then I
> pat myself on the back and reaffirm what a supreme s00per hakker I am :-)
>
> I have to say, as difficult the learning curve has been for me with
> Linux, I've *always* been able to find the solutions. And I usually
> don't have to look very far.
>
> With NT? ha!
>
> [*warm cuddly feelings about Linux and the Linux community inserted
> here*]
Are you musing in public?
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjtg0707)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:43:37 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:53:26 -0500, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello!And no this isnt a "troll", thanks for asking though hehe
>
>What I AM curious about is performance issues..Compared to Linux how
>well does the BSD systems perform? Networking and Running a stable
>server..
>
>Thanks Justin
>
>--
>
The network and server aspects of BSD is better than Linux, IMHO.
BSD is derived from BSD4.4Lite release, and it is very stable.
Alot of developers work in BSD partly because it is BSD code and
partly to get away from the Gnu licensing. Linux's network
code is also derived from BSD, but not as mature.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Kingshott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:48:17 +0100
what does this have to do with linux
"Darren Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NGhz4.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 12 Mar 2000 21:12:09 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>
> > >But then, Texans would consider New York to be a small state. :)
> >
> > Well if one goes on population alone, you could even count NYC as a
> > "small country".
>
> Australia has only a population of a little more than 18 Million people in
> total with 90% on the east coast and most of that in the two largest
cities
> of Sydney and Melbourne, but looking at the size of it would you consider
it
> small ;-)
>
> Going back onto a Linux thread though we're still waiting for formalised
> training and exams for the various Linux Quals to become wide-spread and
> that is hindering Linux rolling out in a major way in Australia.
>
> When that happens more corporates will take Linux more seriously and so
> demand and hence salaries will increase....
>
> I'm actually designing a national roll-out for a client with no Windows in
> it at all as every test we performed on scale failed miserably but Linux
> passed most of them (except the 2 Gig file size limitation :-( )
>
> Darren
>
>
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:51:34 -0600
"Terry Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:03:48 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Actually, more than a claim. UNIX, and subsequently Linux
> >have set unprecedented levels of reliability. Much of this
> >due to the combination of AT&T culture and Open Source culture.
>
> Unix is one of the most notoriously unreliable operating systems
> in the history of computing. Its initial implementations did not
> even run on hardware with memory protection. For the first 20 years
> of its existence it had to be constantly rebooted and its reliability
> was ridiculed compared to the mainframes. Even today, the unreliability
> stands. eBay has lost _b_illions in market capitalization due to bugs
> in Unix. Where I work, our Linux servers need to be constantly rebooted
> because the NFS implementation is so riddled with bugs, and there is
> no way to fix things besides reboot. At least Unix reboots fast - it
> needs to be rebooted so often that it better be.
>
> AT&T culture, and open source culture, aren't engineering entities,
> they are research entities, and are more interested in creating
> research vehicles than products. The products are not engineered to
> be bulletproof or reliable.
>
> _Today_, VMS has the following markets:
>
> 90% of worldwide microprocessor production
> Runs 17 of the world's 20 largest stock exchanges (and over 100 worldwide)
> Handles 60% of electronic bank-to-bank transacations
> Runs 30 top telecommunications billing systems worldwide
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> Source: Wall Street Journal 20-FEB-1999
You're full of s**t, buddy. And if the WSJ said that, so are they.
It might be true that _VAX_ computers are in all these places, but I'd
bet my watch and chain that a significant proportion of them run UNIX,
not VMS.
Most if not all large telcos use UNIX in their infrastructure, and that's
probably the biggest market in the world. As far as IC production goes,
all the large fabs I'm aware of (Intel, AMD, Motorola, TI, and IBM) use
Unix or Mainframe based simulation and production tools. None I know of
are based on VMS. If you're going to insist on this point, give some
examples.
The internet is still primarily a Unix stronghold -- VMS doesn't even
appear on the radar screen.
>
> And so on and so forth. You can throw around all of your trendy,
> teeny-bopper, "open source is the future" nonsense, but that does
> not change what real companies are using in serious installations.
> And it is not open source. Heck, open source can barely keep afloat
> with Microsoft let alone the important things.
>
> >This is the first big myth that needs to be exploded. For the most
> >part, open source software is developed by system administrators
> >for system administrators.
>
> And it is preferable to have software which controls nuclear reactors
> written by sysadmins (as opposed to professional engineers) for what
> reason? These makes Unix more reliable than the more robust operating
> systems, such as VMS, why?
>
> >The original "open source project" was AT&T UNIX. AT&T donated
> >version 6 UNIX, in source code format to these Universities and
> >colleges. Prior to this type of publication it was considered to
> >complex to be reliable.
>
> Other operating systems which are considerably more complex than Unix have
> no problem being ultra-reliable. Why did Unix have so many problems being
> reliable circa Version 6 (when it was EXTREMELY primitive - it didn't
> even support networking and advanced features such as clustering were --
> and still are -- a huge way off)? This is because Unix was an undesigned,
> hack, with poor/no engineering principles. VMS was much more complex in
> 1983 than Unix is today (and perhaps about 10x as feature-ful as Version
> 6), but it had/has no problems being dominantly more reliable than Unix
> is. If the original development of Unix had any serious engineering
> done it would have been reliable, but it wasn't, and that is why it is
> so unreliable today.
>
> >Keep it mind that even today, the average UNIX or Linux based server
> >supports no less than 100 concurrent users. Many support as many as
> >1000 concurrent connections per processor. Even the most trivial bug
> >can become incredibly costly. As a result, the control has become
> >quite sophisticated.
>
> Proof please? Which companies deploy Linux servers which supports
> 1000 concurrent users (i.e. logins, not HTTP requests)?
>
Many Beowulf clusters easily handle loads like this. Los Alamos and
Lawrence
Livermore (I think) both have setups like this. Now "logins" are not actual
users, but parallel processes; however, these loads are *many times* what a
"user" would impose. An Alpha or SPARC-based Linux box could easily handle
this kind of user load.
>
>
> >In 1984, the military tried to get all government programmers to
> >use ADA. Their hope was that the software produced would be so
> >reliable that they could use it to guide nuclear missles from space.
> >
> >Eventually, the military began to see that the open source community
> >was achieving - for a fraction of the cost, what the military had
> >spent nearly $1 trillion over several years to achieve.
>
> Proof please? Please show me documentation that the US military is
> using open source software to guide nuclear missiles from space (and,
> I mean the software running on the missile, or control centers, not
> some print server in the back room of a design center).
>
> >Keep in mind, that UNIX (all that code that get included with the
> >Linux kernel) has been used to control Nuclear Reactors, manage nearly
> >all telecommunications traffic, provide the services of the Web,
> >distributed financial information, and even clear real-time financial
> >transactions such as those conducted on the stock exchanges.
>
> Proof please? Please tell me which Nuclear Reactors, which
> telecomunnications traffic centers, and which stock exchanges run on any
> brand of Unix (and, no, a print server in a back room doesn't count).
>
Bellsouth, U.S. West, and Bell Atlantic all use in-house versions
of SVR4 UNIX to drive things like switches and routers; you can look
it up if you don't believe me. Most telcos in the world probably use
Unix for this kind of stuff.
>
> As for "the services of the Web", yes, Unix does indeed rule that,
> but it is also one of the most UNRELIABLE computer services in the
> history. C.f. "the world wide wait", repeated frustrations with various
> servers (almost all of which run Unix) randomly crashing. Look at the
> recent report that said something like 25% of potential e-commerce
> transactions due to server problems - this is Unix unreliability
> costing companies billions of dollars. All to blame on Unix.
>
> Unix users are proud of the World Wide Web, but in fact, I would be
> extremely ashamed if my OS choice controlled that (and if it was still as
> unreliable as it is now), and would try to downplay its dominance.. Please
> point to a Unix SUCCESS, not a failure.
>
> >As a result, the same code used to manage powerplants, simulate
> >the airfoils of 747s, and control the worlds largest global networks
> >ran transparently on Linux.
>
> Proof please? Please prove that Linux controls any of these applications.
>
> Regards,
>
> Terry Murphy
What a crock of shit. Murphy is probably one of those VMS die-hards who
cannot accept that VMS is as dead as a doornail. Even people who bought
VAXes usually scrubbed VMS and loaded Unix -- of the fifteen or so VAXen
I've worked on in the past few years, only one ran OpenVMS; the rest ran
some kind of Unix variant.
To insist that VMS is in any way, shape, or form a major player in the OS
arena these days is to display an ignorance so fundamental as to be
laughable.
Terry Murphy does not deserve our derision. He should be pitied. He
reminds me of those old ITS hackers who insisted that their OS was superior
to Unix even when no machines were left in the world that would run it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: 15 Mar 2000 16:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:33:00 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>If you had $400 to spend on a computer, why would you use one with
>unreliable, case sensitive software, when you could just get comething
>from eMachines or the like, with Windows 98 and everything installed?
I'm truly impressed that you could write that with a straight face.
Saying "reliable" and "Win98" in the same sentence, while at the same time
implying (but not saying explicitly) that Linux is unreliable in
comparison (with Win98!). You're almost as full of shit as Rex.
You are the master. Thanks for giving me my morning chuckle.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:10:56 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi. My name is Ryan Higgens, a student at Clemson University and I'm
> doing an english argumentative research paper on Linux vs. Windows. I
> have to do an interview for it, so I'm posting this message up here to
> ask all of you Linux enthusiasts (and Linux haters that have found
> their way here) a couple of questions.
>
> What makes Linux a good operating system?
Linux operates the system like an operating system should.
> What are it's advantages and disadvantages/problems?
Linux advantages:
Stability, access to the source code, freedom from the whims of one
corporate entity, and a gigantic community of users who love to help.
Simple install procedures.
Powerful UNIX type command structure.
Linux disadvantages:
Umm... Uh... Hmmm... that is a good question.
Linux requires that you be ready to learn something.
> What are Windows' advantages and disadvantages/problems?
Windows' advantages:
Widespread use and availability of packaged software.
The possibility that Windows *MAY* successfully configure itself to the
point where it *MAY* be usable.
It's easy to reinstall.
Windows' disadvantages:
Being under the explicit control of one corporate entity.
Being a platform with which the user can be forced to upgrade software
on a regular basis even though the old software provided all the
functionality perceived as needed.
You can only imagine what is going on in it's innards.
Programmed incompatibilities with software produced by competitors of
the one corporate entity that owns the operating system.
Being used as a vehicle with which to co-opt the standards processes
towards the goal of perpetuating the financial benefit enjoyed by the
one corporate entity.
Lack of diversity in the interface.
> Why Linux will (or possibly won't) replace Windows, and when?
Linux gives users freedom from being the vassals of the one corporate
entity.
Linux levels the playing field for all competitors be they Hardware or
Software players.
Linux promises Software innovation that rivals the speed of Hardware
innovation - and proceeds without the constraints placed on it by one
corporate entity.
Linux opens many doors for scalable computing such that the hobbyist can
build a supercomputer in his/her basement and delve into the mysteries
that were the former exclusive domain of well funded organizations.
Linux lowers costs on a grand scale when it's cost is factored into the
needs of a large userbase.
There are no hard limits placed on the direction nor the extent to which
Linux development can go.
> What competition between the two has occurred already?
Largely in the server space. Linux is occupying installations that
Microsoft wishes to target with NT.
> What people should switch to Linux now (or who already has)?
Anyone who values a dollar, freedom, peace of mind.
> Anything else you might want to add.
If all you want is to play games and pay regularly for something you
have already paid for... Windows is for you.
However, if you want to be someone who never has to worry if the
computer is going to fail, a power user, programmer or competent
computer scientist/technician then Linux is your OS right now. The
everyday casual user is being accommodated so that if you are the game
player... you are about to have your wishes come true in Linux.
>
> You can answer all, some, or (of course) none of the above questions.
> Any help you want to give is great, and I'll be sure to give you credit
> in my paper. Thank you very much.
>
> Ryan Higgens
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
