Linux-Advocacy Digest #764, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 02:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A frightening trend - go get a cofee, it's a long one :) (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Alan Burns)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Terry Porter)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Paul D. Smith)
Re: WARNING! DO NOT USE WORD! (was: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes) (Terry
Porter)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Nate Eldredge)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (John Winters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 05:40:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 22 Mar 2000 23:43:43 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: On 22 Mar 2000 14:15:57 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:>: It's awfullly nice to have centralised control over both the login
:>: proceedure and session management. Suppose you want everyone to authenticate
:>
:>That's called /etc/csh.login and /etc/profile.
: What if you add another shell ? Oops, you've screwed up already. Not
I add another config.
: very robust IMO.
I am hardly likely to forget to configure a new shell, having gone to
the trouble of adding it! But yes, it;s robust. The consequences of
losing the config file are that restrictions are lifted. The
consequence of losing libpam stuff is that nobody can log in. I.e.
it does not fail safe. By design, I imagine, since the mentality
of the desiger seems to be that making it difficult to log in to
a system is good.
: BTW, two config files that duplicate each others functionality is not
: "centralised control". It's a maze and tangle of loose ends.
It most certainly is not. I have no trouble with two exactly similar files,
ad I only maintain two out of good nature. If you really want to centralize
them, try something like
setenv AM_CSH_REALLY $SHELL
exec /bin/sh
[ "$AM_CSH_REALLY" ] && exec $AM_CSH_REALLY
:>: against one server ( rather than requiring seperate user accounts on
:>
:>That's called NIS.
: AKA "Network Intruder Service"
And how would they be helped by NIS? They can't read it until they're
in. Then they can read whatever they like directly from passwd. (if
you think that shadow protects you on a local machine, try booting it
in single user mode via init=/bin/sh).
:>: different machines ). You can do it with PAM. Suppose you want to set user
:>: limits without having to close all loopholes ( ie the login files for
:>
:>That's called quota.
: Show me how to set memory limits with quota.
Why should I? Use ulimit/limit. Show me how to set screen fonts with
pam!
:>: every user shell, plus X sessions ). It's one file with PAM. Suppose
:>: you don't want anyone logging in between 1-2am on Sundays. PAM makes this
:>
:>That's called userctl (or whatever it is called .. I've never used it).
: Don't have it.
:>Oh yes? The configuration file is absolutely incomprehensible,
:>and I AM an expert,
: Well not expert enough. It's easy enough for me, and I'm not an expert.
: Then again, the config file Redhat ship is well commented.
Try explaining me any single line, like, say:
UNDERBREAD
INTELLOGIC
INTELLIGENT
(the entire contents of /etc/pam_smb.conf) Yes, I know, OK, try a
different file an explain any line in that. Go ahead .. there are lots
of files and lots of lines to choose from.
:>So what does PAM buy you that isn't already there? Bear in mind that
:>only su, login and xdm use it!
: Wrong. You're not even close. Every network service on my system uses it
: ( not just the ones that authenticate via login ).
Prove it. Not that I don't believe its possible, just that if so it
would be a mistake along the lines of NIS+, which nobody can stand for
the same reason: it's obscure, fragile, and adds a layer of
dependencies you don't want. And it isn't that way on MY debian
system. Consider the failure modes.
Peter
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:49:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:51 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:18:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 22 Mar 2000 06:49:17 GMT <8b9qdd$lg8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand them
>>>>all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has everything to
>>>>do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that cannot keep up
>>>>with innovation.
>>>
>>> WHAT innovations?
>>
>>Arguably, the internals of Windows aren't all that innovative (in fact,
>>in the case of Win9x, they're downright stupid, and Windows NT
>>is slightly brain-damaged), but items such as Microsoft Office
>>might be; the idea of being able to drop an icon into a file
>>is at least worthy of mention.
>
> THAT is not a Microsoft innovation.
>
> The basic shell rudiments were all done previously by
> Apple, IBM and NeXT. The first version of Windows didn't
> even have overlapping windows.
Oh, DUH! I totally forgot about APPLE! (Here, have a wet noodle;
you know what you can do to me with it... :-) )
Well, just goes to show, ghosts might not have too many brains. :-)
If ever there was an operating system even more GUI-fied than
Microsoft, Apple would be it -- but Apple at least had half of
a clue, as far as I know (I'm not a Mac user, although I do
have a Mac emulator on an old Amiga). Of course, Apple also
may have had the advantage, for awhile, of running on their
own custom hardware (not to mention a flat address space!).
I'm not sure if I like the idea of the iMac, admittedly, but
it's probably higher quality than some of the PC junk out there.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Nose? Oh, this thing in front of my face?
Gosh, I never noticed it before..." :-)
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A frightening trend - go get a cofee, it's a long one :)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:14:34 +0100
Sylvain Demers wrote:
>
> I've started using Linux about a year ago. I'm not a power user. I had some
> dos experience, many years with Windows, which means no computer experience,
> since the only thing I've ever been able to do to fix Windows was to turn my
> computer off and back on.
>
> I'm a home-base worker. I have a small translation company. So I'm using my
> computer a lot. I'm saying that because a lot of people using their computer
> as an entertaining device (say, a couple of hours max per day) have a hard
> time understanding why some of us are that pissed at Windows. When you use
> MS Office with Windows 10 hours a day, you can't possibly be very happy with
> it. And I don't mean 9 hours of e-mail and a couple of letters. I mean hours
> and hours of writing, editing and dealing with Word, Excel and PowerPoint.
> My system started to lock up the first day I upgraded from Win 3.1 to Win95.
> And that's around that time I started to buy hardware. A lot of hardware.
> Now with a brand new Pentium III 500 Mhz with win98se, I thought things
> would change. Not. And Office 2000 (which came with the computer, I wouldn't
> have bought it - well I must have paid for it in some ways) is the buggiest
> version of Office I've ever used. And I still experiment lock-ups at least 3
> times a week, everytime loosing some data and wasting my time and money. And
> I'm not even talking about the problems I had with NT when I was working in
> a company.
>
> Sorry for the long into, but I wanted to give a little background on why I
> decided to search for alternatives to Windows.
>
> So I started with RedHat 5.2. That was hard for a complete newbie. But good
> to learn. I must admit I put all Linux aside for a couple of months, cause I
> didn't have the knowledge and the time to learn. But then Windows problems
> made me reconsider Linux more seriously. Then here's the path I folowed in
> short :
>
> OpenLinux 2.2 : Great! A graphical install. Not so great. I 've never been
> able to use it. Lizard sucked
>
> RedHat 6.0 - Texte install, a breeze.
>
> Mandrake 6.1 - Text install. Even better. Now I really started to think
> Linux could compete on WIndows ground.
>
> And then some experimentation :
>
> Suse 6.3 - Problems with the graphical install.
> OpenLinux 2.3 - Problems with the graphical install.
> Debian - Never been able to do anything with this one. Way too much for me.
> Mandrake 7.0 - Problem with the graphical install. Some device refuse to
> work.
> RedHat 6.1 - Problems with the graphical install. Extremely disappointing,
> many bugs. What the hell's happening?
> Slackware 7.0 - A revelation. Despite the fact this distribution is supposed
> to be for more experienced users, I found it easier to undestand and
> configure than the others, even on the console. My problem with slack is the
> lack of support. Man pages are like cerbo-croatian to me. And how-to's are
> somtimes pretty technical.
>
> So... do you see where I'm going ? If Linux wants to have its share of the
> market, distributions have to make it easier to install and use. Nobody
> argue with that. But what scares me to death is that the distributions that
> had the best potential for the end-user market are now blindly walking in
> the steps of the Redmond monster : they issue new versions at neck-breaking
> speed, to the expense of stability and reliability. If there was as many
> bugs in the first Linux version I tried than there is in Mandrake 7.0,
> RedHat 6.1 and Suse 6.3, I would have laugh at Linux's allegation of
> stability. Somebody will have to wake up before it's too late.
<SNIP>
> Thanks, if you're still there :)
>
> Sylvain
While I don't know about the other distros, I know that in SuSE 6.3, you
can boot from the second CD, and get a text only YaST 1 installation,
which is, BTW, GREAT.
-Daniel O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:54:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:58:16 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Why Linux continues to try to exist in the enterprise
> would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
> field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
> technology. Technically, Linux is no match for
> any Windows operating system, not even NT 4 or
>Windows 98SE."
>
>So... I guess we have that covered ....
Please, do tell us how Windows is technically superior to
Linux, or any other variant of Unix. :-)
>
>"mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
>> OS?
>>
>> http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
>>
>> "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
>> would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
>> field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
>> technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
>> any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
>> Linux."
>>
>> --
>> Mr Rupert
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:58:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 23 Mar 2000 04:09:07 GMT <8bc5d3$ua$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>Well, since no one has been able to provide any answers to the seven
>>items I want on a Linux desktop, I guess Linux isn't ready for my
>>desktop.
>
>As if you actually matter.......
For him, it does matter. He's probably better off using
Windows 2000. :-)
But there are others, and hopefully some of them will either
find that Linux is far improved from their expectations,
or have requirements that Windows (NT or 2K) simply can't meet,
but Linux can.
It's all we can ask for; I for one don't think we should take
over the world -- unless we do it, one user or perhaps one
company at a time. Linux is a very useful tool, but then,
so is an arc welder in competent hands; doesn't mean everyone
should have one in their garage... :-)
(although a better comparison might be a battery-powered
Swiss Army Knife :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Alan Burns <aburns@!SPAMTRAP.ebicom.net>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:48:25 -0600
In article <xM1C4.1383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Boris"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
> Yes, you are wrong. What do you call system root? I just removed Modify
> and Write permissions on my c:\Winnt\System32 directory. Everything
> works fine: Word, Excel, IE. NT was designed as single-user desktop OS.
I mean \winnt and \winnt\system32, mostly. The problem I see most
frequently (after installation, assuming I let the apps write dlls and crap
there as Administrator during the install) is that they want to write .ini
files and other kinds of preference files in those directories every time
the app is run. And then on top of that, they're usually global preference
files that get used by every user, so every user has to have write and/or
change access there to keep the app from choking.
I like to lock my systems down tight where nobody can hurt anything
but NT just doesn't allow me to do that, whether it be the fault of the
OS or of the developers - or both. It's read-only here, read-write
there, change over here..... it just seems like a big mess to me to try and
figure out what I can lock and what I can't. With *nix, it's always very
clear where a user needs to write. That's what I like about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 06:01:57 GMT
On 23 Mar 2000 05:40:07 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>I am hardly likely to forget to configure a new shell, having gone to
What happens when you want to change confioguration ? You'd better
remember to do it for every shell. Redundant configuration without
some kind of integrity check is the last thing a systems administrator
needs.
>the trouble of adding it! But yes, it;s robust. The consequences of
>losing the config file are that restrictions are lifted. The
>consequence of losing libpam stuff is that nobody can log in. I.e.
I am not clear how you're going to "lose" it all. Since there are
several config files, it's unlikely you'll have an unusable system
just because you mess up one file.
>it does not fail safe.
Nothing's failsafe. What happens if you lose /bin/login ? Either way,
you could get back in, but it would require booting into single user
mode.
>: Show me how to set memory limits with quota.
>
>Why should I? Use ulimit/limit. Show me how to set screen fonts with
>pam!
ulimit works differently with different shells. In bash, it doesn't
work properly ( try ulimit -v ). Another problem is that (again) you
need to maintain the ulimit settings for all the different shells.
>Try explaining me any single line, like, say:
>
> UNDERBREAD
> INTELLOGIC
> INTELLIGENT
>
>(the entire contents of /etc/pam_smb.conf) Yes, I know, OK, try a
Huh ? My pam smb config looks like this:
auth required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so nullok shadow
account required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so
I understand it just fine. If *you* don't, read the pam docs -- it's
all there.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:08:32 +0800
On 22 Mar 2000 21:11:58 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, since no one has been able to provide any answers to the seven
>> items I want on a Linux desktop, I guess Linux isn't ready for my
>> desktop.
Yeah, especially if you give up so easily.
>
>That may very well be the case. Linux isn't for everyone yet.
It may well never be.
>
>It's been my desktop since 1995.
Its been my (sole) desktop since 1997.
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:18:57 +0800
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:39:04 GMT, Dirk Gently <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think that the Linux distributetors need to understand something. They
>aren't selling Linux, they are selling something else. They should name it
>Clinux (Commerial Linux). Linux should be freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. $30.00 is
>much better than Winblowme XX, but it is $30.00 too much.
Agreed!
>>
>> Yep - I agree with you here. I first tried Linux in 1995 because it
>> was a free unix, and I wanted to run unix on my pc. Nowadays, you've
>> got hordes of people using Linux because they simply think it's a
>> better version of Windows. Worse yet, you've got RedHat peppering
>> their distro with lots of GUI tools to make it easy for the Windows
>> converts. These GUI tools put scripts in strange places and it makes
>> it hard for us seasoned unix gurus to find the config files.
>>
>> When I first tried Linux in May 1995, I was expecting a free version
>> of unix, not a Windows alternative. The fact that Linux can be used
>> as a "Windows alternative" speaks volumes for the flexibility of Linux
>> and unix in general. That's why I run FreeBSD instead of Linux -- it
>> seems as if FreeBSD is trying to stay true to its unix roots without
>> all the hype and commercialization. Of course, I feel that Linux is
>> good too, but the hype and commercialization of it has turned me off.
>>
>> I switched to FreeBSD in Oct. 1996.
>>
>> - Donn
So how does your desktop run Don, what happens if you love say Blackbox
does that run under FreeBsd ?
Whats FreeBsd like as a desktop OS in your view ?
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul D. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 01:17:53 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%% "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ptb> : Uh... maybe on your system. On mine (Debian 2.2 frozen) this is what
ptb> : happens if I try to remove libpam0g:
ptb> : Remv telnetd
ptb> : Remv adduser
ptb> : Remv dialdcost
ptb> : Remv diald
ptb> : Remv ssh
ptb> : Remv pppconfig
ptb> Interesting! Why are all these linked to libpam instead of to
ptb> libc? Are you sure? I also have debian (potato), and I don't see
ptb> any such links.
I didn't say anything about "instead of" libc, and I didn't even say
anything about linking; I'm talking about package dependencies.
Many of these depend on passwd, which depends on PAM (for example).
PS. However, on my system ssh does link libpam directly. These other
files in /usr/bin also link it:
chfn
chsh
make_printerdef
make_smbcodepage
nmblookup
passwd
rpcclient
scp
screen
slogin
smbclient
smbmnt
smbmount-2.2.x
smbpasswd
smbspool
smbstatus
smbtorture
smbumount-2.2.x
ssh-add
ssh-agent
ssh-keygen
sudo
testparm
testprns
I didn't even check /usr/sbin. I used:
for f in *; do if ldd $f 2>/dev/null | grep libpam >/dev/null; then \
echo $f; fi; done
FWIW.
--
===============================================================================
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
===============================================================================
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: WARNING! DO NOT USE WORD! (was: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:27:41 +0800
On 22 Mar 2000 22:02:56 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Donn Miller wrote:
>I'd say, advise anyone you know, *especially clueless people* to NOT
>communicate with documents in Word format. They might leak out
>information that should be kept private.
>
>
I get docs in Word and always sift out the text using
"strings wordbloat_30k.doc > text_3k.txt"
The extra crap in those *.doc files is incredible!
How many ways do you need to be able to say :-
"Smithers, you upgraded to Win98, when we planned to dump MS, and go Linux,
your ass is fired"
Straight ascii text would save the world a LOT of pain.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: Nate Eldredge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 22:29:23 -0800
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Hmm, seems you're mistaken. Anything that needs to authenticate can
> : immediatly authenticate against anything if it links with pam. It's
>
> Nothing needs to "authenticate". "Authenticate" means "check the
> passwd". Anyone logged into the system has a right to do whatever they
> like within their compass. It's only at the moment of login that
> they need to be "authenticated" by having login check their passwd.
Yes. But sometimes they need to do things not "within their compass",
in which case additional authentication is needed. Also, frequently
this is needed by tools other than /bin/login. Consider:
- xlock (there are many flavors)
- passwd
- sshd
- samba (yes, it checks unix passwords)
- su
- ftpd
- chsh
And I don't think your theory of "just use crypt" is sufficient.
Standard crypt permits 8-character passwords encrypted with DES.
8-character passwords are now considered barely sufficient. And DES,
with its 56-bit encryption, gets more and more vulnerable to
brute-force attacks all the time. Even now, specialized hardware or
large networks can brute-force a Unix password in reasonable time
(days or weeks, or even less if you're the NSA). Yet people keep
using it, because it's a pain to use anything else. PAM would seem to
make that much less painful, and trivial to change in the future. I
really don't see what's so terrible about PAM.
--
Nate Eldredge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Winters)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Mar 2000 06:57:46 -0000
In article <8bbgdq$80u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8bbbir$j4p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> >How is my business supposed to survive if I can't charge for my software?
>
>> Charge for your services. Various people have discovered that if you
>> write a single piece of software and then sell it to large numbers of
>> users you can make extremely large amounts of money for relatively
>> little effort. The trouble with this model is it doesn't leave
>> anything to fund support and leads to very frustrated customers. It's
>
>Various people like who?
Heard of Microsoft?
>Besides, I truly believe that good software is self-supporting.
How very naive of you.
>I don't mind limiting the hardware platforms supported...
>Of course, some support will always be needed, but it should be free,
>not the other way around!
Err, and how are you going to fund this "free" support? The point
is the provision of support is never free - somehow it has to be
funded.
>> also at odds with the well established fact that the development cost
>> of software is a relatively small part of the total life-cycle cost.
>
>The cost of a game is only "a relatively small part of" its "total life-cycle
>cost"? Please explain. (By the way, I have the hardware already.)
What's the hardware got to do with it? I was talking about serious software
rather than games, although it probably applies equally well to them. I
don't have any reference to hand I'm afraid, but only a very basic
amount of research will provide you with the necessary details.
>> >Of course, things are different for big companies: they can afford to give
>> >away some of their software, or even all of it, if it happens that they have
>> >other sources of income...
>
>> This isn't the point of free software - it isn't a loss leader.
>
>So, how much profit is Red Hat making these days?
I don't think they're making a profit, but then neither is Microsoft.
How is this relevant?
>> >So, what will happen? Will we all go back working for Big Blue, as in
>> >the Dark Ages? Too bad most geeks are too young to remember those
>> >days...
>
>> I'm not. You think having one excessively dominant player is worse
>> than having another excessively dominant player? I don't. I remember
>> well when "it must be IBM" was the rule (it wasn't that long ago remember)
>> and IBM are still larger in revenue terms than Microsoft.
>
>So, who's the "excessively dominant player" now?
Currently Microsoft. Who will be next I don't know.
>You admitted yourself that IBM is bigger than MS!
Hardly "admitted". I pointed out that IBM are still larger in revenue
terms than Microsoft. (See - you can read it for yourself above.) That
doesn't alter the fact there's a very large chunk of the PC market
currently where "It must be Microsoft. Just because." is the rule
of the day.
>Anyway, do you really think it takes free software to compete with MS?
No. You're making up things for me to have said now. Please try to
respond to what I've actually said rather than what you'd like me to
have said.
>BeOS was a rising star until it got smashed by the Linux hype.
>
>> John (making a living out of free software).
>
>It's too bad that people are still hanging on to physical media.
Why is it bad? You're losing grip on your arguments.
>But then,
>with all the bloatware around and limited bandwidth, it's hardly a surprise.
>I hope that will change in the future.
Why? I'm quite certain people will always want physical media.
Death of books predicted - gif at 11.
>Won't be good for your business, though...
Won't really affect me. What makes you think I just sell media? I sell
skills and I don't see those going out of fashion either.
>Francis.
>
>N.B. There's nothing wrong with riding the hype, but it's just not something
>I would like to do myself.
And yet your post is almost all hype. You need to calm down and take
a rational look at what's happening.
John
(Follow-ups trimmed to relevant groups.)
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
