Linux-Advocacy Digest #775, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 15:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Weak points (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joe Ragosta)
Re: From the Horse's Mouth (Norman D. Megill)
Re: New research question, this time about Apache (Chris Beauchamp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:14:43 GMT
In article <s3rC4.2355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
> (sendmail makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
Modems - Manufacturers are beginning to realize that the $1 savings
of not including the DSP chip on the modem is not such a great deal.
The problem is that "Winmodems" require that the same processor
that is used for the operating system and the applications be used
to handle the digital signal processing as well. This works
fairly well when you are using Windows 95 or Windows 98 which
are designed for single users who don't mind waiting for as
much as several seconds while the OS dedicates itself to Winmodem.
Ironcally, the best way to spot a "real" modem is that they state
that they are NT compatible. There are some modems which are
winmodems and will work on NT, but you generally loose performance
and sometimes you even lose the connection.
There are machines that have been made "Linux Compatible" by
using "real" modems. The Thinkpad 600 has a winmodem, but
the Thinkpad 600E has a real modem and is Linux compatible.
These days, even 56k PCMCIA modems that are Linux compatible
can be had for $50. ISA modems (remember, a real 56k modem
has minimal bandwidth requirements) can run as cheap as $20.
That Winmodem really isn't that much of a bargain.
Linux applications generate postscript output because you can
use ghostscript to convert the postscript to nearly any other
printer format. Granted, the floating point of Ghostscript
calculations is a meat-grinders, but with a Pentium II/200
generating about 200 megaflops, there isn't that much of a wait.
> 2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
I'd agree on this one. The window manager configuration sets
the initial user experience with the system. Mandrake and SuSE
do a great job of providing a rich menu of GUI startable GUI
applications. It's almost possible to ignore the command shell.
Some even have the capability to search the hard drive for X11
capable applications and configure your menu based on this.
While some desktop managers like KDE can be configured using a
file-manager, the script based window managers can also be
very powerful and are usually quite easy to configure once
you learn the conventions.
Some people are intimidated by the plethora of applications offered
by the initial KDE desktop for SuSE. On the other hand, the Red
Hat opening window, which starts a terminal shell window isn't
helping to ease the "command shell anxiety".
> 3) If easy installation methods are to be so,
> better go back text mode
> installations or else improve the
> so called "easy" installations,
> because really suck.
The Corel interface is really easy and really pretty. Assuming
that I'm using supported hardware, it's remarkably easy to start
install. I especially loved the ability to install Corel directly
into the C: drive (the root file system is a huge Fat32 file). It's
a bit slower, but it was easy enough that my dad (who has blown 4
Linux installations including Mandrake) could get it installed
with only 2 calls to Corel. He did complain about the fact
that the free support was a toll call and the toll-free service
cost an extra $50. He spend about $2 on toll charges.
> 4) Apart from saying that there's decent
> software lack, just point that
> the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce
> such a bloated software as you
> claim Microsoft Office and the kind are.
I'd really like to see Netscape use the installed libraries.
Some of the "bloat" associated with Linux software is the fact
that Linux does not include a Motif shared library. As a result,
Netscape and many other commercial applications end up loading
the entire Motif library as a static part of the system (defeating
the shared memory efficiency of Linux). At minimum, they should
code to lesstif, which Linux does include as a sharable library.
Commercial application programmers need to take advantage of
the shared libraries available on Linux rather than putting
everything into static. The ELF format eliminates many of
the problems associated with changes in libraries. At the
same time, Linux developers and commercial library vendors need
to continue be very sensitive to backward compatibility issues.
We've had some ms-windows programmers sneaking in and trying to
change APIs in the shared libraries. Don't do that.
At the same time, Application programmers need to remember that
most UNIX application programmers would give as much as 24 months
for new features to penetrate the market before they would hard-wire
into new "bells and whistles".
> I disagree, Microsoft Office is far
> ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
Each suite has it's advantages and it's weaknesses. But at least
it's a competitive marketplace. Corporate IT departments are going
to need to start to enforce generic standards that aren't
vendor-centric.
Back in the 1970s, most IT shops were a branch of the accounting
department. They used IBM mainframes almost exclusively, and they
went to IBM for the OS, Programming Languages, and even the software.
IBM would even create custom applications which it would then sell
to other companies.
In the 1990s, IBM lost control of the market. SNA was displaced
by TCP/IP, IMS was displaced by SQL databases such as DB/2, Oracle,
Sybase, and Informix, and many MVS applications were being migrated
to AIX, HP_UX, and Solaris. Many of these accounting-oriented
IT managers (bean-counters) were not accustomed to having to deal
with whether or not a vendor complied with a specific set of standards.
Worse yet, many companies like DEC would say "oh yes - we support
open standards, but you get better performance of you use VMS, XCI,
and DecNet.
Meanwhile, Microsoft decided to try to play the role IBM once
played. Microsoft began forcing all PC makers to include Office
in all PCs. The IT managers assumed that this was a "standard"
that wouldn't change, and simply told all workers to use Office.
The problem came up when new versions of Office started breaking
older versions of Office, and saving a document created in the
new version did bad things to the old versions.
> 5) Games ... yeah yeah, not every one like the 10 decent games.
At least we know what's important to you. Simulations such as
those written in VRML could easily be converted into new games.
Just think, your Linux flight simulator could be identical
to the one used to train real F-18 pilots.
I'd think you'd have better things to do with your time.
> 6) Serious internet tools :
> pine sucks,
9 e-mail packages an you can't find one you like?
I've used pine for several years. But there are several other
good ones.
> Netscape breaks more than Windows 3.11 and is awful and slow.
Yup! You'd think that by now, AOL would have gotten it right.
Unfortunately, AOL is quivering because Microsoft threatened to
remove the AOL subscription option from all Windows machines
(which it could do with an ActiveX control), unless AOL torpedoed
Netscape. Nearly all of the serious "Netscape" development
is actually going into Mozilla. The Netscape core browser has
changed very little. They added 128 bit encryption. The rest
seems to be focused on new plug-ins from vendors locked out by
of IE 5 Microsoft.
> Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and
> Outlook Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ...
Viruses, security, system integrity.
It would be nice if Microsoft could adopt/publish a standard
for the schedular database (Linux has a standard and it's supported
with Open Source Code) but that's not Microsoft's way of doing
business. Instead Microsoft would rather use trade-secret code,
trade-secret protocols, and trade-secret data formats to guarantee
that no Linux user could ever share a schedule with an Outlook user.
> but prefer them than slrn, tin,
> krn and such sucky tools).
> 7) Yeah yeah, Apache runs very well under Linux ...
> but do not forget that under Solaris, FreeBSD,
and AIX and HP_UX and Irix, and True 64 and ...
> and even NT/2K too,
Sure, like you really want to try to run mod_perl/cgi
under NT? Besides, Microsoft hates apache, it gives users
a chance to compare NT and UNIX variants on the same application.
The results aren't pretty. Even if Win2K did run apache faster,
Microsoft would want you to use IIS.
> and besides, home users don't really need a web server.
Actually, a web server built into the workstation provides a very
simple, very easy, very quick graphical user interface. Sure, I
could create custom "thick client" code, but why not just create
an HTML form (using a WYSIWYG html editor) and use CGI or mod_perl
for the back-end. It's really easy to program, and your Windows
using coworkers can also access the interfaces you've made public.
> Is Linux offering anything to home users ?
It depends on the distributor. Red Hat isn't really focusing
on that market. Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, and Caldera are being
very aggressive in this arena. Corel's strategy is to start simple
and let the customer add more. Mandrake takes the Red Hat distribution
and adds a end-user oriented desktop configuration to KDE. Caldera
focuses on the Small Office/Home Office user. SuSE is agressively
going after corporate desktop users, especially in Europe.
> And be serious, do not tell me about BSOD's
> evey 5 minutes because Windows
> 2000 (and NT almost) has never frozen.
Yep. After Linux advocates ranted for 8 years about the terrible
lack of reliability in every Microsoft "competitor" from Windows 3.1
to Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98, Microsoft finally decided to focus
nearly all of it's attention on making the system "safer".
Notice that the key innovations of Win2K (MTS, MSMQ, and COM+) are
all designed to keep application programmers from blowing up the OS
or their servers. There is still so much overhead to DCOM that most
applications are sticking with the COM (in-process) model for desktop
applications.
These days, Windows 2000 suffers from to primary problems. It lacks
support for any standards that provide access to other systems such
as mainframes and UNIX systems. This is typical, but could become
a problem as the market (under DOJ direction) becomes more
competitive.
If every car Ford made required custom blended fuel
only available from Ford gas stations, which charged 10-20 times
the price of the stations providing fuel for GM and Chrysler cars,
Ford would have a little problem.
Remember the Volkswagon Bug, the Honda Civic, and the Toyota Corolla
that left Chrysler begging for a bail-out in 1980? Microsoft is
going down the same road as Chrysler.
Microsoft's entire economic model is based on $200 operating systems,
$400 Office Suites, $600 developer suites, and $60/user client access
licenses. These are things you can get away with when your customers
(the PC manufacturers) believe that the only way they can survive is
to have your operating system, regardless of what other demands you
make. With the exception of a few million "upgrade kits" sold at
retail, Microsoft doesn't even care about the retail customer.
But IBM, Dell, and HP are fighting back. Compaq is still a bit
two-headed - they have "Mad dog" Hall, True64, and Non-Stop Himalaya
UNIX systems, but they also roll-over every time Microsoft snaps their
fingers.
Even worse, Microsoft is facing competition from Asian producers of
Sega, Nentendo, and Sony systems that will have the footprint and
price of a game-machine with the power and performance of Linux.
> 8) I am going to stop in here, and wait for your answers,
> I hope you to
> do it without FUD and with real arguments (if any).
In this forum, one person's opinion is another's FUD :-)
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:26:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Marengo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:40:29 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>
> >> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
> >> their hardware to push OS/2. If OS/2 truly was a better DOS than
> >> DOS, and a better Windows than Windows, the consumers wouldn't
> >> have cared if OS/2 was installed.
> >>
> >> IBM had the means to increase the installed base of OS/2, they
> >> had the money to do so -- what they lacked was the will.
> >
> >No crime victim is perfect. Blaming the victim for any possible
> >imperfections is not a defense but a desperate act.
>
> Yeah, poor IBM, hapless Microsoft victim.
>
> >What is your argument - that whatever IBM did they could have
> >done more - well Duh - and they could have done less.
>
> They had the opportunity and the means -- all that they lacked
> was the will to do so.
>
Sure. At a cost.
Windows licenses would have cost IBM tens of millions or hundreds of
millions of dollars more if they didn't capitulate.
Losing that kind of money isn't much of an option.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:27:46 GMT
In article <HNtC4.13194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Andrew J. Brehm writes:
>
> >> George Marengo writes:
>
> >>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
> >>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
> >>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
> >>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
> >>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>
> >>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
> >>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>
> >> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
> >> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
>
> > I have never heard that before.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that it was a common perception. It's even
> been mentioned in this newsgroup on several occasions.
>
Really? That's the first time I've heard it, too.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:28:16 -0500
In article <8bb0km$u6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Below is the response I received from Gateway's techs.
...
>This document contains the instructions to format and reinstall the
>Solo 2500
You are comparing apples and oranges. This is not the same machine as
the 2300XL.
I did discover that Gateway now has a web page describing the 2300XL
installation procedure:
http://www.gateway.com/support/techdocs/portable/2300/30718.shtml
You will see that it follows my procedure quite closely, including 10
reboots during the whole process.
Strictly speaking their procedure is incomplete, since the first FDISK on
a new machine will require setting labels to uppercase to workaround an
FDISK bug, which they do not show; they do not show how to workaround
FDISK bugs if the partitions are corrupted; and they do not show the
details of the driver Wizard bug where it produces error messages
because it "forgot" the driver location you specified earlier. Most
users could probably deal with the last, since you soon discover you
just have to give it the driver location again. For the FDISK problems
I guess they expect you to call Gateway support.
Also, in six places they just tell you to "follow the on-screen
instructions", which I suppose is adequate. In my procedure I made
these steps explicit so I could verify as I performed them that the
installation was proceeding as expected. I also put in my own warnings
or comments, such as the dire consequences of clicking OK instead of
Apply at the end of the video driver installation, to help me keep alert
at critical points.
Anyway this is the "official" procedure, so any further comments
regarding the 2300XL procedure should be redirected towards that web
page.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: Chris Beauchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: New research question, this time about Apache
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:32:36 GMT
Tom Steinberg wrote:
>
> Woah, OK. Looks like I've managed to instigate a bit of a battle here.
> Thanks for the comments, though. I will certainly work on modifying some
> parts as a consequence. I should stress that when I talked about
> professional software, I was thinking of profession in the monetary context,
> like a professional sportsman.
>
Indeed, but the opposite of professional is amateur which has lots of
negative connatations. I guess I'm saying just be careful how you word
things...
> I have a few new questions though, which are cropping up as I move along. At
> the moment I am working on an explanatory chapter than talks about Linux's
> history and more important the reasons that it has proved so explosive in
> growth and interest terms. I've used a lot of the thoughts people presented
> to me over the last few weeks. My questions relate to this really.
>
> 1) Can anyone tell me about the history of Apache and Sendmail? I am looking
> to find out how it is that they came to dominate their market sectors on the
> web. Just a link would be good, but any personal thoughts are even better.
AIUI, Apache was written by a bunch of Web masters would were not happy
with the state of current servers, and decided to improve the existing
ones. They were writing by adding patches to existing code, thus A
Patchy Server. Check out http://www.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html for
more history.
>
> 2) I know the 12 million estimate figure for Linux usage around the world.
> However, I'd like to get as many stats to do with opensource as possible,
> especially in fields like web serving where Open source has some dominant
> elements. Anything people can tell me or point me towards will be
> appreciated, especially % of internet hosts running opensource
> specifically Linux ) and old stats to do with opensource and Linux take-up
> in all forms over time. I have seen lots of figures about "in 1991 there
> were about 20 people and in 2000 there are millions" but I'd appreciate
> knowing whether the growth has been linear or exponential or what.
>
www.netcraft.com would be a good place to start.
> 3) Geographic/demographic info on the opensource community. I know it must
> be pretty scarce, but it'd be interesting. After all, not many world beating
> trends start in Finland.
>
I imagine the Finnish would disagree...
> 4) Lastly, any thoughts on the critical-mass theory of open source success.
> This is the theory that states that you require a critical mass of coders
> floating around the internet for good ideas to get converted to good
> programs, and that this critical mass was inevitibly going to happen some at
> some time during the growth of the internet. It did, and this was in
> 1991(ish).
Hmm. Tricky one that one. GNU was around alot longer before 1991 - RMS
left MIT in 1984! OK, so he probably didn't have critical mass, but the
culture was there, and he was producing good code (we all know that
EMACS is the perfect editor![Ducks to avoid the flame throwers]) The
environment was there in MIT in microcosm.
Inevitability is another matter. RMS could be considered to be bit of a
kook, on a fringe etc. I really don't think, with Capitalism the was it
is/was, that anyone would really have predicted how Free Software would
change the shape of the software world in the way that it had.
I also think that all the coders were there already, and had been. The
volume of coders hasn't changed, just the links between them have become
bigger and better. The culture that mostly hung out in academia has
found an online home.
>
> thanks again. All comments, criticisms and vicious personal attacks
> welcomed.
>
(Dang, can never remember a good quote from The Holy Grail when you need
one)
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
