Linux-Advocacy Digest #799, Volume #26 Wed, 31 May 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (r.e.ballard)
Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that matters...)
(Tim Adams)
Re: Rhinebeck HS LUG ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GNOME.org needs to get their act together... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
From: r.e.ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:52:21 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Originally the PC was cheaper thanks to Microsoft!
For those who are under 40, a bit of a history refresher
is in order.
Actually, Microsoft had very little to do with the cost
of the PC. There were 5 factors that made PC's cheap.
The PC was manufactured by IBM, this resulted in a sudden
market acceptance by a large body of corporate users who had
previously considered PCs to be toys or hobby equipment.
With the blessing of "Big Blue", more machines were sold,
which made it possible to spread development costs across
hundreds of users.
Second, CP/M had established a huge market lead and the
original source code for QDOS was based on this same code-base.
The issue was settled between Seattle Computer Company and
Digital Research many years ago, but Gary Kildall was the
original author of what eventually became MS-DOS.
Many hobbiests and computer enthusiasts, most of whom were
just graduating from College around 1980 had been developing
software on the Apple ][, the TRS-80, and the Commodore Pet,
each of which ran versions of Microsfot BASIC. Many of these
budding programmers learned to program in assembler or BASIC
for CP/M to produce better applications. While Microsoft did
write the versions of BASIC used on the TRS-80 and the
Commodore PET, there were numerous versions of BASIC in use,
and BASIC itself was a product of DEC. According to a "Gates
Fable" he fished the source coded to BASIC out of a dumpster,
studied it very carefully, and ported it to the 8080 about a
year later.
Many companies had been established using CP/M as the standard
operating system. This meant that there were a number of
commercial-grade applications such as the original DBASE,
Lotus, and WordStar that were available and easily ported
from CP/M to MS-DOS.
Essentially, there were several thousand "unknown soldiers"
who made the desktop PC a reality, and Microsoft did it's
best do destroy them all - decimating their revenues through
cutthroat retail pricing, and decimating them again through
tie-in per-processor licenses.
>Now the PC is more expensive, again thanks to Microsoft!
Actually the same forces that created the economy of scale
that made Microsoft enabled PCs cheap have been moving from
Microsoft to Linux and UNIX.
Microsoft stopped supporting the hobbiest programmer, creating
development tools that were so expensive that even the schools
couldn't afford them. The kids weren't able to learn how the
machine worked. Those who stuck with the glamour of Microsoft
became "brilliantly ignorant", knowing the APIs, which changed
every 2-3 years, while knowing nothing about the protocols,
file formats, or the core workings of the systems. Meanwhile
Linux made it possible for next generation developers to know
as much as they wanted to know about the machine. The
high-school hobbiests of 1993-1995, who cut their teeth
on Linux are just graduating from college this year. These
were the kids who created their own web sites using 80486/33
processors discarded by their fathers. Today, they are
designing clusters and control centers.
The companies Microsoft drove out of the Linux market weren't
completely dead. Many were merged to other bigger companies,
and many began supporting UNIX as early as 1991, and some began
supporting Linux as early as 1994. Rather than trying to
compete toe-to-toe against Microsoft for the desktop, they
developed applications that could be fronted by Web Browsers,
Java Applets, and trivial VB forms that put the real
application on the UNIX server. Putting the client and the
server on the same machine is a trivial matter with Linux or
UNIX workstations.
The OEMs have been tightly squeezed. When prices of PCs
dropped from $2000 per machine to $700/machine (not including
monitor) Microsoft actually tried to RAISE it's prices. Today,
Linux users are willing to pay a premium for preinstalled Linux
and the cost of producing the machine is actually less than the
cost of producing a Microsoft machine. Furthermore, Microsoft
turned the PC into a commodity, removing even the possibility
of product differentiation by forbidding boot sequence
alteration and desktop alteration on Windows 98. Meanwhile
Linux allows the selection from hundreds of permutations of
themes, color schemes, desktop managers, window managers, and
application preconfigurations.
Finally, Microsoft has been burning it's own reputation and
brand strength on substandard products - many of which are
inferior to UNIX equivalents in terms of function, reliability,
security, and stability. Each virus, worm, and trojan horse
costs Microsoft some of it's reputation, especially when
Microsoft claims to have plugged the holes and has not. The
repeated attempts to mislead the public, juries, and federal
court judges have cost Microsoft much of it's credibility.
The failure of NT to perform as well as even the most stripped
down share-ware versions of UNIX (freeBSD and slackware Linux)
has further eroded corporate confidence. The Microsoft server
market share has dropped from 77% in late 1997 (corporations
were buying NTs by the hundreds just to keep the system from
collapsing under the load) to 35%, while Linux went from 17%
in 1997 to over 33% today, flanked by the BSDs, Solaris, AIX,
and other commercial versions of UNIX. This is a symptom of
the dissatisfaction with Microsoft. The fact that 33% of the
participants in a CNBC poll want Microsoft broken up may
indicate a similar level of dissatisfaction with Microsoft
Windows and Microsoft Office (especially Outlook) as a whole.
An finally, the Boom II generation, those born in the early
1980s are entering the marketplace in masse. These kids were
using COCOs and Windows 3.0 before they could read books.
My own son started playing with my computer before he could
talk. Linux isn't a problem.
Finally, Microsoft itself has been running out of steam. It
spent nearly $4 billion/year on sales and marketing to keep
the public from discovering UNIX and Linux as workstations.
Now, the cat's out of the bag. Soon television viewers will
be seeing Linux desktops being used the same way Apple Imacs
were seen in "You've got mail".
>You can by an AS 400 or HP 9000 of Dec VAX for under $100,000
>and it will service 500 people!
Pick any of the UNIX boxes and the prices drop even further.
An HP/9000, RS/6000, or an E-450 can service over 1000 people
for under $100,000. There are some machines that can handle
100 base-T capacities for under $10,000.
And Linux gives even more bang for the buck. An Athelon
750 running Linux can handle OC5 trunks, multiple users,
multiple services, and clustering software such as MQSeries,
Tuxedo, and Beowulf for under $1000 per machine.
>You can't buy the servers under a W2K environment for that!
Actually, you'd need about 25 servers per thousand users to
implement an NT solution. Each server would be a 4-way
machine with massive memory and hard drive capacity.
Microsoft does very well in benchmarks where a fully functional
Linux machine (providing it's own DNS, Routing, housekeeping,
and support functions) is compared to a stripped NT with
configurations custom tweaked for the benchmark. But running
fully functional servers against fully functional servers,
Microsoft requires more isolation of each functionality.
>And it definitely won't run as well or as fast either.
>Microsoft is a fattened pig!
> A fattened pig in every important aspect!
>
>Mainframes will return to most companies thanks to Microsoft.
Actually, the joke is that most users spend more time
interacting with UNIX systems (which are often functioning
as front-ends for proprietary systems such as mainframes)
than they spend doing traditional "PC functions".
It's cheaper to have users fill out HTML forms in simple text
format than it is to try and locate WORD, Excel, or Powerpoint
information. The pretty Office apps are great, for about a
month, then they simply clog up the archives and become
impossible to find in a huge repository of unmanagable
documents.
>Or, you can retain your freedom as users
> and encourange your officeto go total LINUX now.
Never in the history of information technology, since
Ancient Egypt - and probably before, has the average
user ever had such freedom. In the past, those with
technological skills protected their technology by
cloaking it in smoke and mirrors and calling it Magic,
the Work of the Gods. They manipulated populations,
often exterminating entire races and civilizations, on
the basis of being the superior diety.
Not since the invention of the Printing press has there
been as dramatic a shift in human thought. The book made
it possible to disseminate information, to relate new thought
to thousands, and eventually millions, of people in a matter
of months, then weeks, then days.
The fruit of UNIX and Linux, the Internet, has made it possible
to conduct a global dialogue. There isn't even the ability to
censor information, only the ability to participate in the
discussion and listen for the formation of ever shifting
consensus. Problems get solved instead of just being argued
in an atmosphere of unshifting polarity.
> Now while you still have freedoms.
Actually, mainframes have shifted to a role of "electronic
bank vaults". They aren't friendly, they don't have to be.
Getting the ability to access the system is difficult - as it
would be in the case of a bank vault. On the other hand,
the "Tellers" (UNIX Systems) are friendly and they look
pretty (Windows or Linux web browsers). The tellers can
get money from the vault to the drawer, through a network
of carefully managed relationships and carefully monitored
activity.
>Charlie
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Adams)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:54:08 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stephen, just to request historical clarification on some of
> your points.
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >: They didn't get their foot in the door. IBM came to them. And when IBM
> >: came the first time, Gates turned them down flat.
> >
> >Actually, this isn't quite correct. Bill wanted very badly to get into
> >business with IBM. The problem was, that IBM came to Microsoft, thinking
> >that since CP/M was packaged with their software, that they were its
> >proprietors. However, Bill acknowledged that CP/M was the property of
> >IDR, and he sent IBM to them. But Killdall decided to snub IBM in favor
> >of a golf game, and so IBM came back to Microsoft, basically saying
> >"you're all we've got".
>
> IIRC, There were two meetings with IBM and DRI (The first appointment
> having been set by Bill Gates for IBM). [1]
> Gary Kildall was on a business trip[2] during the first one, and his wife
> (and DRI co-founder) Dorothy could not agree to the legal terms of the NDA
> IBM wanted them to sign.
> Kildall was available for a later meeting, but since CP/M-86 was not yet
> finished, IBM still had to go back to Gates for advice on what other
> OS they could ship with the IBM PC.
>
>
>
>
>
> >: Microsoft lucked into the sweetheart deal of the century: it's
> >: verifiable fact. And you were aware that IBM only came to Microsoft in
> >: the first place because of family connections (Gates' mother on the same
> >: board as the president of IBM, or some such) aren't you?
> >
> >Huh? This is completely wrong. Bill's mother was a homemaker, and known
> >to do bits of charity fund raising here and there. Please tell me where
> >you got this information.
>
> Actually Mary Gates was supposedly on the board for the United Way along
> with (Bill?) Akers. However, those who point to that affiliation as the
> only reason for IBM to come-a-calling on MS'es doorstep seem to either
> ignore Microsoft's established success as a company at that time
> (Basic, Fortran, Cobol, Xenix and the Z-80 Softcard as products, and
> annual revenue of several million); or assume that IBM was particularly
> gullible to not be more aware of the companies presence within
> the growing PC/hobbyist market.
>
> >: Face it: Bill Gates didn't make it happen... ...it happened _to him_.
>
> Alan, For whatever reason IBM originally approached Microsoft, they
> at the time twice failed to make a deal with DRI for an operating system.
But they did make a deal with DRI on their second visit. DRI also told
them to go to Bill and make a deal with him. IBM had come back to DRI
because they had heard the OS the Bill was getting them was pirated and
DRI would close them down IF IBM shipped it. Gary Kildall told them 'ship
them both I won't sue' or words to that affect.
(All this from a show called computer chronicles where Gary was a regular
guest before his in 1995(?).)
> Bill Gates knew that without an OS, his deal to provide programming
> languages for IBM's PC might also fall thru. Since such languages were
> Microsoft's main source of revenue, that was quite an incentive for
> Microsoft to make it happen.
>
> >No, Bill did make it happen. He took the opportunity of a lifetime, and
> >risked losing everything to a then very greedy IBM. IMHO, that's pretty
> >damned courageous, and IMHO, he deserves every penny he has.
>
> I have to slightly disagree with you here Stephen, as it seems that
> MS would have continued sucessfully selling compilers and adapter
> cards without a deal from IBM. At that time, few could have
> predicted the overwhelming success of the IBM PC. So the
> computing landscape would certainly be different had that deal
> not gone thru. .
>
>
>
>
> [1] IBM did come to Microsoft partially because MS was a source
> for sales of CP/M on their Softcard product for the Apple II.
> But they were also looking for an already existing source of
> development tools for their PC platform; and at the time MS
> was best known for the various programming languages
> they were selling for the popular micro-computers of the time.
>
> [2] Reports that claim Kildall was "out flying" are essentially true;
> Gary was reputed to prefer flying to business meetings along the
> California coast instead of driving. Although I wouldn't be surprised
> that he liked to get in a few rounds of golf on those trips as well.
--
Tim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rhinebeck HS LUG
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:58:21 GMT
So you're young at heart :)
You sound like a fine role model.
Good luck!
On Wed, 31 May 2000 20:01:11 -0400, Dave Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You sound like quite an ambitious young person!
>
>I am not a young person (I remember when virtual memory was a new
>breakthrough technology) ... but the kids are. I am the so called "adult
>leader". This means that I fatigue easily :-)
>
>Dave
>
>>
>>
>> Best of luck to you and your friends.
>>
>> Knowledge is power.
>>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000 09:52:58 -0400, Dave Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi everybody!
>> >I have taken the plunge and started a LUG at the local high school. We
>> >have met a couple times and the kids are getting linux installed on
>> >their home machines and we have linux running on a machine at school.
>> >The guy that is responsible for computers at the school has been helpful
>> >and given us a machine to work with at school.
>> >Right now things are going along well and the kids are excited about
>> >getting stuff working. Their eyes lit up when I started X for the first
>> >time and the KDE came up. After we get our dialup networking running
>> >(they are supposed to be working on this, this week) I guess I will go
>> >over printers, postscript and ghostview. My big idea is to "aquire" a
>> >couple more machines at the school and network them on an ethernet. Then
>> >if I can get a modem and a phone line, we can dial up the cluster and
>> >start some programming projects. These kids already have taken a course
>> >in C++ and I thought we could install the MPICH and develop some
>> >parallel apps (try doing that on windoze). I was wondering if anyone has
>> >any other project ideas? Also I have not written much "windows" related
>> >stuff and I also know that writting to X directly can be .... not so
>> >much fun. I know there are a number of libraries one can use to pop
>> >windows and turn on pixels .... any recommendations on which ones are
>> >good?
>> >
>> >Thanks for any ideas,
>> >
>> >Dave Rolfe
>> >
>> >PS ... Anybody know of a job for a C language programmer with in depth
>> >experience dealing with parallel systems, please send me a note.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GNOME.org needs to get their act together...
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 02:01:10 GMT
Typical Linux...Better put on the flame proof suit because you will be
called an idiot by the zealots.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 14:26:04 -0500, Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I just downloaded all of the newest gnome packages, and I've been trying
>to compile the latest gnome (1.2). It is a slow go and very frustrating
>because it requires so many libraries to compile before you even start
>to compile the gnome* files. My latest frustration is trying to compile
>gnome-core where the readme says all I need is gnome-libraries and
>gdk-pixbuf...both which I have compiled and installed on my machine. I
>compile gnome-core only to have it give me all sorts of undefined
>symbols that belong to libxml. So I compile libxml and install it. Now
>I have a whole bunch of other undefined symbols keeping the gnome-core
>compilation from completing. I'm getting awfully tired of this run
>around. Just how many more libraries do I have to put on my machine
>before I can get gnome-core to complete? <BTW: gtk+ and glib 1.2.8 are
>successfully compiled/installed on my machine>
>
>Gnome.org may be making great strides with gnome, but with no accurate
>instructions as to what exactly is needed and even what order everything
>has to be compiled in (and making it a guessing game for a person like
>me to compile), Nobody except Gnome.org will ever know how good Gnome is
>probably getting....
>
>This episode of trying to compile is just about enough to make me go
>over to the KDE camp permanently. There I can just compile qt and the
>kde* modules, and KDE is up and running. Maybe you guys writing Gnome
>should maybe stop developing for a while, and make your
>compile/installation procedures and documentation work as intended so
>that others can compile and install by the same methods....WITHOUT
>hunting for libraries/packages that nobody knew had any relevance for
>gnome.
>
></End of venting>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
