Linux-Advocacy Digest #288, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Cihl)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Mig
Mig)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:53:23 GMT
KLH wrote:
>
> Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm
> talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the
> comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this.
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > KLH wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
> >
> > I am skeptical.
> >
> > >
> > > I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
> > > everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
> >
> > GNU/Linux is a "good" OS. It isn't a great one, then again, it ain't
> > expensive. When compared to any of the Windows variants, it is far far
> > better.
> >
>
> That is what I've been trying to avoid. The people in this newsgroup have
> such a compulsive habit of comparing everything with Windows. I think that
> is a shoddy way to advocate any OS.
You are absolutely right about that! I think, as i have said many
times before in other posts, the Linux community should ride it's own
race, so to speak.
There are times, however, that some comparisons are necessary to point
out weaknesses in Linux operation. Right now Linux is heading towards
desktop use, so many people tend to compare it to Windows. For the
server market, Linux really would have to compare itself to Unixes,
like Solaris, SCO, HP/UX and such. That would be much more effective.
> > >
> > > A true advocate would have to admit:
> > >
> > > * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> > > interface
> >
> > And just why would that be? Are you saying DOS lent itself better to a
> > GUI (ala Windows?)
> >
>
> No!
>
> This is why I made the above statement. We now have hundreds of command line
> utilities and applications along with hundreds of X utitlities and
> applications. The trick is that many of them are interdependent. GMC depends
> on MC. In addition, changing something at the command line isn't readily
> apparent from the GUI. If you change the color of your windows by editing
> the conf file, the color doesn't change until you restart your window
> manager. If you delete a few files in your home directory, your filemanager
> won't know until you operate the refresh command. Until then, may get errors
> or perhaps something more disasterous may happen.
>
> So what you end up instead of a seamless coherent system, you get a
> dichotomy of the GUI and the command line---like two separate operating
> systems that the user must deal with independently. This is what I mean when
> I say that Unix doesn't lend well to a graphical user interface. For years
> Unix was command-line based. It is quite a stubborn creature.
What the community is generally trying to do basically, is to create a
desktop-environment for business use. This means that the office
secretary would be enabled to do his/her work without being bothered
by anything like a Unix CLI.
The administrator of the same box, however, would still need the power
and flexibility of a CLI to administer the computer quickly and
effectively.
The desktop part of Linux is, as many have probably seen, still a work
in progress. I think it has come a long way, and after having seen
beta version of KDE2, i think the desktop is becoming very usable and
should be fit for office use in about 6 months from now. The creation
of gratuitous office suites like Gnome Office and KOffice really helps
a lot.
The administration part of Linux has, however, been completed for
years. A sysadmin can very easily log into the office-user computer
without him/her noticing and make any changes as necessary. Most work
here goes into debugging and security issues.
There is also a (smaller) trend of making graphical frontends to
administrative tasks. This is abviously aimed mainly at the home user,
who wishes to have an install and administration that is as easy as
possible.
For these same home-users, and to gain ground in other areas as well,
Linux is at the moment also being adapted to be flexible and fast
enough to play games and get high-performance multimedia. You can see
the results of this in novelties like XFree86 4.0, DRI, OpenAL, the
Berlin project and many more. I'd say this work is about 75% done.
> >
> > > * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> > > inconveniance to users for years.
> >
> > One mans inconvenience is another mans opportunity. An app written for
> > GNOME will run under KDE, and vice versa.
> >
>
> But the users experience suffers. Especially as the desktop enviroments get
> more advanced. You will not be able to import a gnumeric into kword. The
> developer will have to develop to two different APIs if they want there app
> to work on every GNU/Linux system. And both desktop enviroments have their
> slightly different way of doing things...conditioning the user to deal with
> their system differently if their app is based on the QT or GTK+ widget set.
>
> This is the type of inconveniance that in this small way, makes another
> non-free system somewhat more pleasant to use.
I agree with you for the most part, and i have made comments about
this many times before. Fact is, that nobody can really control these
developments, because Linux development is not controllable by anyone.
This is a great strength, as well as a weakness. I think we would get
a much better GUI if these two (Gnome&KDE) would try to work together.
I have also noticed, that nowadays this isn't as much a problem as it
was before. It's certainly possible to run applications from one
environment within the other. Maybe it would suffice to have a "common
denominator". That is, make sure these two environments use the same,
open protocols. These would then include drag&drop, embedding, passing
and linking of applications and/or threads.
> >
> > > * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like
> languages
> > > that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks
> and
> > > core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
> >
> > Again, are you saying that Windows, or ANY OTHER PLATFORM, has more and
> > different programming languages than UNIX/Linux?
> >
>
> You really need to quit reading between the lines.
>
> What I *am* saying is that programming languages have made some large
> strides since C was first invented. We now have languages with garbage
> collection, clean object-orientation, referential transparency, higher order
> functions, and lazy evaluation among others. I am not advocating any of
> these features any more than to say that they perhaps would make development
> both more productive and less error-prone.
In my experience, it really doesn't make much difference which
language you write your programs in. Although Ansi C is quite old, it
still works admirably for basic problem solving purposes.
On the other side, i would like it if the Linux kernel was programmed
in C++. Correct use of object orientation often results in smaller,
faster code, as i have seen many times. C++ has object orientation,
but retains the raw flexibility of C where it is needed.
I have several years of experience programming in Java, which is OO,
and all the things you mention. Although it is certainly more
structured than C, it still leaves lots of opportunities for error.
Still a simple memory leak can hang the machine after some time, and
still the program can crash because of a simple error. Use of a higher
programming language does not make it any less error prone.
It DOES allow for more advanced programming with somewhat less effort,
as i have said.
> >
> > > * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that
> it
> > > would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light
> years
> > > ahead of what we have now.
> >
> > What do you mean? This is a powerful assertion, back it up with
> > something. Don't just say it and expect it to mean anything. "The empire
> > state building needs so much rework, we should destroy it and rebuild
> > from scratch" Surely, one would have to prove that one too.
> >
>
> Anyone who regularly reads COLA or even places like Slashdot have seen many
> complaints from people who have jumped on the GNU/Linux bandwagon and then
> found that it isn't an ideal enviroment. Compaints anywhere from memory
> leaks in Netscape and the X Windows System, to incompatible hardware, to
> performance problems with multimedia (often when compared to the BeOS), to
> the many many different APIs.
>
> I don't have to prove this. The proof is all around you. Whether you see
> them all as trolls or not is your problem.
Of course Linux isn't the ideal environment, and neather is any other
OS on the market. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses.
What those people you mention wanted, is basically a direct
replacement for Windows. They wanted a better Windows, which of course
doesn't exist. The only one who could make a better Windows, is
Microsoft, because Microsoft is the only one who makes Windows.
I must say that many people got a bad view of Linux, because they saw
it a little too early. Linux doesn't have a good browser yet, for
instance. Netscape 4.73 certainly doesn't do. It crashes too often,
and for an OS that is deemed indestructible, this is unacceptable. The
browser is often the first program a new user starts up, so it should
look good, at least.
As soon as Konqueror is included in the distributions, i will start
recommending Linux to my friends, not before. I've seen Konqueror. It
blows away everything there is on the market today completely! It's
jaw-droppingly fast and pretty to look at and it does EVERYTHING.
(Just one example, i like it so much!)
You can split the main window in half, open an FTP-session in the
first half and your home-dir in the other. Now you can browse the
FTP-site and drag files over to your computer. Really, REALLY cool!
> >
> > >
> > > Either a true advocate will admit this or they know something I don't,
> which
> > > almost certain; so don't badger me about saying it this way.
> >
> > The problem I see with your post is it is pure "opinion." And while you
> > have the right to hold any opinion you wish, when you make an argument,
> > usually a reason or two to support your opinion goes a long way.
> >
>
> Read COLA. Read Slashdot. Ask your grandma why she doesn't use GNU/Linux.
> Ask mine. Ask the businesses why they don't switch over.
I asked my grandma, and she says she doesn't because she doesn't have
a computer. :-)
I don't know your grandma.
The businesses are actually gradually switching over right now,
because they don't want to empty their pockets on more expensive OS's.
They often start with file- and printservers to replace their old
Netware ones. Some are using it for serving the web/ftp. Others use it
to get their business internet-access, with Linux's NAT/Firewall
services.
The growth is gradually increasing. What we basically need here is a
critical mass of users to start the snowball effect. I guess we'll
just have to wait for it.
We know this not by counting users on webpages, but by the amount of
feedback and questions we get on IRC/Usenet from new businesses/users.
This has increased tremendously over the last year, and it still is
increasing.
> > [snippage]
> >
> > >
> > > I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS or do
> you
> > > think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> > > incompatible, OS be worthwhile? And if you are in the opinion of the
> latter,
> > > how would you build such an OS? What programming language would you
> prefer
> > > it be built on? What other technologies would you want it to use?
> >
> > I think people who wish to design an OS around a GUI should not be
> > designing an OS. It does not matter "how" or for what purpose the
> > operating system was designed, as long as it supports, or can be made to
> > support without major changes, features which a GUI would use.
> >
>
> I think we should reverse your argument. I think the kernal should do what
> kernals usually do, without a built in GUI as some has suggested. I think
> there should be a minimal command line with direct access to the guts of the
> system, for development, debugging, etc. But on top of the kernal should be
> the graphical user interface. The GUI should be made as light as needed---in
> case it needed to be used as a server. It should be light enough to be used
> productively on a 486 or perhaps a pentium. But can be configured to be as
> good looking and powerful for a pentium III. And the true command line
> should be an application in the GUI. This should avoid the dichotomy between
> the command line and the GUI.
You're describing QNX and BeOS. These are very nice systems indeed. I
wish they could do a little more, though.
Linux does this in another way. All the enhancements that have been
added to the kernel over the years can easily be left out at will.
That way the kernel can be very light, or very advanced, depending on
what you want to do with it. In my opinion this is a fine system, too.
> > Look at the Mac. It is designed around a GUI, yet, as an OS it lacking.
> > Because of its process model, memory management, and lack of application
> > security, it will slowly be replaced with something else. OS-X?
> >
>
> Note that you statement doesn't argue that designing around a GUI means that
> the OS is lacking. Only that it has happened.
The biggest problem for the MAC-OS, is maintainability. The basic
design of the old MAC-OS is somewhat restrictive, leaving little room
for further development past a certain point. This goes for every OS,
more or less. The MAC-OS is just the first one to experience it.
> > Look at NT. NT is a prime example of "good" OS gone bad. I like the NT
> > kernel, but Microsoft has taken fundamentally good work and made it crap
> > by moving services and features into kernel space, which IMHO, should
> > not be.
> >
>
> All OSes do it. Perhaps not the GUI. But even Linux contains device drivers
> which IMHO, should be independent.
As i have said, the key is that with the Linux kernel, you can leave
these drivers/features out at will. With NT you have no such option.
This will probably create the same problems for NT/Win2k as it has
already done for MAC-OS.
The modular design will (hopefully) give Linux a better chance at
holding itself up in the future.
> > A GUI is nothing more than an application for running applications. It
> > can be improved, all it takes is work. Is KDE or GNOME perfect? No. Are
> > they usable now, I think so. Are they still improving? Yes.
> >
> > The UNIX model is quite flexible. It can grow and do almost anything
> > people want to do with it without suffering the trauma that Windows,
> > Mac, and NT suffer every time major improvements happen.
> >
> > The reason why UNIX has been around so long with its potential intact,
> > and operating systems like the Mac and Windows are being replaced by
> > newer operating systems line OS-X and NT, is because it UNIX is designed
> > around small modules which are reusable/replaceable/optional. The other
> > systems try to design around large scale monolithic environments which
> > require a huge amount of rework when a significant new feature is added.
> > In UNIX, it would be implemented as a few small processes running as
> > daemons.
> >
> > It has been my experience that a well designed practical solution almost
> > always beats a "better" one. UNIX is a very well designed practical
> > solution, and over the decades, many "better" operating systems have
> > competed with it. UNIX has never suffered a reduction in number of
> > users. It has suffered a slowdown in growth, but never stopped growing.
> > Long after Windows and the Mac have been reduced to marginal usership
> > like the Amiga or OS/2 UNIX will still be growing.
> >
>
> One thing I reject from your arguments is the implication that all roads
> away from Unix leads to Windows. I don't beleive that is true. I think a
> modern OS can be designed in the same way Unix was designed in the 1970s (or
> is it 1960s? 1950s?). I do not consider current OSs modern, just conveniant
> to build a business upon.
>
> It seems I am arguing again when what I set out to do was ask some
> questions. But if Unix is the best there is, I am very disappointed.
There are certainly better ideas, but in the current OS-business
environment, they never get a chance. It's for this very reason that
(this time) Microsoft is doing battle in court right now.
You could search the internet for other OS's. You'd be surprised what
they have already come up with. There's even an OS somewhere that
works entirely on neural networks. There's one that works entirely
with a full 3D GUI. Very impressive.
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
--
¨I live!¨
¨I hunger!¨
¨Run, coward!¨
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:06:45 +0200
Davorin Mestric wrote:
> well, that number is obviously wrong.
Wich one?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:05:04 -0500
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You have to ask yourself: who owns a product that is created,
> >> the creator or the public? Remember, you answer needs to apply
> >> to your own life, too.
>
> > Are you really saying that you think we should all have to pay for a
> > Ford, even if we decide to buy a chevy instead? That is exactly what
>
> No, it's more like you have to pay (Firestone/Goodyear/whoever) when
> you buy a Ford or a Chevy. Those evil car mftr's insist on "bundling"
> things like tires and batteries with their cars, no doubt expecting
> better deals if they buy the product in volume.
>
> > you are saying. We would have to buy Microsoft products whether we used
> > them or not. Is that something that you consider to be thier right?
>
> MS didn't sell ANY products before 1980 or so, so you don't HAVE
> to buy them. You could just make the same choice that the people
> did before 1980.
>
> > Sure, they own the rights to the product, but if I don't want to use the
> > product, I should not have to pay for it. What is wrong with this
> > argument?
>
> You don't have to buy it. You can not buy a computer. You can buy
> a Mac. You can build your own PC and put Linux on it. You can
> build your own PC and write your own OS. You can buy a Sun machine.
> That doesn't sound like 'have to', that's 'want to', just like you
> 'want to' buy Goodyear tires with that car you bought.
>
> > Microsoft software that is available on PCs. I still say if I don't use
> > a product I should not have to pay for it. Do you believe this to be
> > incorrect?
>
> It's not incorrect, but it is misleading. MS helped make Intel-based
> machines standard equipment, beating out competitors that were there
> first and were just as determined to keep their market share. What
> MS did is make their product the best choice for the most users.
> If their tactics had been less successful, would this case exist?
> Of course not. So it's not the tactics. It's not that they are
> the only choice, because there are many others I just pointed out.
> So it's not the monopoly status. That leaves nothing except
> "they succeeded and are an obvious target". That's not much of a
> basis for federal prosecution.
You start out this paragraph with the classic MS is a monopoly and
therefore should be allowed to stay a monopoly type of argument and then
end it by saying that there are many alternatives. But if I want to buy
a computer from a certain OEM, I am forced to purchase Windows wether I
use it or not. If you were to buy a car or truck with a certain kind of
tires on it, you only pay for those tires. You don't pay for those
tires, plus the tires made by the nearest competitor. While I could go
out of my way to find another vendor that would offer me the right
options, perhaps I would rather have that particular car, just without
having to pay for tires twice. Is my argument still completely useless
as you are trying to state?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
