Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What's the point (Ian Davey)
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. (Greg Copeland)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Steve Jones")
Re: What's the point ("spicerun")
Re: What's the point ("Doug Patterson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:15:16 GMT
In article <9bkapi$7no$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cat < nonsense > cola"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're not seeing the forest for the trees. 30 million people connect to the
>net via AOL, many more through ISP's that provide setup software that
>enables a complete point and click interface with no inputting of dns
>information, configuration of protocols, etc., The poster who inspired this
>thread had taken the time to actually get a linux box up and running with
>most of the sundries operable. He was questioning the payoff of his effort.
>A valid question, I believe, for the needs of the average computer user.
That's the whole point, give a user a fully working Linux distribution (from
an OEM) and they don't need to go through that setting up. If you want to
compare it with Windows as an OS you need a level playing field. It's unfair
to throw on installation on a blank PC as one of the comparisons, the average
user just doesn't do that. Someone else does it for them.
>> What average user would be setting up X windows? The same kind of user
>that
>> rushes out to buy the latest version of Windows and install that on their
>> machine? Hint - that is not an average user.
>
>I've installed every version of windows more times than I want to think
>about. Linux, 6 times or maybe more. Granted, the installation routines of
>the popular linux distros have improved by leaps and bounds. A credit to the
>programmers working for those companies. I still find windows installation
>almost a pop in the cd and forget it proposition after the serial is
>entered, and until the time zone setting is requested.
>Hint - this isn't really the topic of the thread.
The average user doesn't install Windows either.
>> I've placed a neophyte user in front of Mandrake 7.2, set up the internet
>for
>> them (as I've done many times for "average" users on Windows) and left
>them to
>> it. This was a person who'd not used the web before, had trouble with a
>mouse,
>> and types at approximately 10wpm. So how that can that be called
>difficult?
>> They can now boot up, log in and get themselves on the net with no
>> intravention at all from me.
>
>I ran Mandrake 7.1 install a few weeks ago. It died with a perl script error
>two minutes in. How many users do you think have the wherewithall to deal
>with that? Or even know what a perl script is?
The average user doesn't install an OS. They buy a new computer with it
pre-installed and they're up and running. That's what I was talking about.
This is the stage an OEM deals with.
>It's still the same mis-matched argument. Linux users, and people who use a
>computer more as an information appliance don't belong in the same room
>discussing anything on the topic of computers.
Who says they should, there's no reason the two can't share the same Linux
machine though.
>The 'user' just wants a working device that communicates with what his\her
>peers\school\work use, and the ability to say 'hey, that digital camera
>looks cool!, that mulit-function fax, printer, copier, scanner is just what
>i need, I really like <insert friend here>'s new cd burner & software, it's
>SO easy!'
Easy? Are you kidding. Most users I know couldn't install a CD burner /
Digital Camera, they're call somewho who knew something about computers to do
it for them (normally a friend or family member). The kind that would do this
kind of thing themselves could also figure out Linux if they put their minds
to it. Linux also often doesn't even need wizards, or installation dialogues,
because once the device is plugged it is set up automatically. At least
that's what I found with my sound/video cards, modem, etc. It just detected
it all with no intervention from me and no reboots.
>With Windows, go out, purchase it, hook it up, follow the wizard
>instructions, and more times than not: and this last statement is very
>important, the device(s) work just fine for all intent and purpose. Is it
>Linux's fault that this isn't the experience on linux? No, of course not.
>But, it is the current state of the world of computer hardware\software.
>Like it or not.
The situation is improving all the time though, and the same kind of users
that ask "what camera should I buy? can you install it for me?" can also be
pointed towards the ones that are supported.
>A linux 'guru' just wants to tell the 'user' what's wrong with what they're
>using because only they have the intellect to understand what it is in
>everyone elses best interest. Does anyone see the similarity between this
>logic and that of BG's and company?
There's nothing wrong with choice, and there are lots of disgruntled Windows
users out there looking for something else. You can scream all you like about
unsupported devices, but Linux would meet the needs of the vast majority of
users.
>> You're living in a fantasy world if you think new users of any system
>don't
>> need help from more advanced users. I'm constantly having to help out my
>> Windows using friends with problems installing software or hardware, and
>this
>> from a supposedly easy to use system.
>
>Granted, there will always be problems with any system. Requests will
>continue to come for help from those more knowledgeable than the caller.
>Once again, the post was someone who had taken the time to setup the box to
>a working state. After having done so, and then taken a survey of the
>effort, the question was 'what do I have here?' The answer, being that this
>person is not a programmer, is not much. --if expense is taken out of the
>equation.
Actually they were saying that there installation experience proves Linux was
not suitable for the average user, but as I tried to point out, the average
user does not install operating systems. They don't even install hardware.
They get someone else to do it for them.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Apr 2001 11:18:54 -0500
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "The home page"? Just how many servers have they converted? If I'm
> > > reading what they're saying correctly, we're talking 5,000 servers to be
> > > converted over. 4 years? That's about 3 servers per day, ignoring any
> > > actual time spent planning, testing, etc.
> >
> > They have only replaced the frontend web servers. The real work is
> > still handled by Unix
> >
> > > Okay, smart boy, how long would it take _you_ to roll out a conversion
> of
> > > 5,000 servers from, say, IIS+Win2K to Apache + Linux, while maintaining
> > > service for 100 million users? Let's see your deployment strategy.
> >
> > You wouldn't need 5,000 Unix servers. You wouldn't need 500 for goodness
> > sake. It says a lot about NT/W2K.
>
> Not really, but it says a lot about Linux. According to you, one wouldn't
> need even 500 servers. Can we say, maybe, 100? Let's go with that. As I
> read the article, those existing 5,000 servers are FreeBSD-based, being
> converted to Win2K. This means that the inefficiency was caused by FreeBSD;
> Win2K is simply coping with the existing mess. However, it also means that
> Linux is 50 times more efficient than FreeBSD.
>
> Are you really trying to tell us that FreeBSD is such crap that Linux
> outdoes it 50:1?
Such a claim would not fall into the realm of sanity, as you've wonderfully
pointed out. Anyone that can make a scaling recommendation without fully
understanding the implementation and how the work has been divided is clearly
out to lunch.
Having said that, based on some assumptions on my part, I wouldn't expect
the migration to be too difficult because of the fact that other servers
should be able to invisibly shoulder the load as some servers are being
replaced. After all, assuming that this is only a front-end CGI/ASP web
server replacement only, the task isn't that difficult. On top of that,
it becomes increasingly easy for them to do because the can measure load
on the new servers and make corrections as needed with only a very small
impact to quality of service. In short, this is a win-win for MS because
even if they have LOTS of problems, they can be easily hidden during the
initial migration. When it's all over, they are free to say how smoothly
it went without regard for reality; if in fact reality does differ.
After it's all over they'll then have a HUGE site *seemingly* running
Win2K for everything. This makes for very good PR. On the other side,
Win2K will only be doing the communication part, whereby, a single
failure is hardly noticeable and all of the real horsepower and work is
being done on the back-end. It's an excellent idea! They get to claim
positive PR and the appearance that they are doing all of the work,
wherein, the REAL work is being does on other platforms. IF you
question my choice of REAL here, put it this way. If a single server,
out of 5000 servers goes down, who cares. In on the other hand, one
of the database servers go down (maybe 100 - 1000 of these?????), the
percent of impact is hugely noticeable. If we assume (look-out-and-
take-cover) that one DB is in place for every 100 web servers, and
one web server is doing thousands of mail requests, the loss of one
server makes of say, 1000 lots requests, wherein, the loss of the
DB makes for 100000 lost requests. No one will really notice 1000
lost requests. On the other hand, 100,000 lost requests would
be VERY noticeable!!! Please keep in mind these numbers are completely
fictitious, however, I think it does a good job of pointing out the
scale of scope of the important of the different machines roles.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:37:36 +0100
"Cat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was considering the reasons for windows dominance of the OS market and
the huge problems of
> getting developers for Linux, Mac etc. Linux is a solution to a different
problem that just
> happens to have been successful in some desktop areas. It's a port of Unix
to a Intel box pure
> and simple. The Mac OS developed before and simultaneously with windows
platform and so it
> fundamentally different to it.
> I was wondering if anyone has ever considered doing to the OS market
what AMD did to the
> chip market. Why not engineer an OS from scratch with the objective of
being as close to the
> windows platform as possible for application development? You could make
it open source and
> free and include Java and other cross platform API in all distributions.
> It would certainly be a big investment but their would still be enough
money in the
> coffers of companies like Sun and IBM to do it. Assuming that they had the
right business plan
> from the start. Which is to make it free for the client side and low cost
and scalable for the
> server side until you got a significant % of the client side market.
> If I could run a free OS that allowed me to run virtually all of the
software that runs on
> windows I would even think about paying for windows.
a) You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
b) An MPU instruction set has a few hundred instructions (I guess), while an
OS has a few thousand API calls. I guess it's 10 times harder to emulate an
OS than an MPU. Or maybe a hundred time harder if it's exponential. It seems
harder, anyway.
Steve
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:57:13 -0500
In article <vj2D6.4868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got my cable modem, printer, cdrom drives, and daily programs going,
> and it took me endless hours - most of them spent trying to fix my
> display resolution, only to find out the config file was XF86config-4
> and not XF86config. How the hell was I supposed to know that?
>
> Then I started tackling my digital camera. I followed all the howtos I
> could find - no joy.
A word of advice....when dealing with Redhat make certain you read the
HOWTOs written especially for Redhat....In this case, that is how you
would have found out that Redhat uses XF86config-4. You would need to get
the HOWTOs from your distribution disk (If you bought a Redhat Box Set) or
you need to read the HOWTOs on Redhat's site (www.redhat.com).
Again, Redhat is notorious about doing minor 'tweaks' to the Linux
configuration that nobody else knows about.
>And I still dealt with crappy looking fonts on my
> web browsers. And that's when I decided to throw in the towel.
This is a Dead Giveaway! TROLL! Steve/88-keys is at it again...can
always count on him to bring up the fonts non-issue. Tell me Steve, are
you employed by Microsoft directly, or are you an employee of a Public
Relations firm paid by Microsoft?
> After wasting 2 solid weeks of vacation time accomplishing half of what
> I could do in a few hours under windows (even with the crashes and GPFs)
> I wiped my hard drive slick and threw on Windows ME.
>
> So my question is, for the home user, what's the point? Has anyone
> learned Linux from the ground up just to use it at home?
Absolutely!
> What's the
> advantage?
Advantages! My hardware, at the time, that Windows said was obsolete
suddenly worked better than it ever did with Windows, The speed increase
of my 133Mhz, AMD-586 suddenly increased when running programs, I could
suddenly run 2 simultaneous applications without having to wait for one of
them to finish before the other one started (which always happened under
Windows), and very noticeable stability...ie, my computer quit crashing
and/or slowing down (I could leave my machine on without fear of a
lock-up).
Note: Now I have a dual 650Mhz PIII System at home running Linux that
still runs faster than my dual 650Mhz PIII system at work running WinNT
w/SP6. On top of that, my home system doesn't crash (unless I mess with
the kernel which I'm known to do).
> I'm convinced Linux is great if you want to run a server or
> whatever, but is there a point in home users running Linux?
Yes. Even my wife who isn't computer saavy sits down at my Home System
and uses Applixware when I'm not on my computer....She chooses my system
although she could use Word97 on her own WinME computer.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Doug Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Doug Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:56:02 GMT
Amen! After weeks of struggling with Red Hat and its Update utility (which
broke itself after updating the glibc to 2.2 and some Gnome updates), and
Corel Linux (which won't even get past the splash screen on the
installation), I've had it. I'm no computer dummy. I'm a tech and have
worked with PCs going back to CP/M days. I love command lines. This,
however, is a waste of time.
So setting up dial up networking under KDE is easy? I have NEVER succeeded
in getting KDEs' ppp app to work on any version of Linux. No problem with
Gnome's, BTW. Too bad most of the browsers are junk. Poor font rendering
under Netscape, no java under Opera, etc.
Windows may not meet the "standards of purity" of many Linux advocates, but
that isn't the point! So what if Windows is the technical equivalent of a
hairball (which it is, but is moving forward)? A computer, for a home or
small biz user, is just a tool. I expect my tools to work without weeks of
learning how to accomplish simple tasks. With Windows I don't have problems
with dependencies when trying to install an application (that drill got old
fast). With Linux, if a needed version of a library isn't there, your app
simply won't run when you click the icon. No error message, just dead
silence. Great feedback. Now what?
Mature app categories in Windows or DOS have equivalents that still aren't
to Version 1.0 yet under Linux! Nobody's fault, but why should the world
wait when mature apps are there under that "other" platform? After all,
businesses evaluate their needs, then find software that meets those needs,
then find the OS that runs that software, then hardware that runs the OS.
Nobody should get hardware and an OS, then adjust the way he works to fit
the system he bought. That is nuts. I have seen that backwards process in
government, and have seen people lose their careers over it. Some in this NG
have the attitude that we poor Windoze peasants should adopt Linux because
it is "morally superior" (and yes, I have seen that statement), though it is
a minority. Thankfully I haven't seen that lately. But the point remains.
Being technically more advanced and more flexible does NOT mean better.
Updating Red Hat, using their own Update utility, broke the Updater. Now it
won't run at all. The Windows Update system has never caused me a problem.
And this junk about Windows being just as hard to set up as Linux is simply
not true! For example, compare the process of installing fonts. Drag and
Drop in Windows. Linux? Just how difficult could they make it?
<SOAPBOX>
And frankly, the attitudes of users are vastly different between Windows and
Linux. Newbies who have a Windows problem get helpful, or at least courteous
responses on USENET groups. Often a newbie to Linux will get "Read the
#@$#@% man pages!" (As if those are a lot of help to anyone but an
expert...if the topic you need is even there.) I have seen that response
myself. Even if worded more eloquently, the attitude is often there. Those
of us who are not Linux/Unix experts are NOT morons. I'm sure I know more
about shipboard steam propulsion turbines that most people here, but I don't
consider myself superior to anyone because of it. If it sounds like I'm
grinding my axe, that's because I am. Been there. You know who you are.
</SOAPBOX>
In contrast to Linux, I have installed BeOS Personal Edition next to
Windows; it is a breath of fresh air. Everything works: my TV card, USB
printer, everything! It multitasks MUCH smoother than Linux or Windows. It
took less than 10 minutes to install, and less than 5 to configure Internet.
I feel like I have mastered it enough for my daily work and then some within
2 days, hardly ever referrring to any documentation (which is there and
understandable to common mortals). What's Linux's excuse?
If Linux wants to go anywhere on the home/SOHO desktop, attitudes and
assumptions must change. Say what you want about Bill Gates (and I often
do), but at least he understands his market. So do the Be people. Thank you
both for listening.
Doug
"cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bkapi$7no$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9bk2m7$3p1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cat < nonsense >
cola"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >People in this group have been spreading BS for years about the ease of
> > >linux as an inducement to potential new users. They mention this
> 'learning
> > >curve' from time to time, as if it was nothing for the average computer
> > >using individual to give up hours a day just to setup and use email and
> the
> > >web, pull their hair out when adding hardware, or even trying to get
the
> X
> >
> > What BS are you sprouting here? It's incredibly easy in Mandrake 7.2
> (under
> > KDE for instance) to set up email and web access. Far easier than trying
> to
> > configure Dial-Up Networking under Windows. The average user will have
no
> > problems when placed in front of a pre-installed box.
>
> You're not seeing the forest for the trees. 30 million people connect to
the
> net via AOL, many more through ISP's that provide setup software that
> enables a complete point and click interface with no inputting of dns
> information, configuration of protocols, etc., The poster who inspired
this
> thread had taken the time to actually get a linux box up and running with
> most of the sundries operable. He was questioning the payoff of his
effort.
> A valid question, I believe, for the needs of the average computer user.
>
> > What average user would be setting up X windows? The same kind of user
> that
> > rushes out to buy the latest version of Windows and install that on
their
> > machine? Hint - that is not an average user.
>
> I've installed every version of windows more times than I want to think
> about. Linux, 6 times or maybe more. Granted, the installation routines of
> the popular linux distros have improved by leaps and bounds. A credit to
the
> programmers working for those companies. I still find windows installation
> almost a pop in the cd and forget it proposition after the serial is
> entered, and until the time zone setting is requested.
> Hint - this isn't really the topic of the thread.
>
> > I've placed a neophyte user in front of Mandrake 7.2, set up the
internet
> for
> > them (as I've done many times for "average" users on Windows) and left
> them to
> > it. This was a person who'd not used the web before, had trouble with a
> mouse,
> > and types at approximately 10wpm. So how that can that be called
> difficult?
> > They can now boot up, log in and get themselves on the net with no
> > intravention at all from me.
>
> I ran Mandrake 7.1 install a few weeks ago. It died with a perl script
error
> two minutes in. How many users do you think have the wherewithall to deal
> with that? Or even know what a perl script is?
> It's still the same mis-matched argument. Linux users, and people who use
a
> computer more as an information appliance don't belong in the same room
> discussing anything on the topic of computers.
> The 'user' just wants a working device that communicates with what his\her
> peers\school\work use, and the ability to say 'hey, that digital camera
> looks cool!, that mulit-function fax, printer, copier, scanner is just
what
> i need, I really like <insert friend here>'s new cd burner & software,
it's
> SO easy!'
> With Windows, go out, purchase it, hook it up, follow the wizard
> instructions, and more times than not: and this last statement is very
> important, the device(s) work just fine for all intent and purpose. Is it
> Linux's fault that this isn't the experience on linux? No, of course not.
> But, it is the current state of the world of computer hardware\software.
> Like it or not.
> A linux 'guru' just wants to tell the 'user' what's wrong with what
they're
> using because only they have the intellect to understand what it is in
> everyone elses best interest. Does anyone see the similarity between this
> logic and that of BG's and company?
>
> > You're living in a fantasy world if you think new users of any system
> don't
> > need help from more advanced users. I'm constantly having to help out my
> > Windows using friends with problems installing software or hardware, and
> this
> > from a supposedly easy to use system.
>
> Granted, there will always be problems with any system. Requests will
> continue to come for help from those more knowledgeable than the caller.
> Once again, the post was someone who had taken the time to setup the box
to
> a working state. After having done so, and then taken a survey of the
> effort, the question was 'what do I have here?' The answer, being that
this
> person is not a programmer, is not much. --if expense is taken out of the
> equation.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
