This is a SMALL side issue, but I was aware of the existence of Unix
prior to my first purchase of a computer (a cardboard box full of
smaller boxes holding the pieces of an XT-clone-to-be). I only knew two
things about Unix, though. I knew it was THE operating system to have
and I knew that, without a mainframe and an extra $3,500 for the OS, I
couldn't have it.
Now, with the arrival of Linux, I can have "Unix on my PC". I beat
myself up to learn DOS because I had no real choice. Then I forced
myself to learn Windows because some of the program features I wanted
were only available in Windows form. Now there is an OS that is fast and
reliable, and, (only) when I want it to be ... graphically oriented.
Further, as an emerging OS, Linux will soon have gee-whiz features and
applications that are NOT available under any form of MS O/S. It is time
to put another pot of coffee on to brew and get busy learning again.
Learning Linux takes no more brain power than learning to tune a car
engine. Of course, some folks can't get past the hood latch while others
can simply wave hypnotically and get a smoother idle. Then again, I wish
I had a nickle for every trivial question I have answered about Windows.
Some folks can barely get to the splash screen on it, too. Without
training of some sort, the Windows desktop is nearly as mysterious as
the CLI.
Speed, speed and more speed. As a marketing feature, that is really very
important. As the chip manufacturers know, folks watch those clock speed
numbers (unaware of the other factors, such as OS code bloat, that can
prove mitigating) and make purchase decisions based on them. Linux
removes barriers and makes a good machine fast, a fast machine scream
through the night. I have been watching for years now and it seems that
everytime Intel makes a faster chip, MSFT makes a slower OS to balance
things out. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm Aummmmmmmmmmmmmm Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Linux, on my (modestly endowed) machine, puts a directory tree
(including my DOS partition) on my screen 6 times faster than DOS can.
That's stopwatch time. Although my video card / drivers were engineered
for Windows, Linux puts the display on the screen fast enough to make it
an unreadable blur ... not Windows.
I don't have any real enmity against Microsoft. For years I relied on
them and, despite some occaisionally shaky code,(DOS 4.01 comes to mind)
they filled my needs. Then "came Windows" and there "went reliability".
I am truly tired of having to buy more hardware just because Microsoft
has an obsession for bloated, beleagured code. Frankly, my XT moved a
file to the printer just as well as my P5 MMX does. I think the P5 (223
mhz, 64 meg ram) should absolutely bury that old XT (10 mhz, 8 meg ram)
in the dust ... but it doesn't. Unless I use Linux or an older (CLI)
version of MS/PC-DOS.
Linux makes this MY computer again ... not Microsofts computer that I am
permitted to pay for and use. There is no "Registry" file to make
adjustments hard to do. Instead, Linux uses simple text files to hold
most everything ... text files I can find, read and modify to suit my
own personal tastes. If Windows is so great, why does it always offer to
save the previous version of itself or DOS? It is as if it realizes that
intalling Windows on a computer is a very bad thing to do and a good
thing to be able to undo before the spouse finds out. Linux simply says
"Oh, by the way, you are about to obliterate your lifes, work. Shall I
start now?" :)
Linux is moving toward a more fully automated installation process. This
is good news for the desktop market. It recently gained a journaled file
system (talk about "geek speak"!) through SGI (whoo - hoo!) that will
ALSO be of use on the desktop. Linux may well end up with a ton of
features and loading like a stripped-down dos ... ie ... 4 seconds to
bring the HD up to speed, 6 seconds to CLI and 10 seconds (total) to
GUI. As the emulators get betterer and betterer,[:)] Linux gains the
application lists of the O/S's it emulates. As of now, most DOS / Unix
and many Windows programs run under Linux pretty much as if in their
original environment. That list will keep growing. Further, Linux has
programs written explicitly for it that the Microsoft OS's can not
touch. When Torvalds released Freax, Linux had NO applications. Now it
has what, 27,000 or so?
Hardware drivers remain an issue. But even that will not remain true
forever. With folks like IBM, SGI, Oracle and Corel ... the "big boys"
working with us, hardware manufacturers will be much more willing to
open the vaults to us.
For the cost of writing a driver for their devices, many manufacturers
could own a near monopoly in the Linux market. Hellooooo! It's that
simple. It is likely that the life cycle of the device and the kernel
will nearly coincide ... making the investment in programming just that
much simpler to justify. Clearly, there are just too many copies of
Linux actually being sold to dismiss it as "flash in the pan" software.
Actually, I think the single most compelling reason to
run Linux on a home / hobby computer is this: It is fun
to know something that others don't.
Once MSFT Word / Access / etc users learn Star Office they have the
right to brag that they can use a more capable program than their poorer
cousins. They don't have to mention that it is easier to use Star Office
than the equivalent MS programs. I understand the same is true of the
ApplixWare suite.
BTW, Deepak, do you know of any listing showing the applications Linux
can run sorted by the OS they were originally written for? It is just in
the nature of Linux that there is a need for such a list.
Well, you and the others who read this probably had something else they
wanted to do today so I will close here :)
Bill
Deepak Saxena wrote:
>
> On May 29 1999, at 01:57, W Canedigh was caught saying:
> > Some good reasons for using Linux (there are dozens) is that:
> > 1) It doesn't even HAVE a "blue screen of death".
> > 2) The best way to "cure" a monopoly is to support workable
> > alternatives to that monopoly
> > 3) Using Unix brings "heavy iron" software to the desktop.
> > 4) Although computers on the desktop are actually incredibly fast these
> > days, "code bloat" has kept them running like old XT's ... yielding
> > "hardly acceptable" performance instead of "wow!" performance. It
> > doesn't have to be that way. It just doesn't.
>
> These are all great reasons, but the question is will they click with
> average computer users? I think no BSOD and more overall stability is
> one of the big pluses Linux has when trying to get more people to use
> it. Better performance on older computers is also a great selling point.
> I think most people wouldn't care about #3...most people probably have
> never even heard of Unix ("isn't that some kind of male deformity?").
> I think the monopoly thing is good, but we don't want to make it into
> too much a big point. We don't want to focus on the downpoints of
> M$, but instead on the good points of Linux. I've seen far too many
> Linux advocacy discussions turn into nothing but Microsoft bashing,
> which IMHO is not the best way to proceed when working on a big public
> event.
>
> - Deepak
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- www.plexity.net -- ICQ: 17774863
> Home: (480)446-0903 Work: (480)554-9339
>
> One Day - One World - One Operating System - An Army of Geeks
> LinuxDemo Day '99 - http://www.linuxdemo.org
> ---
> This message was automatically sent by the Linux Demo Days mailing list
> To remove yourself from this list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with the "unsubcribe" in your message body.
begin:vcard
n:Canedigh;Bill
tel;home:313 387 8384
-http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99may/19990506.html
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
note;quoted-printable:The less I know, the smaller my ulcer.=0D=0A=
fn:Bill Canedigh
end:vcard
