OK, I don't get this (minor rant)

tyler_durden · Post by **tyler_durden** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:31 pm

kenada, thats exactly our point. it isn't that windows is the opereating system for eveyone. but give bill gates and ms a break. there are many out there who make bill gates out to be some evil person shoving windows (they feel a buggy and worthless OS) in everyones face.
sure linux is a good os. maybee a better os depending on what you are doing. but there is defenatly a place for windows.

kenada · Post by **kenada** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:48 pm

My issue was never with whether or not Windows was a useful platform. If it were, I would have never said (several times) that it is useful to some people. My issue was with the claim that anything other than Windows is a toy, and that no one would seriously use something other than Windows.

Darkheart · Post by **Darkheart** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 5:01 am

In my original post if you take the whole thing in context rather than just the last line you can see what I mean. Splitfire's original critism is that the new Kernel is over a year late and all the pundits are like "WOW, that's SO great!". I remember when Win 95 was released in Decemeber MS got slated for being so late, and rightly so. 6 years later almost every PC that leaves an OEM has a MS OS on it.

Now if Linux is to be a serious commercial alternative, as it's proponents continually tout it, then it should be judged on the same scale as MS and compared with MS directly it does not fare well.

For almost every computer task (apart from the extremely specialised) there is an MS-based solution. Linux at the moment has very limited use and no place as a credible alternative in business or in the home when dealing in mass markets. Linux is purely for enthusiast and shouldn't be treated as an MS alternative. So you can't critise them for being late but you can't say Linux is SO much better to use than MS either. Apples and Oranges.

Darkheart

kenada · Post by **kenada** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 9:01 am

In my original post if you take the whole thing in context rather than just the last line you can see what I mean.

Isn't that better than taking it out of context?

Steve Ballmer considers GNU/Linux to be the <a href="http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006">top threat</a> to Windows, so it is clearly more than just a toy for enthusiasts.
<hr/>
Update: Here's a quote from the article:

“I think you have to rate competitors that threaten your core higher than you rate competitors where you're trying to take from them,” Ballmer said. “It puts the Linux phenomenon and the Unix phenomenon at the top of the list. I'd put the Linux phenomenon really as threat No. 1.”

[Edited by kenada on 01-11-2001 at 09:04 AM]

Darkheart · Post by **Darkheart** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 9:20 am

If Linux overtakes MS in the OS market (as in more units sold and or in distribution) in the next 3 years I will eat my computer and provide the photos to prove it!

Darkheart

Splitfire · Post by **Splitfire** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 6:50 pm

Steve Ballmer considers GNU/Linux to be the top threat to Windows, so it is clearly more than just a toy for enthusiasts.

Wow, that's a misquote if I have ever heard one. Simply because Linux is the top threat does not necessarily mean it is a legitimate threat. Compared to the other OSs out there like Mac or BeOS, yes, Linux is the #1 threat. Imagine the PC market as a baseball game. Linux may have 10 runs scored, beating out Mac's 9, Unix's 8, Be's 5, or everything else's collective 4, but compared to Microsoft's 50 runs? I don't think so. You get the idea? Simply b/c it is considered to eb the #2 OS doesn't mean that it is a neck-and-neck race for #1.

There are lots of people out there who perceive a particular software package as better because they want it to be better. Now granted, there are probably plenty of people out there who actually get more use out of a Linux platform than out of a windows platform. But the problem is that these people are typically in highly specialized computer related fields (i.e. programming, development, etc). Most people who own computers probably can't even spell Linux, much less tell you what it is/does. Everybody knows windows, so they use it. Until Linux is able to some how grab some chunks of the OEM pie (which in and of itself is a near impossibility considering it is an open-source OS), it will always be an enthusiast OS. Like it or not, OEM is where the computer business lies.

kenada · Post by **kenada** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 8:24 pm

I never said that it was a close race. I said that because it was a threat meant something. I must admit I don't really care ifâ€”nor was I arguing forâ€”everyone switches from Windows because their doing so has no impact on my use of GNU/Linux.

For what it's worth, both Dell and IBM are supporting GNU/Linux.

Links:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/topics/li ... .htm">Dell Delivers Linux!</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/software/allia ... ">Software Alliances - Linux</a></li>
</ul>

Solstice · Post by **Solstice** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 11:12 pm

Originally posted by Darkheart
For almost every computer task (apart from the extremely specialised) there is an MS-based solution. Linux at the moment has very limited use and no place as a credible alternative in business or in the home when dealing in mass markets. Linux is purely for enthusiast and shouldn't be treated as an MS alternative. So you can't critise them for being late but you can't say Linux is SO much better to use than MS either. Apples and Oranges.
Darkheart

I've never heard more BS in my life. I work for the largest networking company in the world (Cisco) with over 35,000 worldwide employees. Our software developers are given the choice of running either Linux or Windows NT on their primary work machine. Most of them opt to use Linux because for programmers it delivers more features, tools, and does so with ease. Most of our internal servers run either Linux or UNIX. The fact of the matter is that Linux deserves the business place because when server downtime means losing customers and cashflow, one cannot afford to run a "high-maintanance" NT server. When we need our boxes to run and stay running for long periods on end, NT and 2k are not options for us.

Keep this in mind as well. The number of estimated machines running Linux is sorely underestimated. It's tracked in terms of sales. How do you track the number of users running something that wasn't purchased, but downloaded. Perhaps by number of downloads then? Red Hat alone has had more than 10,000,000 downloads. Factor in the other distros and that figure is easily doubled.

Finally, we need to stop talking about applications, and get back to the heart of an OS, the kernel. Like I said before, the Linux kernel has millions of hobbyist developers and testers. Would you rather drive an automobile created by more people (incorporating more ideas, approaches, and backgrounds) and tested by more people (with the sake of the final product in mind), or drive an automobile developed and tested by less people (with the sake of making profit in mind)? It you think this is a warped comparison of Linux and MS, come to work with me for just one day. You'll soon realize that engineering (the product developers) are nothing but puppets for money-greedy managers who don't know squat about engineering.

bitSLAP · Post by **bitSLAP** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:35 am

I just have one point to make...

Linux is a hard language to learn for the average user. It is structured in a way that cannot be simplified enough to be used by everyone (although they've tried). If people are still buying Macs because they can't figure out Windows, then how are they going to figure out Linux?

I'm guessing that half of computer users fall into this category. Heck, most people look at Linux and go HUH?

I don't think this will change in the future, and therefore Linux distribution will hit a wall. Keep an eye out for Windows 2010... it'll be selling well.

Post by **sbp** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:51 am

I'll have to give this linux thread a big Roger Ebert thumbs <img src="http://www.geocities.com/laracroftsucks/thumbsdown.gif" alt="Thumbs down!"> down. Where the hell <A href="http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/files/finallinux.html" target="_new">is the flaming? The name calling?</a> Such a big disappointment. <img src="http://www.geocities.com/laracroftsucks/disa.gif" alt="disappointed">

[Edited by sbp on 01-12-2001 at 01:02 AM]

Solstice · Post by **Solstice** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:22 am

That's all changing bitSLAP. Linux is slowly becoming a more user friendly OS, despite opposition from many supporters. Originally Linux attracted many users who wanted full control of their hardware and software, and the ability to change the OS (provided they have the knowledge). It puts the power back into the hands of the user. The ability to fully change, tweak, and customize the OS (and all hardware/software) allows the user to make it feel more comfortable for their computing needs.

Now days, in order to attract new Linux support, many distrubutors are fully automating the Linux installation process making it more "Windows-like". Some see this negatively, believing it takes away what attracted so many in the first place, the ability to customize. Many still perceive Linux to be a CLI (command line interface) driven OS, only more cryptic than DOS. This, also, has evolved. There are a fairly wide number of X desktop interfaces for you to choose from. If you try one and don't like it you are free to try another. And none of them are similar. Here is a screenshot from a KDE interface -

<img src = "http://www.fix.net/~ewiles/kde.jpg">

Anyone somewhat familiar with Windows could be up and running with KDE in about 20-30 minutes of just playing around. Every aspect of the interface is also customizable, much like having WindowBlinds built it to the OS.

All I'm trying to do here is dispell the MANY myths about Linux. Anyone who can read an instruction manual can install a Linux distro. If it doesn't feel quite right to you, change it, play with it, tweak it. Linux gives you this freedom.

Darkheart · Post by **Darkheart** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 6:33 am

Solstice:

1) Downloads

people running Linux at all, I myself have downloaded 2 versions of Linux does that mean I'm running either of them ? No. Also I would guess many of the downloads are repeat users getting new versions rather than new people moving to Linux. If people actually have to pay for something then this is a good indicator that they are going to use it. Freebie downloads are just that and in no way indicate any kind of long term useage. I would think maybe only 20% of the downloads actually translate into people installing the platform for 1st time use. Probably only 5% using it exclusively.

2) You don't want to talk about applications why? Computing IS applications! Without applications your computer is just an expensive and complex calculator.

3) Your comparision with automobiles isn't a bad one, but ask yourself would you rather drive a car that was built by ameuters in their time off or designed by professional engineers and built by proffesional people? I know which one I would entrust my safety to.

4) Programmers are quite likely to use Linux but they are:

Already highly skilled and competent users.
Can sort out their own problems to a smaller or greater extent.
Have a much greater appreciation of what's going on with their computers.

Tell me are your sales/admin/marketing/support/management using Linux ? I don't think so.

Linux is for the small number of technically aware enthusiasts who will get something from the Linux enviroment, for everyone else it is a waste of time.

As far as running Linux for Enterprise it doesn't make much sense to me. Who supports it? Why split between Linux and UNIX ? 1 platform is much easier to support than 2 or 3. Myself I run a group of a mere 300 people and run the lot off Citrix Servers running either NT4TS or Win2K Advanced Server with Citrix Metaframe and I'm not messing with my servers continually. Also if you do need to take one off the farm you can just load balance between the rest.

The whole "Windows Server is high maintenance/low tolerance" is much overplayed by UNIX/Linux users.

I would expect in your organasiation (is in most) your workstation distribution is 70-100% Windows 0-30% others. Servers is pretty much pick and choose but I'd be surpised if each site didn't have at least 1 MS server. Maybe a little more bias towards the others with Cisco if you have centralised UNIX applications.

I am willing to bet you won't find a single large company using 100% Linux anywhere, certainly not any medium to large company.

Also isn't it rather self defeating for Linux to simply copy the Windows GUI? Isn't that going against the whole argument that Linux has so much greater intuitvness and increased useablity? If you want to tweak your Windows look and feel why not just open up control panel or download Tweak UI?

Darkheart

[Edited by Darkheart on 01-12-2001 at 06:36 AM]

kenada · Post by **kenada** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 7:07 am

Originally posted by Darkheart
You don't want to talk about applications why? Computing IS applications! Without applications your computer is just an expensive and complex calculator.

There are many applications available for GNU/Linux. Just because they aren't the exact same ones available for Windows does not mean they do not exist.

Your comparision with automobiles isn't a bad one, but ask yourself would you rather drive a car that was built by ameuters in their time off or designed by professional engineers and built by proffesional people? I know which one I would entrust my safety to.

Yeah, it's not like an automobile hasn't ever had problems where its tired would fail and the cause the car to roll…

Those who work on the major Linux applications are far from amateurs because no amateur could put together an entire operating system.

Also isn't it rather self defeating for Linux to simply copy the Windows GUI? Isn't that going against the whole argument that Linux has so much greater intuitvness and increased useablity?

KDE 2.x needn't necessarily look like Windows. It's not exceptionally difficult to make it look like MacOS or BeOS. Personally, I'm reminded more of BeOS than MacOS when using KDE 2.1. I don't know why people insist on comparing it to Windows when it's not that similar.

If you want to tweak your Windows look and feel why not just open up control panel or download Tweak UI?

Without something like WindowBlinds, Litestep, DesktopX or something similar, Windows currently isn't the most tweakable of platforms.

Anyone else feel like we're beating a dead horse? Care to invoke Godwin's Law?

Solstice · Post by **Solstice** » Fri Jan 12, 2001 5:29 pm

By that screenshot I was just trying to demonstrate that if you are familiar with the Windows GUI, you'll know KDE2. There are many other desktop environments that look nothing like any GUI you've ever seen.

Gaming aside, what do I use my computer for? Word processing, email, instant messaging, web browsing, music, digital imaging, and really not much else. All of these applications are available for Linux at no cost. ICQ is there, Winamp is there, Netscape is there (aside from other better browsers), email clients built in to the distros, RedHat includes a photoshop style app that many (including myself) find easier to use and more functional than Adobe, and a whole slew of Office suites to choose from. Why go out and buy a Cable/DSL router when you can slap another $20 NIC card in your Linux box and run IP masquerade? Why go out and buy Windows firewall software when you can use what's been built into the Linux OS?

It also takes better advantage of your hardware. Linux loads faster and runs better on my Celeron 300 than Windows 2k does on my P3 900. It's a nice way of breathing new life into what most would consider a dead machine.

Are we beating a dead horse here? Probably. If you have an old PC laying around why not try a Linux installation? You'll learn more about your hardware, the OS world, and the world of systems administration. Within a couple months of just playing around you might actually have the skills to market yourself as sys admin. Last time I checked, sys admins with a Linux background were in very high demand. Here in the Silicon Valley they pull in at least $70k per year.

[Edited by Solstice on 01-12-2001 at 05:37 PM]

Darkheart · Post by **Darkheart** » Sat Jan 13, 2001 7:41 am

It still doesn't change the fact that Linux isn't a commercial grade OS and shouldn't be treated as such. Also I must say if someone came to me for a sys admin job and their experience was using a Linux server at home I would advise them to go do some tech support and stop wasting their time. No way on earth I would pay them even $10,000 much less $70,000.

I also notice you choose not to answer any of the points in my previous post except for the interface, does this mean you accept these as given?

Darkheart

[Edited by Darkheart on 01-13-2001 at 07:50 AM]