Linux: A contrarian position

Rick Rogers (TeamB)

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

I believe Borland/Corel's emphasis on Linux will be *great* for
Windows developers, for several reasons:

1) Linux is the current "hot technology" in the marketplace right now,
which means focusing on Linux makes it easier to get positive press
coverage and higher share prices, both of which will help bolster
perceptions about the company;

2) A successful Kylix project will attract more developers to Delphi
(for example, people who currently use MS tools for Windows
development, and aren't getting a Linux solution from MS), and more
developers in our language is good in a host of ways (more books, more
mindshare, more jobs, more components);

3) having Delphi work on two platforms reduces some of the (largely
illogical) concerns about it being a "proprietary" language in IS
shops;

4) A successful Kylix should help overcome the mistaken impression
that Delphi is only a "database", which is how many people in the
United States (and perhaps elsewhere) have pigeon-holed it.

5) Borland has already demonstrated an ability to leverage features
developed for one product (example: C++ Builder) in another (example:
Delphi), and we can expect this to continue with Kylix; for example, I
believe that the refactoring of the VCL to be less OS dependent will
result in large benefits for Delphi/Windows;

6) Linux tools is supposedly a growing market, and it just makes good
business sense to leverage your current strengths to enter a growing
market.

Do I think Linux is the current trendy over-hyped buzzword, and that
it will fade in a few years just as Java was over-hyped then faded?
Possibly (perhaps even probably). But over-hyped marketing and being
in the forefront of popular trends is how companies grow, and it seems
bizarre to complain that Borland/Corel are taking advantage of
marketing hype now, after people have spent so many years complaining
that Borland hasn't been marketing properly.

I'm also not worried about the future of Delphi/Windows. Delphi is
Borland's flagship product, and Windows dev tools are Borland's
primary revenue source. Delphi is driving this train. I think the only
chance that Delphi/Windows will wither away in the near-to-medium
future is if Windows also withers away, and I don't think the latter
is very likely at all.
--
Rick Rogers (TeamB)
www.fenestra.com and www.componentfactory.com

John Kaster (Borland)

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

There is a pulse question up on the home page of
http://community.borland.com where everyone can register their opinion about
the merger between Borland and Corel.

Jim Daniels

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Well said. I think that represents a reasonably likely scenario.

One "test" people use for Delphi "market share" is to walk into their local
Barnes & Noble, (or whatever large bookstore is in their area) and see how
many Delphi books there are. Stores have been carrying fewer and fewer
Delphi books, because there aren't as many secretaries, night watchmen, and
clerks trying to "break into programming" with Delphi. They're all trying
to become "programmers" by taking VB classes and buying VB books. Having
some Delphi for Linux books on the shelves would be a great thing, and the
more the better. I agree totally that the Linux version of Delphi makes
sticking with Delphi in the Windows environment that much easier of a sell.

One committee in my company proposed including C++ in our "architecture"
based on the fact it is cross platform. That's all well and good, except
for the problem that MS VC++ is NOT cross-platform, once you start using
MFC, as MS encourages you to do. Delphi (and BCB too...) on Linux will
provide a strong argument that Delphi is in fact a viable cross-platform
approach, while MS VC++ is not.

I particularly see people using Delphi for server-side code that can be run
on either Linux or Win with a simple recompile, using the same code base.
(okay, maybe a few IFDEF...ENDDEFs thrown in) Since the server-side pieces
have no UI, achieving true OS portability in this arena should be reasonably
feasible. Of course, this depends on what Borland gives us for DB access
tools in the Linux environment.

I see application development houses who support a particular industry
(e.g., an HR application written in Delphi, I know there is a big one, but I
can't recall it's name. Met some of the developers and BorCon '98 in
Denver) viewing Delphi as a more viable choice, because they can deliver
their apps to either Windows clients or Linux clients.

Uninformed people involved in selecting development tools often try to make
the argument that "there are so many more VB programmers out there" and
"Delphi is losing market share". Adding a few hundred thousand Delphi Linux
developers would do wonders to help counter these pointy-haired perceptions.
The reality I've see is that most of these VB "programmers" are a joke in
terms of their ability to build anything that performs decently, and is
reasonably maintainable after the original developer is gone. Not to
mention the client deployment issues and system stability issues that
typically accompany VB apps. Yes, there are many highly capable VB
developers, they're just not the norm. Pointy-hairs can't tell a wannabe
from the real thing.

On the client side, Delphi could easily become a better cross-platform
approach for apps running on the client than Java. No JVM issues to deal
with, no slow loading, same essential code base (yes, with those
IFDEFs...ENDDEFs), high-performing applications... sounds like a winner.

Actual mileage may vary... Crystal ball somewhat cloudy... but I think the
positive scenarios are just as likely, and in fact more likely, than some of
the doom-and-gloom scenarios people are mentioning.

Richard Hansen

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Well, said I could not agree more.

Rick Hansen

Dave Bhatia

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Good points Rick,

Add this one to it:

With Corel Linux available free, we can now expect an Operating System
bundled into the box with Kylix, what other development tool offers that?

Corel Linux kicks ass, the interface is awesome and so is the stability,
installation and plug and play compatibility... not bad for a freeware.

The whole idea is to move forward; with Kylix/Linux offering new
technologies and new ways of doing things it would make Delphi developers
even more sought after.

It's just a matter of time till apps for Linux start surfacing, the momentum
is there, just go to any CompUsa and see the variety of off-the-shelf
applications available for Linux even today; take a look at the freeware
that's available, it's amazing.

Dave Bhatia

WMeyer

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Rick,

I agree. You make excellent points. Have you noticed, though, that folks
seem to prefer to scream and wail?

One of the keys from my perspective is that there is a very large population
of Windows apps developers who would jump to develop on Linux, but can't
afford to lose all of their hard-earned skills. I'm one of them. The
hard-core Linux guys (real programmers use emacs, and not IDEs) will stick
to their existing tools. The hard-core open source socialists will refuse to
buy a tool, however good it may be. That leaves us pragmatists, who depend
on Delphi for our livelihood.

Oh, and this is another opportunity to say that I hope Kylix may lead to
Delphi for BeOS, too.

William Meyer

"Rick Rogers (TeamB)" <ri...@fenestra.com> wrote in message
news:uqs2asg5nvq7r0jrc...@4ax.com...

Material Guy

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote:

> > 5) [...] I believe that the refactoring of the VCL to be less OS

> > dependent will
> > result in large benefits for Delphi/Windows;
>

> I do too. Borland will for example be forced to write their own versions
> of certain Windows controls in order to facilitate easy porting of Delphi
> Windows code, and if past experiences are anything to go by, these are
> likely to be nicer than the Windows items - <snip>

Some of the nicest looking programs on Windows 3.1 that I ever saw were
Borland tool producted.

There was a sense of pride in knowing what tools were used.

This may be either a valuable insight or just the ramblings of an old
flatulence.

Jim Buch

Material Guy

unread,

Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00

to

Something is wrong. It would only record my _first_ vote.

Jim Buch

Phillip Flores

unread,

Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00

to

[snip]

I completely agree.

--
Cheers,

Phillip Flores
PCF Consulting P/L

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00

to

"Rick Rogers (TeamB)" wrote:

> 2) A successful Kylix project will attract more developers to Delphi
> (for example, people who currently use MS tools for Windows
> development, and aren't getting a Linux solution from MS), and more
> developers in our language is good in a host of ways (more books, more
> mindshare, more jobs, more components);

If Borland handle the distribution in a "Linux friendly" manner (i.e not
trying to charge people hefty up-front fees for certain features) then
they could gain a lot of mind share very quickly. If on the other hand
they try and hide things like web, database and XML features (which will
be of immense interest to many Linux developers) away in "pay before you
play" packages, they run the risk of squandering what could be a golden
opportunity to become the standard middleware programming tool on Linux,
and therefore by osmosis on any other future OS that becomes "hot".

> 3) having Delphi work on two platforms reduces some of the (largely
> illogical) concerns about it being a "proprietary" language in IS
> shops;

It will always be considered as a proprietary language whatever sets of
platforms it supports unless Borland open it up to an external standards
body (which IMO would not be a good idea). Note though that being a
proprietary language is not necessarily a bad thing from a sales
perspective, as both Java and VB (and to a lesser extent VC++) prove: what
people don't like is proprietary languages by companies that constantly
lose market share and money. If Corel/Borland manage to garner enough
positive Linux buzz to start sporting (and more importantly, holding) $70+
share prices, the moans about proprietary languages will dwindle
noticably.

> 4) A successful Kylix should help overcome the mistaken impression
> that Delphi is only a "database", which is how many people in the
> United States (and perhaps elsewhere) have pigeon-holed it.

This is I think largely a US impression. Delphi's always done relatively
much better in Europe for example, despite often costing more in countries
that have lower wages than the US.

> 5) [...] I believe that the refactoring of the VCL to be less OS
> dependent will
> result in large benefits for Delphi/Windows;

I do too. Borland will for example be forced to write their own versions
of certain Windows controls in order to facilitate easy porting of Delphi
Windows code, and if past experiences are anything to go by, these are

likely to be nicer than the Windows items - hopefully they'll also be
included with Windows Delphi/BCB alongside the usual encapsulations of MS
offerings. We'll also end up with IDEs that don't depend on the Windows
registry for their configurations, which will IMO be a big plus: my
registry recently got trashed totally, and I noted that Jbuilder was the
only applications that could be used without any reinstalling (I just made
a new menu and added the relevant shortcuts). To be fair, D5 had a nice
install option that just re-built the relevant registry entries, but
nearly everything else had to be re-installed from scratch despite the
fact that all the files and directories were still there.

> 6) Linux tools is supposedly a growing market, and it just makes good
> business sense to leverage your current strengths to enter a growing
> market.

I think the point a lot of people are making is that Borland was already
doing this without Corel. While I'm not (yet) as negative about the
merger/buyout/whatever as a lot of people, I can see where their
negativity comes from, as the information _we_ have makes it seem like
Corel are getting much more from the deal than Borland is.

Rudy Velthuis

unread,

Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00

to

Material Guy wrote...

>Something is wrong. It would only record my _first_ vote.

LOL!

--
Rudy Velthuis

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00

to

"Rick Rogers (TeamB)" <ri...@fenestra.com> wrote in message
news:uqs2asg5nvq7r0jrc...@4ax.com...
> I believe Borland/Corel's emphasis on Linux will be *great* for
> Windows developers, for several reasons:

Maybe... for a while.

In the short run, the biggest contribution from all this emphasis on Linux will
be to make Windows a better OS by way of competition and that's good. From what
I hear, Win2000 is the first example of this. At the same time, Linux may
attract some competitors (such as Borland) away from the Windows market and that
may not be so good in the long run; particularly if these competitors should end
up weaker as a result.

While I certainly don't object to having a better OS, I'm not willing to
sacrifice myself for the cause. Microsoft may lack innovation but a clone of a
30 year old OS? How is this any better? I'm surprised that Borland (or anyone)
is prepared to bet their future on this. Looks more like an act of desperation
to me.

And how ironic that Borland; a company built on software sales, would openly
embrace a marketplace full of open source "socialists". Is it possible to make
money selling software in this sort of market? For how long? If Delphi for
Linux is successful, how long before a freeware, open source clone appears?
There are already some efforts underway in this regard. Borland may be about to
spend lots of effort on R&D just to supply the open source cloners with a better
model to work from.

But, I guess this is only to be expected. Borland has never displayed much
marketing savy. Why should this be any different?

--
Ernie Deel, EFD Systems
-----------------------------------------------
First things first ... but not necessarily
in that order.

WMeyer

unread,

Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00

to

Roger Arnesen

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

> 1) Linux is the current "hot technology" in the marketplace right now,
> which means focusing on Linux makes it easier to get positive press
> coverage and higher share prices, both of which will help bolster
> perceptions about the company;

Two years ago, Java was the current "hot technology", and all we could hear
about from Inprise was how cool JBuilder was.

Face it, Delphi has always been, and probably will always be, the cash cow
that gets no attention. It is used to finance new adventures in hi-fi-.
Java. Linux. n-tier. etc etc etc

Roger

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

Material Guy wrote:

> Some of the nicest looking programs on Windows 3.1 that I ever saw were
> Borland tool producted.
>
> There was a sense of pride in knowing what tools were used.

They had that lovely DLL that BC++ and TPW programs could use to build
beautiful dialogs - you could subclass (in the Windows sense) controls too.
I reckon some of my old BC++ programs still look better than the "3D-look"
stuff that's built in to current versions of Windows...

Rudy Velthuis

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote...

>They had that lovely DLL that BC++ and TPW programs could use to build
>beautiful dialogs

I guess you mean BWCC (Borland Windows Custom Controls) and its 32 bit
equivalent BWCC32, as can still be seen in the Resource Workshop. Dialogs
in that style had this "brushed steel" look (or whatever they called it
then).

--
Rudy Velthuis

Material Guy

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
> Microsoft may lack innovation but a clone of a
> 30 year old OS? How is this any better? I'm surprised that Borland (or anyone)
> is prepared to bet their future on this. Looks more like an act of desperation
> to me.
>

It is a basic fact that almost all of today's automobile industry is
working clones of a nearly 100 year old concept. Internal combusion
engine, front steering, and four (4) wheels.

It looks to me as if much of the excitement, if any, on modern
automobiles is foolish, betting one's future on nearly 100 year old
basic automotive parameters.... Must be an act of desperation.

I NEW was good, we should be rooting for SOLAR POWERED ELECTRIC
vehicles, but we aren't now, are we.

For those technically inclined, there are good reasons not to be rooting
for radically new stuff.

In Automobiles.

And in OS.

Jim Buch

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

"Material Guy" <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38A49A75...@pacbell.net...

> For those technically inclined, there are good reasons not to be rooting
> for radically new stuff.

Yeah, right. Are you still writing 16-bit software? Still using DOS?

Material Guy

unread,

Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> "Material Guy" <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:38A49A75...@pacbell.net...
> > For those technically inclined, there are good reasons not to be rooting
> > for radically new stuff.
>
> Yeah, right. Are you still writing 16-bit software? Still using DOS?
>

That has nothing to do with what I said.

You lose.

Thanks for playing.

Jim Buch

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00

to

Rudy Velthuis wrote:

> I guess you mean BWCC (Borland Windows Custom Controls) and its 32 bit
> equivalent BWCC32, as can still be seen in the Resource Workshop. Dialogs
> in that style had this "brushed steel" look (or whatever they called it
> then).
>

That's it! I've such fond memories of programming in those days, before MS
owned
everything...

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00

to

"Material Guy" <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:38A4DD4F...@pacbell.net...

> > > For those technically inclined, there are good reasons not to be
> > > rooting for radically new stuff.
> >
> > Yeah, right. Are you still writing 16-bit software? Still using DOS?
> >
> That has nothing to do with what I said.

Neither did automobiles.

> You lose.
>
> Thanks for playing.

Don't you feel better now<g>?

Have a nice day.

hcg

unread,

Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> While I certainly don't object to having a better OS, I'm not willing to

> sacrifice myself for the cause. Microsoft may lack innovation but a clone of a

> 30 year old OS? How is this any better? I'm surprised that Borland (or anyone)
> is prepared to bet their future on this. Looks more like an act of desperation
> to me.
>

NT, in many respects, is a clone of VMS, a 25 year old OS.

Dave Cutler, the chief architect of NT, was one of the original
architects of VMS while employed at Digital Equipment.

--
hcg

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00

to

"hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38A59EE4...@earthlink.net...

> NT, in many respects, is a clone of VMS, a 25 year old OS.
>
> Dave Cutler, the chief architect of NT, was one of the original
> architects of VMS while employed at Digital Equipment.

I thought Windows was a clone of the MacIntosh<g>?

The similarities between VMS and NT don't even begin to compare to the blatant
clone job done by the Linux crew.

Jack Johnson

unread,

Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00

to

But Ernie, let's not forget that Linux was _intended_ to be a clone job!

--
Jack Johnson
Cyberworlds Inc.
http://www.cyberworlds.com
608-362-0318

"Ernie Deel" <e...@remove.this.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8859og$g1...@bornews.borland.com...

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

"Jack Johnson" <jjoh...@cyberworlds.com> wrote in message
news:38a63618@dnews...

> But Ernie, let's not forget that Linux was _intended_ to be a clone job!

Of course, that's the whole point. The innovation required for a clone job is
virtually nil but that doesn't stop Linux supporters from making complete fools
of themselves by accusing Microsoft with "lack of innovation". Dumping
Microsoft for open source cloners is not progress, it's regress.

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Linux shares quite a lot with Unix in the Kernel architecture but all
the supporting apps like the window managers are indeed innovative. Have
you heard that Microsoft wants to develop alternate window managers that
are themeable?

There are many things to like about Linux. I came up from a Dos/Windows
world and having used Linux for the last 1 1/2 years I would not want to
go back. I like the stability, the million and one ways I can customize
it and my favorite is being able to have multiple desktops.

Imagine having a Delphi session on desktop 1, your database desktop on
desktop 2, your help documentation on desktop 3, your browser and email
on desktop 4 and on desktop 5 you are testing your application. No need
to iconize anything just leave running and how you want the windows to
be placed. All these things are running and the system is fast and
responsive, truly amazing and very productive.

Let me give you one example of processor usage, in Windows 98 when you
are downloading a file the cpu is tacked at 100%, doesn't let you do
much else. In Linux when I am downloading a file the cpu is at about 10%
and I can go off and do something else. No apps take over my cpu, even a
backup to tape lets me do other things should I so desire.

My system just hums along on a lowly Pentium 200 and I have Windows 98
on a dual boot where I have made many a comparison. So I can speak from
experience that I have been there and done that.

--
hcg

Rudy Velthuis

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

hcg wrote...

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Imagine having a Delphi session on desktop 1, your database desktop on
> > desktop 2, your help documentation on desktop 3, your browser and email
> > on desktop 4 and on desktop 5 you are testing your application. No need
> > to iconize anything just leave running and how you want the windows to
> > be placed. All these things are running and the system is fast and
> > responsive, truly amazing and very productive.
>
> yup. I do it all the time :)
>
> 1) explorer, ICQ and other gadgets
> 2) netscape I (newsgroups)
> 3) netscape II (mail)
> 4) delphi + delphi help (for context-help)
> 5) mysql-manager
> 6) ...
>
> be aware of the memory usage at *all* times... ;-)
> my system went to a crawl yesterday when I used around 150mb of which 100 were
> swapped
>
> Using NT - it has a native Desktop API which is even documented in the help
> files - you can do this. If you want to use it without programming, check out
> my freeware program I wrote to do it...
> (http://www.sipsolutions.com/projects/desktray.html)

This only works on NT, how about all those Win9x desktops, don't they
get to have some fun?

>
> So, whats the point? I even like this better because there's no taskbar
> cluttering all my other desktops except the first one. On Linux I've never
> been able to have it on one desktop but not on another

Try Enlightenment on Linux, no taskbar here, my whole screen is free
except for the desktop pager in the left hand corner.

>
> johannes
> --
> Please reply in this newsgroup only
> - SIP solutions -
> http://www.sipsolutions.com

--
hcg

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> hcg wrote...

>
> >Let me give you one example of processor usage, in Windows 98 when you
> >are downloading a file the cpu is tacked at 100%, doesn't let you do
> >much else.
>

> What system? I can do a lot of other things while downloading (in Win98

> or WinNT). Yesterday I even rendered a complex POV-Ray image with anti-
> aliasing etc (in 98). The one slowing down everything (because I gave it
> a high priority) was POV-Ray. The download went on fine (x86 Platform
> SDK). In the meantime I would read the POV-Ray newsgroups.
>
> --
> Rudy Velthuis

What processor does your machine have ?

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

> # Created by Red Hat Desktop Switcher

thats nice. I have the SuSE installed which I absolutely hate. I guess it was
my choice (plus the fact that I got it for free including the book)

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

My machine is a Pentium 200 with 128mb of memory. I have it set up to
dual boot Windows 98se and RedHat Linux 6.1. From my experiences using
various programs, browsing on a dial up connection at 28.8, backing up
to tape and using various office apps, I have come away leaning towards
Linux every time.

Who knows, maybe if I had a PII or a PIII then Windows would fly and I
would not have ventured over to open source land.

--
hcg

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Suse was rated the best distribution, but I'll stick to RedHat.

I have found out that almost everything I download off the web seems to
install and run just fine under RedHat 6.1. I started out using Caldera
Open Linux but switched ro RedHat just to try out all the different
window managers.

Getting Gnome to run under Caldera or Corel's distribution is not an
easy task.

--
hcg

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> "hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38A6F683...@earthlink.net...
>
> > The world has been liberated Mr. Deel, we are free to compute.
>
> Well go forth and compute but keep in mind that on more than one occasion in
> history, what initially appeared to be liberation turned out to be just another
> form of servitude.
>

In the Linux community we serve and help our own selves.

Check out this newsgroup reply to a hostile user having a problem with a
pcmcia network card, the reply came straight from the maintainer of the
pcmcia code in the kernel.

Subject: Re: Linux sucks
Date: 26 Jan 2000 23:17:55 GMT
From: dhi...@zen.stanford.edu (David Hinds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware, comp.os.linux.networking,
comp.os.linux.portable, linux.redhat.install
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.hardware, comp.os.linux.networking,
comp.os.linux.portable, linux.redhat.install
References: 1 , 2

> I started out using Caldera Open Linux but switched ro RedHat just
> to try out all the different window managers.

hmm. I should get it. Maybe getting a new SuSE that actually supports Gnome
would be enough. Mine has it on CD but its useless because old.

anyways, back to Delphi ;-)

Material Guy

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

I wish you were my neighbor. I'd have free hot water as you seem to
monopolize cold water.

Jim

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> "Material Guy" <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:38A4DD4F...@pacbell.net...
> > > > For those technically inclined, there are good reasons not to be
> > > > rooting for radically new stuff.
> > >
> > > Yeah, right. Are you still writing 16-bit software? Still using DOS?
> > >
> > That has nothing to do with what I said.
>
> Neither did automobiles.
>
> > You lose.
> >
> > Thanks for playing.
>
> Don't you feel better now<g>?
>
> Have a nice day.

hcg

unread,

Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00

to

Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Suse was rated the best distribution, but I'll stick to RedHat.
>
> who rated?

It was voted the best distro at LinuxWorld Expo:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/5/ns-13175.html

>
> > I have found out that almost everything I download off the web seems to
> > install and run just fine under RedHat 6.1.
>
> almost nothing here ...
>

> > I started out using Caldera Open Linux but switched to RedHat just

> > to try out all the different window managers.
>
> hmm. I should get it. Maybe getting a new SuSE that actually supports Gnome
> would be enough. Mine has it on CD but its useless because old.
>
> anyways, back to Delphi ;-)
>
> johannes
> --
> Please reply in this newsgroup only
> - SIP solutions -
> http://www.sipsolutions.com

--
hcg

Vincent Parrett(VSoft)

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

hcg wrote in message <38A7285D...@earthlink.net>...

>Johannes Berg wrote:
>>
>> > Suse was rated the best distribution, but I'll stick to RedHat.
>>
>> who rated?
>
>It was voted the best distro at LinuxWorld Expo:
>http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/5/ns-13175.html
>

Sheezz, I found Suse to be an absolute nightmare, character based
installation, millions of confusing and poorly explained (if at all)
options, wouldn't (and still won't ) recognise my zip drive or my tape
drive.....

I got a copy of Corel Linux of a magazine disk today, I will have a go with
that but I'm still yet to be convinced that Linux will be a viable desktop
operating system.

Now if people would only come to their senses and take a look at BEOS (which
costs around the same as a decent linux dist, ver 5 will be free) <g>

Regards

--
Vincent Parrett

VSoft Technologies Pty Ltd.

Web : http://www.vsoft-tech.com.au
Email : vincent AT vsoft-tech.com.au

dsv...@my-deja.com

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

In article <885jdq$ga...@bornews.borland.com>,

"Ernie Deel" <e...@remove.this.mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Jack Johnson" <jjoh...@cyberworlds.com> wrote in message
> news:38a63618@dnews...
> > But Ernie, let's not forget that Linux was _intended_ to be a clone
job!
>
> Of course, that's the whole point. The innovation required for a
clone job is
> virtually nil but that doesn't stop Linux supporters from making
complete fools
> of themselves by accusing Microsoft with "lack of innovation".
Dumping
> Microsoft for open source cloners is not progress, it's regress.

Open source people can hardly be called "cloners". They stick to a
standard called POSIX. And to another called Unix. Even Microsoft
supports POSIX calls, although It doesn't have nearly full compliance.

Unlike the completely proprietary Windows (where the API and the
location of the directories seem to change at the drop of a hat), the
Unix OS family (yes read FAMILY) is open and has been around forever.
Those 30 years you talked about has taught these people something.

Your continued reference to "Open Source Cloners" (which I can't put in
any other context but a derogative) can also be applied to the creators
of AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and -- Microsoft! (Microsoft Unix became SCO
Unix).

Unix is a base on top of which you can freely innovate without
concentrating so much on porting your software. It is no coincidence
that the Gnome project compiles on Solaris. IT'S DESIGNED TO.

As for innovations:

The theme support on the GTK+ and QT libraries is the best I've ever
seen (especially on the GTK).
The Window Manager concept is much superior than the "one desktop"
Windows. For innovation in this area that goes far, far beyond anything
Microsoft has done, take a look at Enlightenment. Just go to
http://www.enlightenment.org and look at some screenshots. And if you
want to see how much different it can be, go to
http://enlightenment.themes.org. Now that's some desktop eye candy.
Note how many of it is absolutely impossible to accomplish in Windows
without using some hack like Windowblinds (which I guess it's not
innovating because they're "cloning" the capabilities of Unix window
managers).

Since you seem to be SOOO knowledgeable ;-) about the "lack of
innovation" of the open source people, I'm sure you'll be able to tell
me where I can find an ANSI C library that I can compile in Windows,
Solaris, Linux, Unix and HP-UX? Gtk is the only one I know of. I've
coded in it and it's really easy and fun to use.

More innovations:

ORBit, the Open source ORB, is another example of an implementation of
a standard. But I guess they cloned CORBA. It's been ported to Win32 so
now you can thank these "evil cloners" that you have a free CORBA to
try out the concept and learn something for a change.

And what about Apache? It's the number one internet server and most
other servers actually copy from these "non-innovators". Oh, yeah,
sorry, they cloned the idea of a "web server".

The Perl and Python Languages? Perl drives the cgi scripts that run a
good percentage of the web (it's available for Windows too if you want
to try it out). I've never seen a proprietary Perl or Python. But I
guess those people must have cloned the idea of a "computer language".

What about Beowulf? Beowulf is a software project to do parallel
processing using several Unix PCs connected in a network. All these
"Linux supercomputers" that match Cray processing are called Beowulf
clusters. But I guess those people must have cloned the idea of a
"supercomputer".

VNC is a project to create a virtual network computer. When people like
you see it, they would probably mention "a clone of pcAnywhere", only
this works on Windows, Any Unix, Palmpilot, Windows CE, Mac and there's
even a Java viewer! But I guess that's not innovation in your book,
because something like that existed before.

And if taking "A" as a base for "B" was a crime or something to be
ashamed of, I would not go around posting something that smells so much
of a "Microsoft Systems Journal" FUD editorial.

I agree people need to think and get their own ideas. But there's
nothing wrong with basing yourself on existing ones - but check your
facts first before you parrot around Microsoft-sponsored articles :-).

Just my 2c.

- David
PS: Have you even *installed* Linux?

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Mark Reichert

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

Ernie Deel <e...@remove.this.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8870mc$gt...@bornews.borland.com...

> Well go forth and compute but keep in mind that on more than one occasion
in
> history, what initially appeared to be liberation turned out to be just
another
> form of servitude.

Well, better a chance, than known servitude to Bill Gates.

An OS is too important to be left in the hands of one company.
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newsgroup messages by e-mail.

Azret

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

> An OS is too important to be left in the hands of one company.

Why is that?

--
Azret

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

"hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:38A70F34...@earthlink.net...

> In the Linux community we serve and help our own selves.
>
> Check out this newsgroup reply to a hostile user having a problem with a
> pcmcia network card, the reply came straight from the maintainer of the
> pcmcia code in the kernel.

Yes, I'm well aware of the "communistic" nature of the Open Source movement. It
works reasonably well as long as the developers remain motivated by
"revolutionary zeal" and the number of users to be supported remains small.

The real question is, what happens *if* the "revolution" actually succeeds?
Once there are hundreds of millions of novice users with questions and problems,
are the developers and code maintainers going to hire more programmers in order
to handle the increased work load? Or are they going to become frustrated and
just sorta drop out?

History suggests that "communes" don't work very well for the long haul.

Johannes Berg

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

> Sheezz, I found Suse to be an absolute nightmare, character based
> installation, millions of confusing and poorly explained (if at all)
> options,

they have a new version which is graphical now ...

> wouldn't (and still won't ) recognise my zip drive or my tape
> drive.....

well, I don't have that problem since I don't have one.

> I got a copy of Corel Linux of a magazine disk today, I will have a go with
> that but I'm still yet to be convinced that Linux will be a viable desktop
> operating system.

no, it sucks. It installs network support even if you don't have a network, if
you want to change your password it tries to synchronize with a Win Server and
fails if it can't do it etc.

> Now if people would only come to their senses and take a look at BEOS (which
> costs around the same as a decent linux dist, ver 5 will be free) <g>

considered that, but it'll cost me more since I'll probably need a new
harddrive <g>
When is v5 supposed to be out though?

Al Meadows

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

hcg wrote in message <38A8984E...@earthlink.net>...
>
>Microsoft giving IE away for free started the software industry down a
>path that even Bill regrets. I think if he had to do it over again he
>would of done it differently.

Giving software for free doesn't change the fact that it costs time and
money to develop it. Therefore programmers will still get paid to develop.
Where software is free, profits have to be made in other ways, typically
support, added services, etc. Also, this trend doesn't affect the vertical
market development much, *custom* development will always have a price.

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

"hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:38A862E7...@earthlink.net...

> I don't know why coding for the the love of it and giving it away rubs

> the captitalists so much? Do you pay for the air you breathe? If we keep
> down the Windows path then each click of your mouse will cost you dearly
> in the long run.

The big problem that any good capitalist should recognize with Open Source is
that the basic "business model" is not one that can be sustained over the long
run.

Eventually, the software must either be commercialized (already happening with
Linux) or it's growth and development will start to lag behind in the
marketplace. Either way, unsuspecting users who become too dependent on "free
software" may well find themselves even more trapped than they ever were with
Microsoft.

Earlier you mentioned that underdeveloped countries would be "liberated" by Open
Source software. Ten years from now, you'll probably be bemoaning the fact that
underdeveloped countries are overly dependent upon inferior Open Source
software. In other words, not much will have changed.

Sergio A. Kessler

unread,

Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00

to

Ernie Deel escribió:

>
> of themselves by accusing Microsoft with "lack of innovation". Dumping
> Microsoft for open source cloners is not progress, it's regress.

no, no, no ...
you are severely confused ...

M$ doesn't lack innovation, they lacks technical skills to make
a consistent and reliable OS.

and don't forget that the clone work stop at the API level,
you must have things very clear to make a decent implementation.

and for lack of innovation, please take a look at the source.
(you will see things that NT doesn't even dream or are recently
injected in NT2000).

Sergio

Aage Johansen

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

hcg wrote:
<snip>

> I don't know why coding for the the love of it and giving it away rubs
> the captitalists so much? Do you pay for the air you breathe?

<snip>

You already pay for the water you drink, so don't give them any new ideas.

Aage J.

Fernand Raynaud

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

I dunno. It's great that people are so excited about a homebrew computer
thingie again, and I'm all for diversity, but all this Linuxism has a ring
of that "be a brother or we'll obliterate you" stuff that Western Leftism is
made of. It all rests not so much on Linus and his great project, as on
hatred for Bill Gates. Since I don't have a problem either with Linux, or
with Microsoft, I think that NT5 and Linux should compete on their own
merits, as they will. Having hacked on Unix for years, frankly I'm happier
hacking on NT at the moment. To each his own. And if we get some decent RAD
tools on Linux, I'll take another look. But I sure don't have much taste for
rabid people waving little red books, or penguins, or Delphi, or anything in
peoples' faces. And there's always something very wrong going on when they
do.

Fernand

hcg <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:38A8DD7E...@earthlink.net...

> "Wayne Niddery (TeamB)" wrote:
> >
> > hcg wrote in message <38A8984E...@earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > >Microsoft giving IE away for free started the software industry down a
> > >path that even Bill regrets. I think if he had to do it over again he
> > >would of done it differently.
> >
> > Giving software for free doesn't change the fact that it costs time and
> > money to develop it. Therefore programmers will still get paid to
develop.
> > Where software is free, profits have to be made in other ways, typically
> > support, added services, etc. Also, this trend doesn't affect the
vertical
> > market development much, *custom* development will always have a price.
> >
>

> That is why Kylix is so important, we need to have the tools we are
> familiar with in order to create customized solutions for our customers.

>
> > --
> > Wayne Niddery - WinWright Consulting
> > RADBooks - http://members.home.net/wniddery/
> > You have a Right to Free Speech, but not the right to make me listen,
nor to
> > use my property as a soapbox.
>

> --
> hcg

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

Fernand Raynaud wrote:

> But I sure don't have much taste for
> rabid people waving little red books, or penguins, or Delphi, or anything in
> peoples' faces. And there's always something very wrong going on when they
> do.

This is the down side with Linux for me too: the "freedom from tyranny"
advocates
seem to have a lot of closet tyrants who constantly tell people what to do, and
insult
anybody who doesn't agree with them. This rabid advocacy is (as you observe) a
property of many who choose a minority product or interest, whether it be
Delphi,
Linux, or old motorbikes - anybody who opts for VB, Windows, or a modern "jump
on and go" Honda is an "idiot" who uses "crap" because they don't know any
better.
For these people, everything is black and white, all or nothing - you _must_ use
Delphi
_instead_ of a MS product, you _switch to_ Linux instead of just installing it
alongside
Windows, and open-source is the _only_ way of distributing software rather than
merely
another way that has happily co-existed with the commercial and shareware models
since
the early 1980s.

The reality of the fact is of course that Linux is just another UNIX that like
the original
K&R UNIX, comes with source code and a liberal license (not many Linuxers seem
to
realise that UNIX used to be free too) - nothing new or radical here. As with
that
first "open" UNIX, the increasing opportunity for commercial success is already
resulting in companies like RedHat (who employ many what were once vocal open
source advocates) becoming ever less cooperative with "spirit of open source",
because
they are now a bunch of bread-winners with families and homes to support. It all
seemed
so simple when they were students living off their parents: give everything
away, man, all
property is theft, blah, blah - now they need to earn a living, and it doesn't
seem like
such a good good idea anymore. Give it a few more years, and a new generation
will
be reciting the same mantra about the two or three big companies who own and
sell
major (and only partially compatible) Linux variants, while their new "Fredix"
Linux
clone is completely free and open source. And so history will repeat itself, ad
nauseum...

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

"hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:38A8DCBB...@earthlink.net...
> How can we be trapped when we have the source, the development is
> going on world wide, there will always be another coder to take on the task
> of enhancing the code base.

"Another coder to take on the task" may be harder to find once developers grow
disillusioned with participating in an unpaid labor pool being commercially
exploited.

> So are saying that Windows is superior? Why is software that is
> scrutinized and open for all to see an inferior product?

Software that is "open for all to see" is not necessarily inferior but in this
particular case, the product is a clone of a 30 year old design that already
lags behind in many respects. Linux developers are currently struggling just to
catch Windows in terms of usability. While they're catching up, Microsoft is
moving ahead.

In short, software development is a race that Open Source cannot win. The
only hope going forward is for companies such as Red Hat and Corel
to continue along their current tracks; gradually taking over more and more of
the development and trying to move the product forward by adding their own
extensions. But then again, this puts the industry pretty much right back where
it was before; multiple vendors competing with each other *and* Microsoft.
End result, Microsoft wins ... again.

Doug Byfield

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

Fernand Raynaud wrote:
>
> I dunno. It's great that people are so excited about a homebrew computer
> thingie again, and I'm all for diversity, but all this Linuxism has a ring
> of that "be a brother or we'll obliterate you" stuff that Western Leftism is
> made of.

Any "ism" usually consists of people who want to jump on a bandwagon as
their new religion. In all the interviews that I have read with Linus
Torvalds, he came across as a mild mannered, very down to earth guy who
is not at all impressed by the Linux hype. I forget the interview, but
one reporter asked Linus what he would do when Linux achieved "total
world domination" Torvalds answered that "oh, someone could buy me a
beer". As usual, it's the cult followers that spoil things. (Remember
Team OS2? Ouch!)

> It all rests not so much on Linus and his great project, as on
> hatred for Bill Gates.

Yes and no. The rabid Linux fans use Linux as an anti-MS platform and
get the press, but there are many programmers and IT types quietly using
Linux as servers and geting their feet wet doing some Linux programming.
Any future that Linux has will be due to the former, not the latter.

> Since I don't have a problem either with Linux, or
> with Microsoft, I think that NT5 and Linux should compete on their own
> merits, as they will.

Couldn't agree more. Using RedHat Linux doesn't mean that I am dropping
Windows programming. It just means that I want to evaluate Linux for
myself and come to my own conclusions. Linux is an additional option for
programmers, not a substitution for Windows. Personally, I like having a
choice.

> Having hacked on Unix for years,

I've done Linux since 1994 (plus a small amount of SCO Unix), so I find
these recent rabid Linvocates to be rather amusing and pathetic at the
same time. (Much as I find rabid Winvocates to be rather amusing and
pathetic in the same way.)

> frankly I'm happier
> hacking on NT at the moment. To each his own. And if we get some decent RAD
> tools on Linux, I'll take another look.

Linux is very much a wait and see proposition for me. It's showing signs
of getting better RAD tools, with JBuilder Foundation and KDevelop (gui
C++ for K desktop.) But it ain't there yet! :-)

> But I sure don't have much taste for
> rabid people waving little red books, or penguins, or Delphi, or anything in
> peoples' faces.

The trouble with waving penguins around is that they tend to get an
upset stomach very easily and regurgitate herring on the nearest rabid
Linvocate! :-)

> And there's always something very wrong going on when they
> do.

You really do have to ask yourself what their hidden agenda is...

hcg

unread,

Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> "hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38A8DCBB...@earthlink.net...
> > How can we be trapped when we have the source, the development is
> > going on world wide, there will always be another coder to take on the task
> > of enhancing the code base.
>
> "Another coder to take on the task" may be harder to find once developers grow
> disillusioned with participating in an unpaid labor pool being commercially
> exploited.

Linux is owned the the world, lets let the coders worldwide decide that
for themselves. The yuppie grind to have more is not a sentiment shared
by the whole world, many countries just want to lead simple lives.

>
> > So are saying that Windows is superior? Why is software that is
> > scrutinized and open for all to see an inferior product?
>
> Software that is "open for all to see" is not necessarily inferior but in this
> particular case, the product is a clone of a 30 year old design that already
> lags behind in many respects. Linux developers are currently struggling just to
> catch Windows in terms of usability. While they're catching up, Microsoft is
> moving ahead.

Yes, you are correct, Linux is catching up in usability but it is doing
it in Internet time. Just look at a distribution from a year ago to
today's crop of new releases.

>
> In short, software development is a race that Open Source cannot win. The
> only hope going forward is for companies such as Red Hat and Corel
> to continue along their current tracks; gradually taking over more and more of
> the development and trying to move the product forward by adding their own
> extensions. But then again, this puts the industry pretty much right back where
> it was before; multiple vendors competing with each other *and* Microsoft.
> End result, Microsoft wins ... again.

No, I think Microsoft has lost, they lost the minds and hearts of many a
developer many years ago. We brought them in to the glass IT houses and
we will do the same with Linux.

Only time will tell, Internet time that is.

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote in message
<38A962D2...@visual-limes.com>...
[snip ]

>such a good good idea anymore. Give it a few more years, and a new
generation
>will
>be reciting the same mantra about the two or three big companies who own
and
>sell
>major (and only partially compatible) Linux variants, while their new
"Fredix"
>Linux
>clone is completely free and open source. And so history will repeat
itself, ad
>nauseum...
>

Thank you!!!!!! I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this
way about open source/linux etc.

The fact is that we will always be paying for the software we use. Open
source software is not the mecca that people desire, as you say, in the end

we all have to earn a living, most programmers want to mostly program for a
living, not mostly provide support , otherwise, how would we ever get some
programming done, in our spare time only?

Regards

Wayne Niddery (TeamB)

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote in message
<38A962D2...@visual-limes.com>...

>This is the down side with Linux for me too: the "freedom from tyranny"
>advocates
>seem to have a lot of closet tyrants who constantly tell people what to do,
and
>insult
>anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Have you ever noticed that the most intolerant people are those that are the
strongest preachers of tolerance? If you disagree with *any* of their views
or beliefs, it is *you* that is immediately accused of being intolerant!

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

"Wayne Niddery (TeamB)" <winw...@chaffhome.com> wrote in message
news:38aa347d@dnews...

> Have you ever noticed that the most intolerant people are those that are the
> strongest preachers of tolerance? If you disagree with *any* of their views
> or beliefs, it is *you* that is immediately accused of being intolerant!

I think you just defined "political correctness".

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

"Vincent Parrett(VSoft)" wrote:

> Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote in message
> <38A962D2...@visual-limes.com>...

> [snip ]
> >such a good good idea anymore. Give it a few more years, and a new
> generation
> >will
> >be reciting the same mantra about the two or three big companies who own
> and
> >sell
> >major (and only partially compatible) Linux variants, while their new
> "Fredix"
> >Linux
> >clone is completely free and open source. And so history will repeat
> itself, ad
> >nauseum...
> >
>
> Thank you!!!!!! I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this
> way about open source/linux etc.

A lot of people feel that way. Not that I'm saying Open Source doesn't have a
place
in the scheme of things: it is a perfectly valid way of doing some things, but
not
everything.

> The fact is that we will always be paying for the software we use. Open
> source software is not the mecca that people desire, as you say, in the end
> we all have to earn a living, most programmers want to mostly program for a
> living, not mostly provide support , otherwise, how would we ever get some
> programming done, in our spare time only?

People need to understand that the Open Source movement is political in nature,
not
technological - it is a rebellion against what its (mostly young) members see
as "the
establishment". Like most rebellions, many of the people involved in it are so
sure
that they are "right" that they fail to see the very obvious flaws in their
arguments - in
Linux's case, these mostly derive from the already well known problems that
come
from things that are designed by committees. We can see this in action by
comparing
Linux with (for example) BeOS, both of which were started at more or less the
same
time:

Linux is a blatant UNIX copy that has had input from thousands of people, and
is still
only really good at doing the things UNIX does well. I have for example yet to
see a
version which can reliably detect even common pieces of computer hardware on
its
own - even Corel's bid for the desktop is notably worse at this than Win95.
Linux
GUIs fall into two categories: commercial ones which are there and work (KDE,
Motif,
etc.) or blatant clones thereof, and open source ones (e.g. Gnome) which seem
to be in
permanent beta. All depend on the venerable terminal-oriented X-Windows, which
is
notably lacking in drivers for most hardware produced after 1996, and runs
lamentably
slowly when compared with other windowing systems (Mac, Windows, BeOS, etc.).
This must however be measured against the profoundly multi-platform nature of
Linux,
with versions existing for just about any system which meets its minimum
requirements.

BeOS is not a copy of anything, but was written entirely from scratch by some
tens
of people. Although hardware support is more limited than that of for example
Windows, this is growing faster than the equivalents for Linux, it readily
detects
everything it does support, and installs the correct drivers. It has one GUI
which is
part of the OS, runs extremely quickly, supports many modern devices, and has
certain capabilities lacking from both Linux and most Windows variants. Despite
not
needing the heavy manual configuration necessary for most Linux installations,
BeOS has
an excellent reputation for reliability, and loads a lot more quickly than
either Windows
or Linux. BeOS does however only currently support two platforms (PC and older
Macs).

Is the Open Source Linux better than the proprietary BeOS? If you want to run a
big
server, then yes - but then that's what you'd expect from a UNIX clone because
UNIX
is also very good at running big servers. In every other respect however, BeOS
is
demonstrably superior for owners of PCs (i.e. most of the world): it is
smaller,
faster, easier to install _and_ use, supports symmetric multiprocessing better,
has a
better file system, and more hardware support. Not bad for something that has
had
perhaps 1/1000th of the man hours spent on it!

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

"Wayne Niddery (TeamB)" wrote:

> Have you ever noticed that the most intolerant people are those that are the
> strongest preachers of tolerance? If you disagree with *any* of their views
> or beliefs, it is *you* that is immediately accused of being intolerant!

Inevitable when people argue from the position of being right instead of merely
stating an opinion. You cannot argue with beliefs without being seen as
attacking
the believer...

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:

> It's interesting to note that Linus Torvalds has earned a living over the last
> few years writing code for a company called Transmeta. The code he has written
> is *not* open source; it is a closely guarded secret that is both copyrighted
> and *patented*.

And that the company making their wares is IBM, which did all the things MS is
being pilloried for, plus much else besides. Interesting too is the fact that the
first example of CodeMorphing(TM) technology makes Crusoe emulate the
X86 so IBM's new lap-tops will be able to run Windows. What is unknown is
whether MS were involved in any way - I for one wouldn't be at all surprised
if they had been!

Ernie Deel

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

"Richard Bayarri Bartual" <r...@visual-limes.com> wrote in message
news:38AA993F...@visual-limes.com...

> In every other respect however, BeOS is
> demonstrably superior for owners of PCs (i.e. most of the world): it is
> smaller, faster, easier to install _and_ use, supports symmetric
> multiprocessing better, has a better file system, and more hardware
> support. Not bad for something that has had
> perhaps 1/1000th of the man hours spent on it!

I agree. BeOS is a ready made alternative to Windows for the desktop that might
have a chance with a little push from a company such as Coreland.

However, I suspect that it is missing a few critical features that Linux offers
such as a potential revenue stream from the OS itself and perhaps the
possibility of seizing control of the desktop at some point.

A marriage of BeOS and Linux would present a *real* formidable challenge to MS.
It would probably be much easier to port Delphi to BeOS than to Linux+<select a
GUI>. Another missed opportunity in the history of computing. What a pity.

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:

> You don't see the irony in one of the most vocal, visible and respected
> proponents of Open Source development working for one of the most secretive and
> "closed source" companies in existence?

You are making Open Source out to be some type of religion/political
movement? Who cares what he
says? Is Open Source a viable method of distribution?

> Why didn't he sell his own company on all the many advantages of Open Source
> development? He's certainly tried to sell it to the rest of the world. Could it
> be that despite all the hoopla, Open Source is really not a viable alternative
> for the development of most software and will never be anything more than a side
> show in the IT industry?

Why would Open or Closed Source be any different? Does the code
magically change
when I cannot see it?

It probably was a cool project and one that interested him, and would
make him alot
of money in the process. I believe the version of Linux he ported to
the Transmeta chip
will be open sourced, correct me if I am wrong. As for the code
morphing software, it is not
his to release is it? The CPU is not on the streets yet so we don't
know what will be
released for developers.

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

Iman L Crawford wrote:

One example: installing Corel Linux on my home machine. Booted from CD - nice
graphical
install comes up, and you select the installation you want - it then does some
hardware
checking, and you reboot. Lots of self-configuring and disk combobulating
later, and I have
Corel Linux up and running: no sound, because it failed to detect my old SB
Awe32;
the screen driver is "standard VGA" because it didn't find the Riva TNT (also
not new
or exotic); it tells me the secondary graphics card (Voodoo-2) is a camera; and
the system
insists I have a US keyboard layout despite repeatedly using Corel's natty
utility to tell
it I had a UK keyboard (in the end, I had to edit a script - good thing I knew
this, because
the help had no info whatsoever).

Having installed other Linuxes on other hardware has revealed similar nasties,
plus
a notable inability to recognise network cards or SCSI HD cards that aren't on
their
list of three models from two manufacturers.

unread,

Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00

to

"Michael Mitchell" <col...@jersey.net> wrote in message

news:38AAF0...@jersey.net...

> You are making Open Source out to be some type of religion/political
> movement? Who cares what he says? Is Open Source a viable method of >
distribution?

Actually, it's many within the "movement" who act as if it is some sort of
religion/political movement. It's obviously a viable distribution method for
hobbyists but if you need to make a living from software development, you should
probably do as Linus has done and take a different approach.

> Why would Open or Closed Source be any different? Does the code
> magically change when I cannot see it?

No, just the opposite according to some Open Source proponents. The code is
supposedly better if you *can* see it.

> It probably was a cool project and one that interested him, and would
> make him alot of money in the process. I believe the version of Linux he
> ported to the Transmeta chip will be open sourced, correct me if I am
> wrong. As for the code morphing software, it is not his to release is it?
> The CPU is not on the streets yet so we don't know what will be
> released for developers.

Who owns the code is really not the point. The point is that the company he
works for obviously found his arguments for Open Source development somewhat
less than convincing. They went in the opposite direction to the extreme and
obtained a software patent.

Vincent Parrett(VSoft)

unread,

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote in message

<38AA993F...@visual-limes.com>...
[snip]

>
>Is the Open Source Linux better than the proprietary BeOS? If you want to
run a
>big
>server, then yes - but then that's what you'd expect from a UNIX clone
because
>UNIX

>is also very good at running big servers. In every other respect however,

BeOS
>is
>demonstrably superior for owners of PCs (i.e. most of the world): it is
>smaller,
>faster, easier to install _and_ use, supports symmetric multiprocessing
better,
>has a
>better file system, and more hardware support. Not bad for something that
has
>had
>perhaps 1/1000th of the man hours spent on it!

Have to agree here, 100%. BEOS 4.5 absolutely rockets on my dual PII400
machine, I have never been able to crash it all, despite trying (just to see
if it could be done). It installed first time with almost no intervention (I
had to clickk on on yes, I do want to install!) and it recognised my
hardware with no problems. Only thing stopping me from using it more at the
moment is the lack of my favourite compiler. Now if borland could just give
us a DCC32 for BEOS, that would be enough to get us started on a beos
VCL.......

I'm off to bed now (12:20am!!), time to dream of Delphi 6 for BEOS........

Regards

--

Roberto Alsina

unread,

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

In article <38AA993F...@visual-limes.com>,
Richard Bayarri Bartual <r...@visual-limes.com> wrote:

[snip-o-rama]

> Linux GUIs fall into two categories: commercial ones which are there
> and work (KDE, Motif, etc.) or blatant clones thereof, and open source
> ones (e.g. Gnome) which seem to be in permanent beta.

Just a fact check: KDE is as opensource as any other project. Hell, we
used to be named in the front page in www.opensource.org ;-)

Also, Motif is not really a GUI, but just a toolkit. The GUI built using
Motif is called CDE, and if you ever used it, you will probably prefer
either of the free ones, since it's not all that good.

--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Iman L Crawford

unread,

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

r...@visual-limes.com (Richard Bayarri Bartual) wrote in
<38AB13F5...@visual-limes.com>:

>This is quite simply not the case with the SoundBlaster cards - complete
>programmer documentation is avaliable for them, as is evidenced by the
>fact that most DOS games could auto-detect them, as do both Windows and
>BeOS.

I guess the drivers haven't made it into the distrubutions yet. Creative
Labs has drivers available on their web page, but I bet your tried this
several distrubutions ago.

>Maybe this happened in a few cases, but for the majority it's more
>probably due to the same reasons not many of them wrote drivers for SCO

It's really depends on your card. NVidia, and 3DFX have just recently lent
any support to Linux. Before that they were very gaurded about their
drivers, especially the parts concerning 3d.

Iman

Richard Bayarri Bartual

unread,

Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00

to

Iman L Crawford wrote:

> r...@visual-limes.com (Richard Bayarri Bartual) wrote in
> <38AB13F5...@visual-limes.com>:
> >This is quite simply not the case with the SoundBlaster cards - complete
> >programmer documentation is avaliable for them, as is evidenced by the
> >fact that most DOS games could auto-detect them, as do both Windows and
> >BeOS.
>
> I guess the drivers haven't made it into the distrubutions yet. Creative
> Labs has drivers available on their web page, but I bet your tried this
> several distrubutions ago.

The drivers already come with most Linuxes - the problem is not with being able

to use the cards after doing some manual messing about, but the fact that Linux

installation programs don't detect the cards for themselves.

> >Maybe this happened in a few cases, but for the majority it's more
> >probably due to the same reasons not many of them wrote drivers for SCO
>
> It's really depends on your card. NVidia, and 3DFX have just recently lent
> any support to Linux. Before that they were very gaurded about their
> drivers, especially the parts concerning 3d.

3D isn't a problem because X-Windows doesn't support 3D - it's the inability
to find basic 2D details that I'm moaning about. If Windows and BeOS can do
it, then there's obviously no mystery involved!

Roberto Alsina

unread,

Feb 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/18/00

to

In article <38AC4142...@visual-limes.com>,

Richard Bayarri Bartual <r...@visual-limes.com> wrote:
>
>

There's plenty of mistery. The specs for new cards are sometimes only
available under NDA. That's why you often can find binary-only
X servers from SuSE, for example. That's also why the commercial X
servers get drivers earlier.

Then after a year or so, specs come out, and in a few months, we get
free drivers.

BTW: The drivers for windows are usually written by the manufacturers
of the boards, so they should know how to do them ;-)

Art Bonds

unread,

Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00

to

Just a guess. You're from Chicago, right... <g>
"Material Guy" <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38A211A8...@pacbell.net...
> Something is wrong. It would only record my _first_ vote.
>
> Jim Buch
>
> John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
> >
> > There is a pulse question up on the home page of
> > http://community.borland.com where everyone can register their opinion
about
> > the merger between Borland and Corel.

pwnichols

unread,

Mar 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/2/00

to

Kudos!!!

I Agree with everything you said (except the statement that Linux may be
overhyped, use it, love it.. Can't wait for Kylix, so I can retire NT)..
As a IS manager and R&D Team Lead I can tell you, if you aren't thinking
about and doing X-Platform, you "won't be valuable" much longer.

Latest Report is Java is the hottest programming language in IS demands,
period.. 38% of all job postings are for Java.. 25% of posting are
divided among C++ and Visual Basic.. Why?? Yes Web Technology is main
reason, but secondly, and importantly X-Platform.

Remember PowerBuilder and it's strong market share? Why has it fallen off
the radar scope? Two reasons, first, the tool didn't keep up with the
IDE times and was scripting language. Secondly, one word, Java.

If Delphi and C++ Builder can create X-Platform apps, you better believe
the IS shops will pay CLOSE ATTENTION!!

Dr. Paul Nichols P.M. R&D
NCP

"Rick Rogers (TeamB)" wrote:

> I believe Borland/Corel's emphasis on Linux will be *great* for
> Windows developers, for several reasons:
>
> 1) Linux is the current "hot technology" in the marketplace right now,
> which means focusing on Linux makes it easier to get positive press
> coverage and higher share prices, both of which will help bolster
> perceptions about the company;
>
> 2) A successful Kylix project will attract more developers to Delphi
> (for example, people who currently use MS tools for Windows
> development, and aren't getting a Linux solution from MS), and more
> developers in our language is good in a host of ways (more books, more
> mindshare, more jobs, more components);
>
> 3) having Delphi work on two platforms reduces some of the (largely
> illogical) concerns about it being a "proprietary" language in IS
> shops;
>
> 4) A successful Kylix should help overcome the mistaken impression
> that Delphi is only a "database", which is how many people in the
> United States (and perhaps elsewhere) have pigeon-holed it.
>
> 5) Borland has already demonstrated an ability to leverage features
> developed for one product (example: C++ Builder) in another (example:
> Delphi), and we can expect this to continue with Kylix; for example, I
> believe that the refactoring of the VCL to be less OS dependent will
> result in large benefits for Delphi/Windows;
>
> 6) Linux tools is supposedly a growing market, and it just makes good
> business sense to leverage your current strengths to enter a growing
> market.
>
> Do I think Linux is the current trendy over-hyped buzzword, and that
> it will fade in a few years just as Java was over-hyped then faded?
> Possibly (perhaps even probably). But over-hyped marketing and being
> in the forefront of popular trends is how companies grow, and it seems
> bizarre to complain that Borland/Corel are taking advantage of
> marketing hype now, after people have spent so many years complaining
> that Borland hasn't been marketing properly.
>
> I'm also not worried about the future of Delphi/Windows. Delphi is
> Borland's flagship product, and Windows dev tools are Borland's
> primary revenue source. Delphi is driving this train. I think the only
> chance that Delphi/Windows will wither away in the near-to-medium
> future is if Windows also withers away, and I don't think the latter
> is very likely at all.
> --
> Rick Rogers (TeamB)
> www.fenestra.com and www.componentfactory.com

Darryl Wagoner

unread,

Mar 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/16/00

to

Johannes Berg wrote:
>

>
> > I got a copy of Corel Linux of a magazine disk today, I will have a go with
> > that but I'm still yet to be convinced that Linux will be a viable desktop
> > operating system.
>
> no, it sucks. It installs network support even if you don't have a network, if

Too many Linux apps uses the network protocols even if it is just for
Inter Process
Comm. X-Windows for example does everything over network connections.
Which is
a good thing. That allows you to display a window anywhere.

> you want to change your password it tries to synchronize with a Win Server and
> fails if it can't do it etc.

Huh, I have never had Linux try to synchronize with a Win Server for
anything.
--
Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
x929

Johannes Berg

unread,

Mar 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/16/00

to

> Too many Linux apps uses the network protocols even if it is just for
> Inter Process
> Comm. X-Windows for example does everything over network connections.
> Which is
> a good thing. That allows you to display a window anywhere.

no, thats not the point, it even installs the drivers for all kinds of network
cards even if I don't have one. In the old days I just compiled with loopback
network and drivers for my ISDN card (no network card involved) and was happy.

> > you want to change your password it tries to synchronize with a Win Server and
> > fails if it can't do it etc.
>
> Huh, I have never had Linux try to synchronize with a Win Server for
> anything.

I don't know, it was searching some Windows Server (or an installation of
windows?!?) and couldn't find it, that would keep me from changing my password
from the control center thing. I just changed it with passwd then. But now I
erased those partitions anyways...

johannes
--
Please reply in this newsgroup only
- SIP solutions -
http://www.sipsolutions.com

Darryl Wagoner

unread,

Mar 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/16/00

to

Ernie Deel wrote:
>
> "hcg" <hc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38A70F34...@earthlink.net...
> > In the Linux community we serve and help our own selves.
> >
> > Check out this newsgroup reply to a hostile user having a problem with a
> > pcmcia network card, the reply came straight from the maintainer of the
> > pcmcia code in the kernel.
>
> Yes, I'm well aware of the "communistic" nature of the Open Source movement. It
> works reasonably well as long as the developers remain motivated by
> "revolutionary zeal" and the number of users to be supported remains small.
>
> The real question is, what happens *if* the "revolution" actually succeeds?
> Once there are hundreds of millions of novice users with questions and problems,
> are the developers and code maintainers going to hire more programmers in order
> to handle the increased work load? Or are they going to become frustrated and
> just sorta drop out?
>
> History suggests that "communes" don't work very well for the long haul.

Yes, but open software isn't communes! Where is in the world do you get
the
idea that all of these programmers that have created X-Windows, Linux,
BSD,
gcc/g++, etc. are doing it solely to be a rebel? It is just a different
business
model. It is the only business model that will allow a software company
to be
successful long term in the 21th century. Think about companies that
have failed
or on the downhill slide of the bell curve such: Borland, IBM,DEC, Wang,
DG,
Digital Research, Novell, WordStar, VisCalc, CDC, SGI and many more.
Companies that will start that downhill slide soon if they can't react
quick enough is: Microsoft, Sybase, Informix, etc.

The problem is that companies don't know when to cut their loses with a
product and reinvent it.

But now take a company like Red Hat, and lets say that a new open OS
came out
(MSWindows is the last closed OS). It would be simple for Red Hat to
take
the cause up of the new OS and laugh all the way to be bank at people
buying
free software. So you see it isn't a commumes system, it is the only
game
that will continue to make money.

Inprise/Borland please listen as I have always been a supporter of your
products and will continue to do so. I also support your movement to
Linux. I am afraid that
will not be enough. If you want to be a player in the future of
computer software
here is what you need to do:

1. Make every product you have open source and put the source on the
net.
2. Start selling C++Builder, Delphi, JBuiler, InterBase, etc for less
than $100
as a single package including source. I will be standing in line for
it.
3. Most important, you must do this quick! There is already work on
packages
that will do this type of stuff. Glade, etc.

Right now Linux doesn't have a standard lightweight database engine, you
could fill that
hole and create an army of loyal supporters for years and years. For
that matter
linux doesn't have a OPEN heavy weight DBMS. You could provide both.
If the Linux
programmers had Inprise set of tools under the open source license, the
amount of Linux apps would quickly growth to the point where Linux would
be a world class desk top OS.

thanks

--
Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON

603-598-6500 x929

Darryl Wagoner

unread,

Mar 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/16/00

to

Richard Bayarri Bartual wrote:
>

>
> The reality of the fact is of course that Linux is just another UNIX that like
> the original
> K&R UNIX, comes with source code and a liberal license (not many Linuxers seem
> to
> realise that UNIX used to be free too) - nothing new or radical here. As with

Sorry, but Unix was never free it was license to schools at no charge,
but it was
never Open.

--
Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON

x929

Darryl Wagoner

unread,

Mar 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/16/00

to

"Vincent Parrett(VSoft)" wrote:
> >
>
> Thank you!!!!!! I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this
> way about open source/linux etc.
>

> The fact is that we will always be paying for the software we use. Open
> source software is not the mecca that people desire, as you say, in the end
> we all have to earn a living, most programmers want to mostly program for a
> living, not mostly provide support , otherwise, how would we ever get some
> programming done, in our spare time only?

I think you missing something here. Redhat is making money selling open
software.
They are paying programmers to write it. Programmers will always be
paid until
we reach a point where everyone can write programs quickly.

There will always be ways to make money from software. Open software
just changes
the model for the better.

There is and always will be die hard like RMS which thinks closed source
software
is evil. Most including myself do not. For some products closed source
software
is the only way to go.

It isn't black and white and that is where companies get into trouble.
The don't
know which products should be open and which ones should be closed. But
they are
learning and the will milk the closed market as long as they can. They
may however
milk it to death.