>I stopped into your little parlor to learn something about Linux. All >I read here is a lot of bitching and whining about Microsoft.
I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
Money talks. Something, alas, Linux doesn't have. There is no multi-million dollar Linux promotion group.
[Note: Linux also means all free OSes (for example BSD) in this context] -- Copyright 1995 Sam Trenholme. Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message freely.
Al_New...@msn.com (Al Newsom) wrote: >I stopped into your little parlor to learn something about Linux. All >I read here is a lot of bitching and whining about Microsoft.
>Where's the beef? Or is Linux the next (nextstep)- a nice irrelevant OS.
Welcome to the perpetual "My OS is better than your OS" flame war. :)
Depending upon the manner in which you'd like to learn about Linux, and the tools you use for looking, there are better places to look.
The newsgroups comp.os.linux.setup and comp.os.linux.misc will give you a better idea of the current types of problems newbies are having getting started.
(Could someone point out the ftp FAQ places for me? And maybe a mailinglist or two.)
In article <00001aef+00003...@msn.com>, Al Newsom <Al_New...@msn.com> wrote: >I stopped into your little parlor to learn something about Linux. All >I read here is a lot of bitching and whining about Microsoft.
>Where's the beef? Or is Linux the next (nextstep)- a nice irrelevant OS.
Hi Al,
The problem is that almost every post here is crossposted to every other advocacy group. So as you stated it quickly degenerates to comparisons to the other guys.
Unfortunately that's the charter of the newsgroup.
What do you what to know about Linux? Maybe with this thread some folks can talk about it without all those annoying comparisions ruining it.
Please anyone who responds to this do not crosspost to the other advocacy groups. That'll just spoil it for everyone.
BAJ -- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
>I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines >talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. >My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially >support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
It takes millions of users to make a OS popular like DOS/Windows or ever OS/2. IMHO, Linux will not be as popular as OS/2 and Windows until Linux has applications such as MS Office Pro, Lotus Office Suite, etc. Also, users are getting used to easier and more friendly user interfaces such as OS/2 and Window (Win95 GUI is even better and easier to use).
Most magazines cover mainstream OS and applicatios (and products in general). Why do you think a normal user (i.e. my wife) is going to want to switch from, say, Windows 95 to Linux?. Linux is harder to use, Linux is character mode (i.e. the 60's and the 70's), and has NO applications.
In article <41839i$2...@news.gate.net>, pad...@gate.net (J. Padron) wrote: >>I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines >>talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. >>My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially >>support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
>It takes millions of users to make a OS popular like DOS/Windows or >ever OS/2. IMHO, Linux will not be as popular as OS/2 and Windows >until Linux has applications such as MS Office Pro, Lotus Office >Suite, etc. Also, users are getting used to easier and more friendly >user interfaces such as OS/2 and Window (Win95 GUI is even better and >easier to use).
>Most magazines cover mainstream OS and applicatios (and products in >general). Why do you think a normal user (i.e. my wife) is going to >want to switch from, say, Windows 95 to Linux?. Linux is harder to >use, Linux is character mode (i.e. the 60's and the 70's), and has NO >applications.
I'd have to agree with the first paragraph, for the most part anyway. Since Caldera will be porting WP over to Linux, it may help some. Linux was never meant to be a popular OS (ie, mainstream, competing with MS or IBM) but a way for people to have a free *nix clone. I doubt it ever will become the OS of choice for the masses. We are now seeing buisnesses and Universities using it though. I garantee, if more and more people in biz start using it - we'll see more commercial apps. I personally like Linux because we do use *nix at work, with oracle, openwindows, etc. So I can do things at home, when I want to, rather than stay at work. Since I could do this without shelling out big bucks for *nix and hardware, so much the better.
Magazines will always write about what's popular, or what's selling. Look at some of the apps they rave about. Some of this popular stuff has sloppy code in it, confusing icons, and the ever popular "they're not bugs - they're features". The difference between Linux and other OS's is money. They have some, the linux developers don't. What would Linux look like if someone just dumped 5 million dollars into funding the developers (with the understanding that is would still remain a "free" OS)? Anyway, as far as normal user's switching over - alot of us already have. Why? Some are just curious, and like to tinker with stuff. Some use *nix at work, and want to use it at home. Some just wanted a fast 32-bit OS to play with. Whatever their reasons, people are coming over to Linux. If they weren't the various distributors would stop doing it. The Linux Journal would be losing subscribers, not gaining them. We wouldn't see companies developing commercial apps for it. Linux isn't what I would consider "hard to use", but it can be percieved that way for people who have only used Windoze or other GUI's, very rarely going over to DOS to do things. I had more trouble with setting up OS/2 than I did Linux. After going thru all the trouble to get it going right (and paying $40 for fixes) - I hated it. GUI's are cool, but I still consider them a "shield" from the actual OS. On GUI's, Xwindows is alot more logically laid out (IMO) than other GUI's. As far as Win95, I'm not overly impressed - it's OK, but I thought Windoze was OK too (of course, I probably wouldn't have it but it came with my computer - and my wife likes to use it). You won't see me in line to buy it on the 24th. I'll probably end up with a copy (I'm sure it will come with my new computer when I buy it). The only GUI I've been impressed with was NeXTSTEP and it hasn't gone anywhere, but it's still a damn good developers tool (again, IMO).
In article <41760u$...@lll-winken.llnl.gov> s...@oryx.llnl.gov (Sam Trenholme) writes: >>I stopped into your little parlor to learn something about Linux. All >>I read here is a lot of bitching and whining about Microsoft.
>I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines >talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. >My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially >support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
>Money talks. Something, alas, Linux doesn't have. There is no >multi-million dollar Linux promotion group.
>[Note: Linux also means all free OSes (for example BSD) in this context] >-- >Copyright 1995 Sam Trenholme. Microsoft Network is prohibited from >redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. License to >distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without >permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Any network provider not >owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message freely.
I have to agree with the 'money talks' idea. I picked up a recent copy of PC Magazine - just to check the hardware stuff - and one would think from reading that mag that ms discovered 32bit os and is going to give the people their first taste on 8/24. I find it sickening, but then again, I majored in lit in grad school. Anyway, the situation isn't likely to change, but I'm pleased to note a marked increase in ads for linux apps and hardware in the recent LJ.
In article <41839i$2...@news.gate.net>, J. Padron <pad...@gate.net> wrote: >>I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines >>talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. >>My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially >>support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
>It takes millions of users to make a OS popular like DOS/Windows or >ever OS/2. IMHO, Linux will not be as popular as OS/2 and Windows >until Linux has applications such as MS Office Pro, Lotus Office >Suite, etc. Also, users are getting used to easier and more friendly >user interfaces such as OS/2 and Window (Win95 GUI is even better and >easier to use).
Linux will never be as popular as mainstream OS's. And it doesn't need to be because it doesn't have to support a multi billion dollar industry.
>Most magazines cover mainstream OS and applicatios (and products in >general). Why do you think a normal user (i.e. my wife) is going to >want to switch from, say, Windows 95 to Linux?.
Why would she want to? If she already know Windows and uses Windows apps on a regular basis, she'd be nuts to switch (at least right now).
My wife used HP 720's in her office. Now why would she want to switch to Windows '95? The only Windows apps we have in the house are the kids' games and encylopaedia.
>Linux is harder to >use
Setup? Maybe. Administer? Possibly. Use? Please explain? I believe you have the mistaken belief that the normal user (your wife) is the person in charge of setting up and administering the machine. Tell me if you gave your wife a box of windows 95, all the apps you run, and a bare machine - how likely would she be to use it?
> Linux is character mode (i.e. the 60's and the 70's), and has NO >applications.
Both of these sounds like claims from someone who doesn't use Linux. My machine runs XDM. From bootup it's in X. My wife and my 12 YO both have accounts and can login directly into X. I haven't even bothered adding the FVWM goodstuff or running the XF filemanager. They can access the EZ wordprocessor along with other tools and games. My wife has completed a year of graduate school in education on our Linux box.
I really can't figure out how I'm runnning out of disk space if I have no applications. ;-)
Now I'd grant that Linux has no Windows applications. That's true. So if you're entrenched in Windows apps then Windows 95, Windows NT, or OS/2 would be an appropriate choice. But my wife and I were not firmly entrenched windows users (in fact my machine at the time I started running linux could not even run Windows) the Linux OS and the application available with it fit the bill. And with the addition of a $20 mono card that same machine that wouldn't run Windows was running X. It was slow. It was mono. Is was ugly. But it was X and I was muy impressed from the start.
And by the way having character apps isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm typing this from a VT200 terminal while my son uses EZ to work on his last summer book report on the console downstairs.
Yup. Life is good.
BAJ -- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
In article <41839i$2...@news.gate.net>, J. Padron <pad...@gate.net> wrote: >>I guess we are all just frustrated by the fact that all the magazines >>talk about is Windoze, Windoze, and Windoze, and never talk about Linux. >>My theory is that Linux doesn't make money for those that finacially >>support that magazine, so the magazines naturally ignore Linux.
>It takes millions of users to make a OS popular like DOS/Windows or >ever OS/2. IMHO, Linux will not be as popular as OS/2 and Windows >until Linux has applications such as MS Office Pro, Lotus Office >Suite, etc. Also, users are getting used to easier and more friendly >user interfaces such as OS/2 and Window (Win95 GUI is even better and >easier to use).
Linux will never be as popular as mainstream OS's. And it doesn't need to be because it doesn't have to support a multi billion dollar industry.
I don't think the current Linux organization has the resources to produce the types of apps that the PC market does. Then again since Linux isn't Windows (it's Unix you know) it doesn't necessarily need to support those types of apps.
I mean if someone made a cool alternative car that you could build at home does that mean that this product has to take on GM or Toyota? Does this mean that the product is a bad thing? No. It's just different. Some people it'll appeal too. Most wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
>Most magazines cover mainstream OS and applicatios (and products in >general). Why do you think a normal user (i.e. my wife) is going to >want to switch from, say, Windows 95 to Linux?.
Why would she want to? If she already know Windows and uses Windows apps on a regular basis, she'd be nuts to switch (at least right now).
My wife used HP 720's in her office. Now why would she want to switch to Windows '95? The only Windows apps we have in the house are the kids' games and encylopaedia.
>Linux is harder to >use...
Setup? Maybe. Administer? Possibly. Use? Please explain? I believe you have the mistaken belief that the normal user (your wife) is the person in charge of setting up and administering the machine. Tell me if you gave your wife a box of windows 95, all the apps you run, and a bare machine - how likely would she be to use it?
> Linux is character mode (i.e. the 60's and the 70's), and has NO >applications.
Both of these sounds like claims from someone who doesn't use Linux. My machine runs XDM. From bootup it's in X. My wife and my 12 YO both have accounts and can login directly into X. I haven't even bothered adding the FVWM goodstuff or running the XF filemanager. They can access the EZ wordprocessor along with other tools and games. My wife has completed a year of graduate school in education on our Linux box.
Now I'd grant that Linux has no Windows applications. That's true. So if you're entrenched in Windows apps then Windows 95, Windows NT, or OS/2 would be an appropriate choice. But my wife and I were not firmly entrenched windows users (in fact my machine at the time I started running linux could not even run Windows) the Linux OS and the application available with it fit the bill. And with the addition of a $20 mono card that same machine was running X. It was slow. It was mono. Is was ugly. But it was X and I was muy impressed from the start.
And by the way having character apps isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm typing this from a VT200 terminal while my son uses EZ to work on his last summer book report on the console downstairs. I'd be up the creek without a paddle if I had to use a GUI to do what I'm doing now:
1) I'm on a terminal.. 2) The terminal is connected to my home Linux box. 3) My home Linux box is connected to my office Linux box via modem running TERM. 4) My son is on the console running EZ while all of this is going on.
Now explain exactly how I'd do somthing like that running Windows 95?
Like I said. Different.
Yup. Life is good.
BAJ -- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
Sorry for the double posts folks. I aborted the first copy and ended up posting to additional ones.
BAJ -- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
>Both of these sounds like claims from someone who doesn't use Linux. >My machine runs XDM. From bootup it's in X. My wife and my 12 YO both >have accounts and can login directly into X. I haven't even bothered >adding the FVWM goodstuff or running the XF filemanager. They can access >the EZ wordprocessor along with other tools and games. My wife has >completed a year of graduate school in education on our Linux box.
Boy are you lucky. There's two reasons I haven't put Linux on my home machine yet. I've been too lazy to offload and clean up ten years of random data, and when I do put Linux on this machine it will probably be me who ends up with a user account while my son refuses to tell me the root password.
-- Sphere.
Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/ Buy Free UNIX! Microsoft is prohibited from examining any packet containing data originating on any machine which I am using. (Not that I can stop them.)
>Anway.. why is it that all of this free software (this mainly >applies to the OS stuff, but also heartily to GNU etc..) so >much more sophisticated and reliable than commercially availible >crud? (MacOS gives me the heebegeebees and DOS makes me puke, >while Windoze isnt even worth talking about). I believe its >the result of the Internet and an open approach to software >development, with no economic or marketing decisions getting >in the way of real development issues... nuff said.
I think you're right. We could flesh this paragraph out with specifics, such as "peer review is better than QA," and "open development leads to better cooperation," but you've covered the big picture here.
I might quibble a bit about the "mostly applies the the OS" part. I think exactly the same arguments cover both just about equally.
-- Sphere.
Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/ Buy Free UNIX! Microsoft is prohibited from examining any packet containing data originating on any machine which I am using. (Not that I can stop them.)
In article <41ciii$...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, Ben Ross <b...@arkady.law.uts.edu.au> wrote:
>Well all I can say is that Linux is a breath of fresh air.
> Anyway, my first idea was to compare the performance of >my Linux box with an Indy. To my surprise most X graphics >was almost up to par with Indy speed and it seems to >compile almost as fast too, all on cheap hardware on an OS >thats completely free! wow! (It does have and S3 card, but still..)
On a side note, I have just installed linux here on this 386sx16 with 8mb memory (30 meg ide disk drive to boot) and decided to try putting a www server on it, just to see the thing die :-)
To my surprise, the thing serves up documents just as fast as an sgi here running the cern httpd! (admittedly, cern is slow, and the sgi is also doing other tasks) but the raw speed just amazed me...(I run the spinner httpd here btw, http://spinner.infovav.se/ for info on spinner. The 386 machine is at http://jaka.gsfc.nasa.gov/ temporarily)
I never realized i could get so much power from a small pc like this. It just sickens me to read in those trade rags that the 'minimum' requirements for a www server is a pentium 100 with some 32 megs of ram running nt. puke...
> This leads me to mention other amazing developments >revolving around UNIX. GNU, and X are the most prominent >examples. Take GNU, who have had released under its license >some of the most amazing software availible for unix (and Linux >too!) Something that has blown me away mostly is Larry Wall's >Perl, which is indeed a perl! (also flex, bison, gcc (wow), gzip >and zillions of others). Then theres X, with the most amazing >graphics environment Ive seen, being intrinsically supportive >of multitasking OSs and completely network transparent,yet being >efficient at the same time! boggle!
Yup yup...
>I'm definitly not going to post this article anywhere else >since it would be a waste of time!
Especially since Doomsday95 is about to be released :-)
In article <41m6c1$...@ns.csd.hku.hk> Isaac To kar-keung <k...@csd.hku.hk> writes:
>> By the way, character based user interface is still there, >> and will still be there. I remember when I was rushing for the >> report for my final year project using Word. It's very, very >> slow. That's not because the machine is slow. Try to insert >> 5-10 figures there, caption them, and reference them, and 5-10 >> entries in bibliography and reference them in a 30 page >> document and you'll perceive it. Then the network is down, and >> MS windows cannot be started. Then I wonder why I'm have not >> learnt LaTeX and editing it using LaTeX with my favourate >> vi. And so I learnt LaTeX basics within a couple of days after >> the exam.
And this demonstrates an advantage of LaTeX. You can do your editing of your document with any machine that has got a text editor. Almost all computers have a text editor as a minimal requirement. Text editors are fast because they don't need to consumer CPU time to draw or redraw those fancy buttons and scrollbars.
gwo...@prysm.com (J Woods) wrote: >was never meant to be a popular OS (ie, mainstream, competing with MS or IBM)
Everything have it's target market. The market is never "everybody", nor is "everybody using computer", nor is "everybody using PC". The target market of Linux is mainly a set of Computer and Electronics professionals which have experience in Unix, or want to gain experience in Unix. In this field, Linux do *very* well. Down here, over half of those my classmates either have installed Linux or want to, just because he/she don't have enough confidence. For a Unix system, this is really very good.
By the way, character based user interface is still there, and will still be there. I remember when I was rushing for the report for my final year project using Word. It's very, very slow. That's not because the machine is slow. Try to insert 5-10 figures there, caption them, and reference them, and 5-10 entries in bibliography and reference them in a 30 page document and you'll perceive it. Then the network is down, and MS windows cannot be started. Then I wonder why I'm have not learnt LaTeX and editing it using LaTeX with my favourate vi. And so I learnt LaTeX basics within a couple of days after the exam.
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} (sd...@csd.hku.hk) wrote: : In article <41m6c1$...@ns.csd.hku.hk> Isaac To kar-keung <k...@csd.hku.hk> writes:
: >> By the way, character based user interface is still there, : >> and will still be there. I remember when I was rushing for the : >> report for my final year project using Word. It's very, very : >> slow. That's not because the machine is slow. Try to insert : >> 5-10 figures there, caption them, and reference them, and 5-10 : >> entries in bibliography and reference them in a 30 page : >> document and you'll perceive it. Then the network is down, and : >> MS windows cannot be started. Then I wonder why I'm have not : >> learnt LaTeX and editing it using LaTeX with my favourate : >> vi. And so I learnt LaTeX basics within a couple of days after : >> the exam.
: And this demonstrates an advantage of LaTeX. You can do your editing : of your document with any machine that has got a text editor. Almost : all computers have a text editor as a minimal requirement. Text editors : are fast because they don't need to consumer CPU time to draw or redraw : those fancy buttons and scrollbars.
: Can MS-Word do that?
Not to mention the following: How long does it take for MS pages to come out of the printer? I can print out a 100 page postscript file generated by latex and dvips in about the same time as 10 pages of MS Word. And the portability of latex is a big plus. And with xdvi up, it's like having Word up in some respects. Heck, sometimes the compile times for latex are faster than page turns in Word! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- James P. Smith NASA/JSC, Mail Code ES2 Houston, Texas 77058 smi...@es2linux.jsc.nasa.gov smi...@smd4.jsc.nasa.gov http://es2linux.jsc.nasa.gov
