Microsoft soon to be doomed?...
Stephen S. Edwards II
Greetings fellow UNIX fanatics... :)
First off, this is NOT anti-Microsoft nonsense... it's just something that
my buddy and I were rappin' about the other night, and I wondered what you
all think about this so-called 'theory' of ours. :)
Secondly, in case you didn't notice, I am crossposting this. This is not
so that I can start a flame war (and PLEASE, lets not flame each other in
this thread). I am crossposting this to get everyone's perspective on the
subject matter at hand.
Last night, a friend and I were talking about Windows NT, and what it
needs to become easier to use for things that UNIX does without even
breaking a sweat (things that NT's current design simply won't allow).
Then we started talking about how Apple screwed up by not licensing their
technology right from the beginning, and it brought up some interesting
points about closed, proprietary hardware and software.
Now, in the 60's and 70's, the thing to do was to share knowledge, and
technology. This attitude was directly responsible for the Personal
Computer becoming so well developed. Granted, it took Steve Jobs'
initiative to bring the PC to the general consumer, but the technology
advanced very quickly because everybody shared... everybody had the latest
and greatest hardware and software in their system, and therefore
everybody won.
Now, consider this...
So far, everyone who has tried to endorse a closed proprietary hardware
system, has ended up either belly up, or out of the PC market.
IBM -- MCA architecture
Unless I am mistaken, this was used only in the IBM PS/1 and PS/2 model
systems. MCA is buried somewhere under Jimmy Hoffa's skull, last I heard.
Commodore -- Amiga
This was a classic example of how people actually must know about your
product before they will even consider looking at it, let alone, buy it.
As of just a few years ago, these guys went belly up for good. The
technology is still around, and in use, but only in very small, niche
market circles (digital video, and the like).
Apple -- Macintosh
Apple is really in big trouble, according to financial reports in the
market... and what is Apple's hardware?... you guessed it!... CLOSED!
Do you see a trend here?
The IBM PC design has done so well, because right from the start, the
design was open, and could be built with parts 'off the shelf.' An open
system is more likely to be adopted by the market, because it's easier
to get specs for it, and adopt it into what you are doing. Is it REALLY
any different for software?... Before you say 'YES,' and tell me I'm
crazed, read on. :)
Now consider this... freeware OSes are getting much easier to get a
hold of (no longer necessary to spend hours downloading, etc.), and
easier to use due to more 'friendly' enhancements, and better
documentation. More and more people are leaving the MS front to use OSes
like Linux, FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD, etc. Is it not possible, that as
Freeware gets more and more established, that people will choose it over
commercial software? With the know-how, and the right people, it is much
easier to impelement a freeware OS, that comes with the source, into a
fortune 500 corporation, and leave that corp.'s flexibility intact at the
same time. And now that there are a lot of independent support
contractors for Linux, and the freeware BSD's, popping up everywhere,
freeware's lack of liability is no longer an issue.
IBM addresses the problem with closed software... when you purchase a
Microsoft based software system, for example, you are buying into
Microsoft, and have little or no compatibility with system configurations
that are already established.
There are many large corporations that are still using old PDP
minicomputers on a daily basis... will Microsoft software integrate with
these?... nope. Freeware OSes can be made to integrate with ANY current
systems or networks.
Now, keep in mind, I am not necessarily talking about UNIX here
exclusively, for there may very well be a 'friendly-to-average-joe'
freeware OS developed in the next few years. In fact, I remember seeing a
web page that was hosting a project to create a Windows NT clone
(freeware, of course).
From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
Thoughts?...
--
sigfile lost in last terrorist raid
Kaz
In article <5vrnes$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <la...@primenet.com> wrote:
>From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
>hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
>scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
In that real, it already has.
>Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
It is inevitable. The days of commercial software for personal workstations
are numbered. Only large industrial software will surive---you won't likely
see freeware telecommunication management software anytime soon, for example,
or an air traffic control system! These tend to be huge, and cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars, nay millions, and nobody would want to work on one
unless they were getting a handsome salary for it. ;)
Already, I use no commercial software for my personal use. Mind you, a few
of the things I use do have a steep learning curve compared to the pale
commercial offerings for doing similar things. But that's a far cry from
having no freeware means at all.
--
Jerry Bell
I have to agree with you. I was using Winders NT for our network server
(about 20 PCs) and was very unhappy. Anything additional I wanted to do,
like Internet access, I had to pay a fortune for. So, I replaced NT with
FreeBSD and Samba, and I have been very happy with the performance, and the
price was right. I have been able implement some of the vast amount of
freeware now that we are on FreeBSD, which lets us spend our money in
other, more profitable places.
--
Jerry Bell
Systems Administrator
Reilly Plating Company / M-Lok, Inc.
je...@reillyplating.com
Stephen S. Edwards II <la...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5vrnes$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
> From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
> hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
> scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
> Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
>
TL
On 18 Sep 1997 10:13:00 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
<la...@primenet.com> Said Unto Me:
>
>Greetings fellow UNIX fanatics... :)
>
>First off, this is NOT anti-Microsoft nonsense... it's just something that
>my buddy and I were rappin' about the other night, and I wondered what you
>all think about this so-called 'theory' of ours. :)
>
snipped
>From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
>hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
>scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
>Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
>
>Thoughts?...
Utopia models are always lots of fun to construct because they lift us
from the dreary realities of everyday life, even if only for a moment.
Sometimes, they even produce ideas that have value in the real world.
One thing that we all can continue to believe in is the power of the
dollar, which is not necessarily a power of evil. It is more like
Chinese duality, yin/yang. A little bad in the good, and vice versa.
A great many people depend on being paid for their code in order to
clothe and feed themselves, if not their families, etc. We can (and
certainly do) appreciate all the labor and genius that is contributed
to such causes as Linux and all other free software endeavors. But in
the end, we must at some juncture part with dollars for superior
products and services. This is because the brightest and best cannot
live by pats on the back alone. Especially when the giants of industry
are breathing down their necks.
IBM, Apple, Amiga, Commodore, Tandy - - all blew their leads not
because their designs were proprietary, but because they forgot about
marketing and public image. Any one of these could have continued on
the road to success had they aimed for the jugular in marketing. The
Wintel team had them for lunch instead.
One may argue vehemently against the statement that Microsoft employs
the best and brightest code writers. That is beside the point,
however. What is significant is that Microsoft is able to compensate
its employees, and compensate them well. No person is able to produce
his personal best when his future is speculative. There has to be
security, the kind that comes from being on a winning team. Security
comes with success in the marketplace. Microsoft has achieved this, as
has Intel. What is best for MS is keeping their code under lock and
key - - who will argue that point? Rest assured that more companies -
- not fewer - - are likely to study MS to see if their corporate
strategies and policies can be made to work elsewhere.
For this reason, history repeats itself and we find once again that "
nothing breeds success like success." Microsoft now has the power to
push even inferior, ill-tested products because the company knows its
installed base overwhelms every other company's installed base. If
they make a boo-boo, they issue a service release. People go with
Microsoft because Microsoft outmarkets the competition, and Microsoft
can afford to pay out for mistakes, sometimes even whoppers.
Typically, the buying public doesn't even understand what the problem
is. As long as someone fixes it, MS retains credibility. So MS gets
out of the starting gate first, dumps inferior code on the market,
steals the fire away from its competitiors, and then brings out the
damage control unit. Where necessary, the competitor is bought out and
the code assimilated. This is how MS stays on top.
Meanwhile, some purists give heart and soul to such projects as Linux,
praying for a miracle, hoping for a utopian high-tech marketplace
wherein everyone has great, free software running on great, free OSs.
The masses will never see it until someone or some group has the
power to make a name like Linux familiar and credible. That kind of
power takes money. And we all know how money is made.
Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
TL
"There's a lot to learn
from wasting time." -Mr. Neil Young
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
Stoney Edwards
Greg <jqu...@shell7.ba.best.com> wrote:
: the end because of configurability for the average (non UNIX) joe. This
: notion that 'lots of people are turning away from windows to Linux and
: FreeBSD' is bull. They represent a small fixed percentage of Intel users.
I disagree. These people are not just using the Intel platform. Linux
runs on Intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, M68k, PPC, and very soon, Linux will be
available for the Silicon Graphics platform (SGI is funding and
facilitating the project themselves, since they tested Linux, and found it
outperforms IRIX for a web server). I keep seeing more and more
advertisements for Pre-installed Alpha-based systems running Linux, and
even more for Intel boxes running Linux.
FreeBSD runs on several platforms as well, I think. Correct me if I am
wrong on this. :)
Greg
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Jerry Bell <je...@reillyplating.com> wrote:
: I have to agree with you. I was using Winders NT for our network server
: (about 20 PCs) and was very unhappy. Anything additional I wanted to do,
: like Internet access, I had to pay a fortune for. So, I replaced NT with
: FreeBSD and Samba, and I have been very happy with the performance, and the
: price was right. I have been able implement some of the vast amount of
: freeware now that we are on FreeBSD, which lets us spend our money in
: other, more profitable places.
Fine if you are doing nothing more than setting up a simple server with
CAP/SAMBA or the like. In my view, the biggest thing going for NT is the
ease of programming on it, and distributing those programs. COM is not
currently a viable apsect of UNIX cmputing (yes, I know there's a beta
Solaris COM support), and I suspect that NT will most certainly win out in
Tom Elam
>Greetings fellow UNIX fanatics... :)
>
>First off, this is NOT anti-Microsoft nonsense... it's just something that
>my buddy and I were rappin' about the other night, and I wondered what you
>all think about this so-called 'theory' of ours. :)
>
>From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
>hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
>scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
>Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
>
>Thoughts?...
You miss one major point. MS's main source of revenue is not OS-based but
App-bsaed. Their Games division outsells Win 95. Office is the #1 selling
app, and has been for several years. Also, "Open" has never been important
word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS that
is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
adding OS extensions.
-------------------
Tom Elam
Windows 95 user since 7/95
These opinions are mine only, and do not represent
those of my employer, my wife or Jamaica (the cat)
Stoney Edwards
TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
: Utopia models are always lots of fun to construct because they lift us
: from the dreary realities of everyday life, even if only for a moment.
: Sometimes, they even produce ideas that have value in the real world.
<g> I see more and more of this 'utopia model' taking shape every day.
: One thing that we all can continue to believe in is the power of the
: dollar, which is not necessarily a power of evil. It is more like
: Chinese duality, yin/yang. A little bad in the good, and vice versa.
True, but that doesn't really counter the original theory.
: A great many people depend on being paid for their code in order to
: clothe and feed themselves, if not their families, etc. We can (and
: certainly do) appreciate all the labor and genius that is contributed
: to such causes as Linux and all other free software endeavors. But in
: the end, we must at some juncture part with dollars for superior
: products and services. This is because the brightest and best cannot
True. That's why some people write commercial software for freeware
OSes... there are a bunch of commercial titles available from large
corporations for Linux already. Plus there are consultant companies
popping up all over the place... things are starting to happen here.
: IBM, Apple, Amiga, Commodore, Tandy - - all blew their leads not
: because their designs were proprietary, but because they forgot about
: marketing and public image. Any one of these could have continued on
: the road to success had they aimed for the jugular in marketing. The
: Wintel team had them for lunch instead.
I don't think it was just marketing... I mean, practically everyone I know
has heard about Apple and IBM, and many of them are totally oblivious to
the computer's existence. So, they did market the product... I just
think that flexibility, establishment (which was made easier by the
fact that the PC was open to start with), and price is what drew so many
people to the PC.
: One may argue vehemently against the statement that Microsoft employs
: the best and brightest code writers. That is beside the point,
Exactly why I never mentioned it... the issue is the potential for
closed OS software to survive this ever changing industry.
: however. What is significant is that Microsoft is able to compensate
: its employees, and compensate them well. No person is able to produce
: his personal best when his future is speculative. There has to be
: security, the kind that comes from being on a winning team. Security
: comes with success in the marketplace. Microsoft has achieved this, as
: has Intel. What is best for MS is keeping their code under lock and
: key - - who will argue that point? Rest assured that more companies -
But is that best in the long term?... think about it. Giving only a
priviledged few access to the source code of a software product really
hinders its progress... look how far Linux has come in such a short while.
: For this reason, history repeats itself and we find once again that "
: nothing breeds success like success." Microsoft now has the power to
: push even inferior, ill-tested products because the company knows its
: installed base overwhelms every other company's installed base. If
: they make a boo-boo, they issue a service release. People go with
: Microsoft because Microsoft outmarkets the competition, and Microsoft
: can afford to pay out for mistakes, sometimes even whoppers.
That is now... but what about 5 years from now?... 10 years from now?...
when software (be it commercial, or free) has been thoroughly tested, and
debugged?...
Nobody ever thought anyone would beat out IBM, either. ;)
: Typically, the buying public doesn't even understand what the problem
: is. As long as someone fixes it, MS retains credibility. So MS gets
: out of the starting gate first, dumps inferior code on the market,
: steals the fire away from its competitiors, and then brings out the
: damage control unit. Where necessary, the competitor is bought out and
: the code assimilated. This is how MS stays on top.
No one strategy can work forever, and Microsoft's future is not assured...
nobody's is.
: Meanwhile, some purists give heart and soul to such projects as Linux,
: praying for a miracle, hoping for a utopian high-tech marketplace
: wherein everyone has great, free software running on great, free OSs.
The reason people use Linux, is it better suits their needs than the
Microsoft offerings... not for idealistic purposes (well, some actually
do, but the rest of us ignore them anyway).
I use both Linux and NT, and I like both Linux and NT, quite frankly. :)
: The masses will never see it until someone or some group has the
: power to make a name like Linux familiar and credible. That kind of
: power takes money. And we all know how money is made.
What about Caldera, and RedHat?... they are certainly not exactly tiny
corporations... and they offer all of the same services that Microsoft and
others offer. In fact, RedHat Linux can be bought shrinkwrapped on the
shelves of stores like CompUSA, and Best Buy.
: Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
: 100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
For the short term, I believe you are right, but, like I said above...
What about 5-10 years from now?...
Chuck Bermingham
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
> they were making a mess.
>
Two points here:
I've seen lots of users make messes of their "turf" with their Windows 95
client OS's:
SUPPORT: "Here--pick this up, drag it over here--OH MY GOD--DON'T DROP IT
NOW!!!
Oh, brother--now your pc's gonna crank for two hours..."
USER: "Oh, that's OK--I'll just turn it off..."
"NOOOO!"
The nice thing about GUI is: You get what you see.
The bad thing about GUI is: Sometimes you get what you don't see.
Also, there are good comparisons here with other industries. They often
have craftworkers who are very skilled, and users don't necessarily know
what they do, or how to do it. But their technologies and the details of
their work are not secret--anyone can try them.
That's like LInux. As you become more and more familiar, the average user
becomes less and less aware of the details of what you do, and probably
wouldn't want to know. But, like building construction, you are able to
learn all of it if you wish.
What we need with respect to IT is certification of Linux experts. That
way, Linux can be viewed as safe from both user and programmer
perspectives.
Users will make a mess of their own turf until the OS no longer allows
that. IMHO, Linux could be made to put that kind of face toward the
average user.
No One
In article <5vslnk$guj$3...@otis.netspace.net.au>, mhe...@netspace.net.au
(Mark Heath) wrote:
> Curtis A. Johnson (c...@insync.net) wrote:
> As for Win95, the gui is possibly the best so far (well it bloody well
> ought to be they've had 10 years to get it right) But a DOS prompt?
> ...Wheres my unix box?
>
You can't expect to post that without getting skewered on it. They've had
10 years to copy Apple's gui, which any but the most extremely
windows-biased reports will tell you still beats out windows in
user-friendliness. Yet despite billions of dollars in the bank, more coming
in every year, the pick of the litter when it comes to programmers,
Microsoft products (especially their OS) are still crap. When I use Windows
95 at school I wince at all the design flaws and inconsistencies that would
cause riots if it showed up in a mac os. (Things like a different key
command to quite every single program, scroll bars that sometimes grey out
when disabled and sometimes dissapear, the fact that you have to wait 3
seconds to activate a submenu (maybe you can change this though....), the
way maximizing a window often places the lower portion below the monitor
edge... this is the equivilent of publishing a book with a spelling error
in the title.
avi
Timothy J. Lee
te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
| Also, "Open" has never been important
|word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS that
|is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
|adding OS extensions.
|
|Windows 95 user since 7/95
But isn't the type of "closed" that is desirable to IT divisions somewhat
different from the type of "closed" that is being referred to in this
thread?
An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
they were making a mess.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Christopher Browne
On 18 Sep 1997 14:50:01 -0700, Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>: The masses will never see it until someone or some group has the
>: power to make a name like Linux familiar and credible. That kind of
>: power takes money. And we all know how money is made.
>
>What about Caldera, and RedHat?... they are certainly not exactly tiny
>corporations... and they offer all of the same services that Microsoft and
>others offer. In fact, RedHat Linux can be bought shrinkwrapped on the
>shelves of stores like CompUSA, and Best Buy.
No, they both are most certainly "tiny" corporations, in comparison
with "Microsoft and others." I don't think either has total staff
exceeding 100 people.
IBM probably has more people than that simply in "technical sales
assistance." Microsoft is, if nothing else, definitely a "large
corporation." As is Oracle. And SAP AG. And Compaq. And Novell.
And many of these companies provide services that Caldera and Red Hat
*can't.*
Far too many of those services relate too much to "schmoozing" the
customers into spending big $ on things that they may not really need;
but that is not to say that there is nothing that the customers get
for the money.
>: Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
>: 100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
>
>For the short term, I believe you are right, but, like I said above...
>
>What about 5-10 years from now?...
I think that Microsoft is liable to get hit by a "backlash" in much
the same fashion that IBM received when "departmental users" moved en
masse to PCs.
Which leaves an opening for *something* new. Something like Linux
could be that *something,* although it's more likely to be the
coalescence of some new arrangement that some people see will allow
them to make a lot of money.
Not to say that Linux can't make people money, but that tends to
require forethought, and it's certainly not "easy" money as in the
days when any hacker with a garage could start a software company...
--
cbbr...@hex.net, <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne> Q: Where would Microsoft
take you today? A: Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis...
Spam bait: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com postm...@onlinebiz.net
pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
Mark Eaton
In article <timleeEG...@netcom.com>,
see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome wrote:
> te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
> |
> |
> |By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
> |settings
>
> Windows 95 is not "closed" or "closable" in this sense. Unix and Windows
> NT are "closable" in this sense.
this is not the definition of "open/closed". This is "secure/insecure".
An open system meets the following criteria:
o A rigorous specification exists
o The spec has been submitted to a standards body
o That standards body is empowered to certify competing implementations as
compliant with the spec
Win32 meets none of the above criteria and is therefore closed, or
proprietary. Windows 95 and Windows NT are two implementations of Win32,
and therefore aren't considered open.
-mark
Kenneth R. Kinder
> |
> |>te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
> |>|word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS that
> |>|is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
> |>|adding OS extensions.
> |>|
> |>|Tom Elam
> |>|Windows 95 user since 7/95
> |>
> |>But isn't the type of "closed" that is desirable to IT divisions somewhat
> |>different from the type of "closed" that is being referred to in this
> |>thread?
> |>
> |>An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
> |>make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
> |>clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
> |>the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
> |>while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
> |>In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
> |>permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
> |>a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
> |>due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
> |>they were making a mess.
> |
> |settings
>
> Windows 95 is not "closed" or "closable" in this sense. Unix and Windows
> NT are "closable" in this sense.
If you are refering to the sense of configuration, they are. Among the
numerous easter-egg style configuration files that are completly
undocumented in Windows are your registeries and mystery files.
In the real since of the word, no operating system that doesn't come
with all its source code is truely open. End of story.
> | and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their own
> |code.
>
> If you don't give them "administrator" or "super" user privileges, they
> aren't going to be installing their own OS code without IT's permission,
> unless they crack the system (in which case it may be wise to either move
> them into the IT group to help with security or dismiss them).
Actually, under GPLware, you can modify it and all that fun stuff,
atleast for your own perposes.
> Under Windows 95, how do you prevent users from changing the system
> settings, or installing any kind of binaries that they find on the net
> or wherever?
You don't.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder
K...@KenAndTed.com - http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
"An open architecture is a terrible thing to lose."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder
>
> > te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
> > |
> > |
> > |By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
> > |settings
> >
> > Windows 95 is not "closed" or "closable" in this sense. Unix and Windows
> > NT are "closable" in this sense.
>
>
> An open system meets the following criteria:
>
> o A rigorous specification exists
> o The spec has been submitted to a standards body
> o That standards body is empowered to certify competing implementations as
> compliant with the spec
>
> Win32 meets none of the above criteria and is therefore closed, or
> proprietary. Windows 95 and Windows NT are two implementations of Win32,
> and therefore aren't considered open.
Further more, with all the legal problems you run into cloning Win32,
it's closed.
Sean
TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote in article
<34219a02....@news.erols.com>...
> A great many people depend on being paid for their code in order to
> clothe and feed themselves, if not their families, etc. We can (and
> certainly do) appreciate all the labor and genius that is contributed
> to such causes as Linux and all other free software endeavors. But in
> the end, we must at some juncture part with dollars for superior
> products and services. This is because the brightest and best cannot
> live by pats on the back alone. Especially when the giants of industry
> are breathing down their necks.
>
> IBM, Apple, Amiga, Commodore, Tandy - - all blew their leads not
> because their designs were proprietary, but because they forgot about
> marketing and public image. Any one of these could have continued on
> the road to success had they aimed for the jugular in marketing. The
> Wintel team had them for lunch instead.
>
> One may argue vehemently against the statement that Microsoft employs
> the best and brightest code writers. That is beside the point,
> however. What is significant is that Microsoft is able to compensate
> its employees, and compensate them well. No person is able to produce
> his personal best when his future is speculative. There has to be
> security, the kind that comes from being on a winning team. Security
> comes with success in the marketplace. Microsoft has achieved this, as
> has Intel. What is best for MS is keeping their code under lock and
> key - - who will argue that point? Rest assured that more companies -
> - not fewer - - are likely to study MS to see if their corporate
> strategies and policies can be made to work elsewhere.
>
> For this reason, history repeats itself and we find once again that "
> nothing breeds success like success." Microsoft now has the power to
> push even inferior, ill-tested products because the company knows its
> installed base overwhelms every other company's installed base. If
> they make a boo-boo, they issue a service release. People go with
> Microsoft because Microsoft outmarkets the competition, and Microsoft
> can afford to pay out for mistakes, sometimes even whoppers.
> Typically, the buying public doesn't even understand what the problem
> is. As long as someone fixes it, MS retains credibility. So MS gets
> out of the starting gate first, dumps inferior code on the market,
> steals the fire away from its competitiors, and then brings out the
> damage control unit. Where necessary, the competitor is bought out and
> the code assimilated. This is how MS stays on top.
>
> Meanwhile, some purists give heart and soul to such projects as Linux,
> praying for a miracle, hoping for a utopian high-tech marketplace
> wherein everyone has great, free software running on great, free OSs.
> The masses will never see it until someone or some group has the
> power to make a name like Linux familiar and credible. That kind of
> power takes money. And we all know how money is made.
Those were excellent comments and I completely agree. The only thing in my
opinion that is possible in order for a non-MS operating system to get a
large share of the PC market is for the hardware market to hit a peak, in
that once we get our PC's much faster and more stable than we will ever
need and are happy and not always upgrading, it will be quite possible to
see other OS's evolve to such a point as they become appealing to a wider
market. By evolve I am speaking of all those things like strong, immediate,
customer support, (even if it is expensive), good hardware drivers,
cross-platform program execution, etc.... In a market like that MS will be
in alot of trouble considering that if you run a company and you need to
put a good OS on 300 PC's and there is an OS out there, maybe one like
Linux for example, that you can buy for a few dollars and put on all the
systems and it is very well supported etc..., what are you going to do? Buy
300 licenses to use an MS OS or go with something else. Sooner or later I
think this will be a practical decision as more companies take on the
challenge of making custom Linux distributions, (other OS's too of course),
and supporting them after the sale.
Mark Heath
Stoney Edwards (la...@primenet.com) wrote:
: FreeBSD runs on several platforms as well, I think. Correct me if I am
: wrong on this. :)
Your wrong :-) FreeBSD is x86 only. You might've been thinking of NetBSD,
OpenBSD, SomeotherBSD...
--
-- mark heath - Netspace Online Systems. http://www.netspace.net.au/
Obnoxious Usenet Habits #34. Pick a cutesy handle that inspires vicarious
embarrassment in other readers, such as "SoHot4U", "SokSnifer", or
"WetNWild".
:wq
TBCASS
: For the short term, I believe you are right, but, like I said above...
:
: What about 5-10 years from now?...
I believe that 5-10 years from now all existing OS's will be obsolete. As
for what companies will exist, probably most of the same ones that are
around today if they can adapt.
TOM
Mark Heath
Curtis A. Johnson (c...@insync.net) wrote:
: This is true depending on what operation you are talking about. I believe
: that most of it has to do with the whole GUI vs CLI issue. A CLI is the
: most efficient interface once one actually knows what the hell one is
: doing.
Which was 1 point for the Amiga. It had a fairly good GUI (for the
period) and then when you had gained enough hacker points you could use
the CLI.
As for Win95, the gui is possibly the best so far (well it bloody well
ought to be they've had 10 years to get it right) But a DOS prompt?
...Wheres my unix box?
: > Then we started talking about how Apple screwed up by not licensing their
: > technology right from the beginning, and it brought up some interesting
: > points about closed, proprietary hardware and software.
: Let's talk about how Apple screwed up by licensing their technology after
: the it was too late.
Apple are not happy with this licence. They've just revoked Power
Computings licence. No More power computing clones after '98. Plus I've
heard other stories about how Apple want to control their PC.
: Name more that IBM and Commodore. Out of the almost 30 proprietary
: hardware platforms that I can think of, most of them are doing pretty well.
: let's see that 30/32 have succeeded, not bad.
I can say SUN (at least).
--
-- mark heath - Netspace Online Systems. http://www.netspace.net.au/
Obnoxious Usenet Habits #90. Ask the readers of
alt.current-events.net-abuse where to purchase Cantor and Siegel's book.
:wq
Mark Heath
TBCASS (tbc...@dreamscape.com) wrote:
: I believe that 5-10 years from now all existing OS's will be obsolete. As
: for what companies will exist, probably most of the same ones that are
: around today if they can adapt.
I believe Linux will still be around, and of course other Unices for that
matter.
They seem to be able to integrate whatever new technology people want
into their philosophy. X windows would be the most notable for example.
--
-- mark heath - Netspace Online Systems. http://www.netspace.net.au/
Obnoxious Usenet Habits #99. Followup another person's posts every twelve
minutes to accuse them of "obsessing".
:wq
Scott Hess
In article <01bcc490$bc52a9c0$12a4dece@708661617>,
"Curtis A. Johnson" <c...@insync.net> writes:
Stephen S. Edwards II <la...@primenet.com>,
> Last night, a friend and I were talking about Windows NT, and
> what it needs to become easier to use for things that UNIX does
> without even breaking a sweat (things that NT's current design
> simply won't allow).
This is true depending on what operation you are talking about. I
believe that most of it has to do with the whole GUI vs CLI issue.
A CLI is the most efficient interface once one actually knows what
the hell one is doing.
Wellll, I'd say it's a bit more than that. Without even going into
the CLI/GUI argument. NT seems to have a certain tendency to make
setting up a particular configuration simple - but if you have ideas
which differ from what Microsoft decrees, look out!
I will readily admit that other vendors can do the same thing to Unix.
Look at NeXT's NFSManager and other "simplifying" utilities. As soon
as the "simple" utilities came out, much of the documentation needed
to make good use of the more complex stuff went away. Everything is
still _there_, mind you, it's just that you don't know how to use it
(unless, of course, you find another system and figure it out from
there). [SimpleNetworkStarter is an even better example. For a
handful of simple (but useful) network configurations, you're golden.
But if you're weird, or need to later remove your machine from the
network, or worse move it from one type of network to another, you
find that weird stuff is happening, because you have no idea what SNS
_did_ to the system. :-).]
Later,
--
scott hess <sc...@doubleu.com> (606) 578-0412 http://www.doubleu.com/
<Favorite unused computer book title: The Demystified Idiots Guide
to the Zen of Dummies in a Nutshell in Seven Days, Unleashed>
Curtis A. Johnson
Stephen S. Edwards II <la...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5vrnes$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
> Greetings fellow UNIX fanatics... :)
> Last night, a friend and I were talking about Windows NT, and what it
> needs to become easier to use for things that UNIX does without even
> breaking a sweat (things that NT's current design simply won't allow).
>
This is true depending on what operation you are talking about. I believe
that most of it has to do with the whole GUI vs CLI issue. A CLI is the
most efficient interface once one actually knows what the hell one is
doing.
> Then we started talking about how Apple screwed up by not licensing their
> technology right from the beginning, and it brought up some interesting
> points about closed, proprietary hardware and software.
Let's talk about how Apple screwed up by licensing their technology after
the it was too late.
>
> Now, in the 60's and 70's, the thing to do was to share knowledge, and
> technology. This attitude was directly responsible for the Personal
> Computer becoming so well developed. Granted, it took Steve Jobs'
> initiative to bring the PC to the general consumer, but the technology
> advanced very quickly because everybody shared... everybody had the
latest
> and greatest hardware and software in their system, and therefore
> everybody won.
Are you kidding. The only people that were sharing were research guys and
academics. The rest were out for the cash. The only reason that the
computing industry is the way it is, is because XEROX is a company that
lacks vision.
>
> Now, consider this...
>
> So far, everyone who has tried to endorse a closed proprietary hardware
> system, has ended up either belly up, or out of the PC market.
Name more that IBM and Commodore. Out of the almost 30 proprietary
hardware platforms that I can think of, most of them are doing pretty well.
let's see that 30/32 have succeeded, not bad.
>
> The IBM PC design has done so well, because right from the start, the
> design was open, and could be built with parts 'off the shelf.' An open
> system is more likely to be adopted by the market, because it's easier
> to get specs for it, and adopt it into what you are doing. Is it REALLY
> any different for software?... Before you say 'YES,' and tell me I'm
> crazed, read on. :)
>
The IBM PC design was not open at the start. A few guys from Texas were
the first to clone the architecture. Can you say Compaq. Before them,
there were no "off the shelf components." The Wintel market became open by
default. No one designed it that way, the market force it to be that way.
If all the PC manufactorers had it there way, they would all be
proprietary.
--
Curtis A. Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c...@insync.net PGP finger print (RSA 1024 , 7/26/97)
www.insync.net/~caj 4F79 9AB9 1CAB 591B D962 76B7 F424 40D7
PGP Key:
http://www.insync.net/~caj/pgpkey.htm
finger c...@insync.net
"The Best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is
endeavor to carry out those scemes which he entertained when he
was poor."
- Henry David Thoreau
brian kimball
No One <an...@non.non> wrote in article
<anon-ya02358000...@news.cyberspc.mb.ca>...
> when disabled and sometimes dissapear, the fact that you have to wait 3
> seconds to activate a submenu (maybe you can change this though....),
Registry:
current_user --> control_panel --> desktop, change MenuShowDelay from 400
to whatever you like. 0 is nice. You'll have to add the entry in Win95,
it's a string value (despite the fact that it's a number).
-brian
T. Colin Mack
In article <34216bdb...@news.zippo.com>, te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam)
wrote:
>Also, "Open" has never been important
>word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS
that
>is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
>adding OS extensions.
I think this is the key factor that will keep MS, IBM, et al, from being
displaced by any linux-esque "os community"; at least until Bill G publicly
admits that he is, in fact, Satan. As computers have become an everyday part
of big business, and no longer a whiz-bang technology, the people who make
decisions on the big installations that affect market share tend to be
more and more responsible middle management types, whose rather plump career
bacon is riding on the decisions they make. These people need the
reliability,
and clear lines of responsibility that you get with an established supplier,
so they can cover their asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no
accountability with these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue
when you are sued because your linux based systems crashed and caused huge
data/money loss for some client?) So no matter how much they
excel technically, they will have trouble displacing MS from any large-ish
organization where "grown ups" make the decisions.
- Colin
----------------
T. Colin Mack
Satelight, Inc.
Sapporo, Japan
co...@bug.co.jp
----------------
Tom Elam
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:46:08 GMT, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
>te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
>| Also, "Open" has never been important
>|word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS that
>|is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
>|adding OS extensions.
>|
>|Tom Elam
>|Windows 95 user since 7/95
>
>But isn't the type of "closed" that is desirable to IT divisions somewhat
>different from the type of "closed" that is being referred to in this
>thread?
>
>An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
>make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
>clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
>the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
>while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
>In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
>permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
>a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
>due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
>they were making a mess.
By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
settings and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their own
code. We are a pharmaceutical company, writing OS's is not a core competence
Timothy J. Lee
te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
|
|On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:46:08 GMT, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
|
|>te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
|>| Also, "Open" has never been important
|>|word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS that
|>|is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
|>|adding OS extensions.
|>|
|>|Tom Elam
|>|Windows 95 user since 7/95
|>
|>But isn't the type of "closed" that is desirable to IT divisions somewhat
|>different from the type of "closed" that is being referred to in this
|>thread?
|>
|>An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
|>make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
|>clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
|>the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
|>while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
|>In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
|>permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
|>a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
|>due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
|>they were making a mess.
|
|By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
|settings
Windows 95 is not "closed" or "closable" in this sense. Unix and Windows
NT are "closable" in this sense.
| and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their own
|code.
If you don't give them "administrator" or "super" user privileges, they
aren't going to be installing their own OS code without IT's permission,
unless they crack the system (in which case it may be wise to either move
them into the IT group to help with security or dismiss them).
Under Windows 95, how do you prevent users from changing the system
settings, or installing any kind of binaries that they find on the net
or wherever?
--
Jerry Bell
At present, FreeBSD is only available on x86, but DEC is putting effort
into assisting a port of FreeBSD to the Alpha.
NetBSD is available for many platforms, but I have no experience with it.
--
Jerry Bell
Systems Administrator
Reilly Plating Company / M-Lok, Inc.
Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5vs5og$9...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
> Greg <jqu...@shell7.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> : the end because of configurability for the average (non UNIX) joe. This
> : notion that 'lots of people are turning away from windows to Linux and
> : FreeBSD' is bull. They represent a small fixed percentage of Intel
users.
>
> I disagree. These people are not just using the Intel platform. Linux
> runs on Intel, MIPS, DEC Alpha, M68k, PPC, and very soon, Linux will be
> available for the Silicon Graphics platform (SGI is funding and
> facilitating the project themselves, since they tested Linux, and found
it
> outperforms IRIX for a web server). I keep seeing more and more
> advertisements for Pre-installed Alpha-based systems running Linux, and
> even more for Intel boxes running Linux.
>
> FreeBSD runs on several platforms as well, I think. Correct me if I am
> wrong on this. :)
David Griffith
Tom Elam (te...@iquest.net) wrote:
: On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:46:08 GMT, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
: >An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
: >make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
: >clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
: >the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
: >while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
: >In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
: >permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
: >a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
: >due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
: >they were making a mess.
: By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
: settings and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their
: own
: code. We are a pharmaceutical company, writing OS's is not a core competence
By that definition; Win95, Win31, DOS, and MacOS would be very unsuitable.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@ultrix6.cs.csubak.edu
Andrew Costa
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:36:31 GMT, Tom Elam <te...@iquest.net> wrote:
>By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
>settings and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their own
>code. We are a pharmaceutical company, writing OS's is not a core competence
Ordinary users can easily be prevented in unix from futzing around with system
configs. Pay attention to file permissions and they can be restricted to their
home directories if need be.
My methods are simple and standard: system config files and program binaries
are writable only by root. Nobody else can change them. Users' personal
configs (X desktop settings, et cetera) are stored in their home directories.
Only the user (and root if need be) can change those, nobody else.
This is how any competently managed unix system works.
They are set up to work this way right from install.
No "writing OS's" involved.
A W95 client on the other hand can easily be trashed by anyone who uses it,
whether by mistake or intention.
What I would do to set up an intranet, clients to be used by non-techy people,
is this:
Server - Runs unix (Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX), provides all logins
and applications.
Clients - Remote-booted X stations, basically dumb graphical terminals.
The server maintains all the data, does all the work, has all the security.
The clients are just displays, nearly impossible for joe_user to screw up.
Not only is this setup secure, it's a fair sight cheaper than having a
building full of fully functional PCs. Not to mention more reliable.
Andrew Costa
On 19 Sep 1997 11:45:09 GMT, Jerry Bell <je...@reillyplating.com> wrote:
>At present, FreeBSD is only available on x86, but DEC is putting effort
>into assisting a port of FreeBSD to the Alpha.
>NetBSD is available for many platforms, but I have no experience with it.
NetBSD: Just about everything under the Sun (pun intended :)
It's solid, stable, slightly archaic. For a high volume network
server, I'd be hard pressed to choose between Linux and NetBSD.
A year ago it would've been NetBSD without question.
Roger Christie
Curtis A. Johnson wrote:
>
...
> The IBM PC design was not open at the start. A few guys from Texas were
> the first to clone the architecture. Can you say Compaq. Before them,
> there were no "off the shelf components." The Wintel market became open by
> default. No one designed it that way, the market force it to be that way.
> If all the PC manufactorers had it there way, they would all be
> proprietary.
>
This is incorrect. The original IBM PC was made up /entirely/ of off the
shelf
components. Thats precisely what enabled Compaq and others to clone
them.
The only hitch in the process was reverse engineering the BIOS, and that
(clearly) wasn't so tough.
Peter Suetterlin
In article <EGqwI...@totoro.bug.co.jp>,
"T. Colin Mack" <co...@bug.co.jp> writes:
> These people need the reliability, and clear lines of responsibility
> that you get with an established supplier, so they can cover their
> asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no accountability with
> these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue when you are sued
> because your linux based systems crashed and caused huge data/money
> loss for some client?) So no matter how much they excel technically,
> they will have trouble displacing MS from any large-ish organization
> where "grown ups" make the decisions.
Sorry if I laugh. Mayby you try to estimate how many *billion* dollar
of wasted money MS OS and Apps have caused by crashes?
Have you ever seen someone sue MS for that? No. So the argument does
not hold. It is at most a threadbare excuse for narrow-mindness.
Peter
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter "Pit" Suetterlin http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~pit
Universitaets-Sternwarte Goettingen
Tel.: +49 551 39-5048 p...@uni-sw.gwdg.de
-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * --
Come and see the stars! http://www.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~ps/SFB
Sternfreunde Breisgau e.V. Tel.: +49 7641 3492
__________________________________________________________________________
Kaz
In article <34219a02....@news.erols.com>, TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Meanwhile, some purists give heart and soul to such projects as Linux,
>praying for a miracle, hoping for a utopian high-tech marketplace
>wherein everyone has great, free software running on great, free OSs.
Many people arleady do.
>The masses will never see it until someone or some group has the
>power to make a name like Linux familiar and credible. That kind of
>power takes money. And we all know how money is made.
A few years ago, some skeptic might have said that that it would take
a great deal of money for Linux to get where it is today. Which is not
to say that money isn't involved.
Before that, the very idea of a free, high-quality OS might have seemed
like an unrealistic dream.
Compared to the technical challenges that have been overcome, spreading the
word seems trivial. Without the money, it might just take a little longer.
>Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
>100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
More like stupid! Ever heard that saying about all your eggs in one basket?
Software is a high risk, unpredictable industry; and you hedge your bets
on a single software company.
I hope you have some non-stock investments too!
--
TL
On 19 Sep 1997 15:00:54 GMT, p...@spiff.uni-sw.gwdg.de (Peter
Suetterlin) Said Unto Me:
>
>In article <EGqwI...@totoro.bug.co.jp>,
> "T. Colin Mack" <co...@bug.co.jp> writes:
>
>> These people need the reliability, and clear lines of responsibility
>> that you get with an established supplier, so they can cover their
>> asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no accountability with
>> these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue when you are sued
>> because your linux based systems crashed and caused huge data/money
>> loss for some client?) So no matter how much they excel technically,
>> they will have trouble displacing MS from any large-ish organization
>> where "grown ups" make the decisions.
>
>Sorry if I laugh. Mayby you try to estimate how many *billion* dollar
>of wasted money MS OS and Apps have caused by crashes?
>Have you ever seen someone sue MS for that? No. So the argument does
>not hold. It is at most a threadbare excuse for narrow-mindness.
>
> Peter
Yes, but . . . . one can document the absence of support for, say,
Slackware. The IS grunt will be beheaded if he goes back to the
office manager and says, "Okay, I put my question on alt.os.linux - -
we'll see what happens." Even worse, "I emailed RedHat - - does this
have to be answered before the new millenium arrives?" Much better to
be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
least you have someone to blame if no answer appears within 24 hours.
This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
Trying to document the cost of crashes reminds me of the anti-IBM,
pseudo-mathematicians who have estimated the cost of ownership for
some piddly Compaq PC/Workstation at $20K/yr. It's a joke and any
rational person knows it. Crashes cost money, but so does a down
system with no formal support network. People get fired over this
kind of stuff. That's why they choose Netware, NT, or the various big
bux Unices.
TL
"There's a lot to learn
from wasting time." -Mr. Neil Young
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
Alan Daniels
On 19 Sep 1997 06:09:02 GMT, "brian kimball" <oryx_@_pobox.com> wrote:
[snip...]
>current_user --> control_panel --> desktop, change MenuShowDelay from 400
>to whatever you like. 0 is nice. You'll have to add the entry in Win95,
>it's a string value (despite the fact that it's a number).
For most programmers out there, changing a registry value is not that
big of a deal, but you can't just tell Mom and Pop to fire up REGEDIT
and start hacking away.
The "Menu Delay" setting is something that MS should have put into the
display settings. Hopefully they'll fix this in a future version. (And,
for what its worth, my Menu Delay is set to zero. Waiting for a damn
menu to show up is annoying).
--
===================================================================
Alan Daniels dan...@mindspring.com
For user-friendly Linux: See the KDE project at http://www.kde.org!
Fast
On 18 Sep 1997 10:13:00 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
<la...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Now, consider this...
>
> So far, everyone who has tried to endorse a closed proprietary hardware
> system, has ended up either belly up, or out of the PC market.
>
<snip>
> Commodore -- Amiga
<snip>
> Apple -- Macintosh
<snip>
> Do you see a trend here?
> The IBM PC design has done so well, because right from the start, the
> design was open, and could be built with parts 'off the shelf.' An open
> system is more likely to be adopted by the market, because it's easier
> to get specs for it, and adopt it into what you are doing. Is it REALLY
> any different for software?... Before you say 'YES,' and tell me I'm
> crazed, read on. :)
>
> hold of (no longer necessary to spend hours downloading, etc.), and
> easier to use due to more 'friendly' enhancements, and better
> documentation. More and more people are leaving the MS front to use OSes
> like Linux, FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD, etc. Is it not possible, that as
> Freeware gets more and more established, that people will choose it over
> commercial software?
<snip>
I think you have a point. In the "old" days of computing, people
became aware of the problem that all their software (home grown, as
there was no market for general applications) was written in Assembler
language and was *not* portable. They were increasingly locked into
buying hardware from their original vendor. And then even that vendor
would leave you high-and-dry with an incompatible CPU upgrade
eventually (e.g. IBM 1401 to S360).
Soon Cobol and Fortran were born, out of a desire to be able to port
code between different hardware platforms. It then became the
responsibility of each hardware vendor to supply compilers for the
commonly used languages, if they expected to sell any machines.
Of course, there were sometimes differences in the implementation of a
language by different vendors, which led to problems in porting
applications. Soon ANSI got involved to maintain standards for the
compilers to try to insure compatibility, and we got twenty years or
so of portability.
Somewhere the industry got off the track. The rapid evolution of PC's
led to major hardware dependencies and incompatibilities in operating
systems, GUIs, and application programs.
DOS based programs were dependent on the funky memory layout, the
character based graphic modes, and later the sound card ports, etc.
inherent in the original IBM design and INTEL 8080 peculiarities.
GUIs such as Windows had all the above hardware dependencies plus the
mouse, many more video modes, and on and on.
The applications written by individuals and software houses were (and
are) dependent on the above operating systems and hardware.
We users became more and more dependent on the above software, and now
Bill Gates can't (won't?) produce successive versions of Windows that
maintain backward compatibility with DOS or even old Windows, thereby
invalidating all our software and systems investments, repeatedly.
The answer is clear. We (the users) need a stable hardware/software
platform that can be used as a sturdy foundation for additional layers
of software and applications, that we tie together in whatever fashion
desired, and that will last for more than eighteen months.
The analogy to the electrical distribution system is apt. In the
early days of electrification, there were small pockets of service
with no standard operating voltage, AC or DC, etc. But we couldn't
exist as we are today if there wasn't a standard plug format with
predictable voltage behind it. Nobody thinks for a minute whether the
electricity is compatible between houses or neighborhoods. It just
exists and is taken for granted. We need a standard for computing
resources that is just as easy to "plug into".
Intel has done a good job of maintaining backward compatibility as
they scaled up from the 8080 to the Pentium. Only recently have they
started to produce chips that will not run in 8080 mode if asked. I
hope this is not an indicator of things to come. But the system
software story is a disaster.
Where would such a stable and compatible system come from? It does
seem that the free software arena is the best bet. First of all, as
long as the system or software is sold for money, there will be a
built-in desire on the part of the vendor to sell it again and again
to the same users. There needs to be a way for the vendor to obsolete
the old software or system to compel the next purchase. Free software
has no such need. In fact, as there is no profit in it, the software
will not change as rapidly, which is a good thing in itself.
Linux could indeed become the standard reference that permits the
hardware to change underneath the operating system with small
additions to the drivers, and allows users to build their applications
on top without worrying that in the next year or two they will be
forced to replace the whole thing because of changes outside of their
control. In fact, this is why "operating systems" were designed in
the first place. They were supposed to hide the hardware dependencies
from the applications above it.
It would require that Linux adapt to and support (embrace and extend?)
the common system architectures currently in use. Then, when Windows
'00 comes out and won't run any of our old programs, we will have the
option to download a free copy of "Linux with compatibility modes",
continue using our existing applications, and leave the shrink-wrapped
stuff on the shelf.
- Fast
warp
Mark Heath wrote:
> TBCASS (tbc...@dreamscape.com) wrote:
> : I believe that 5-10 years from now all existing OS's will be obsolete. As
> : for what companies will exist, probably most of the same ones that are
> : around today if they can adapt.
> I believe Linux will still be around, and of course other Unices for that
> matter.
> They seem to be able to integrate whatever new technology people want
> into their philosophy. X windows would be the most notable for example.
Ofcourse, i will still be using them then :-)
Ciao, wARP
--
Amiga 3000T/040@40, DEC Alpha XLT366 runnin' RedHat 4.2 64bit Linux.
Team Amiga & Team AXP.
Stoney Edwards
TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
: Yes, but . . . . one can document the absence of support for, say,
: Slackware. The IS grunt will be beheaded if he goes back to the
Walnut Creek has always supported the Slackware release, provided you
pay the measly $40 dollars for the CD.
You are uninformed vastly. You really should have the facts before
posting... I believe you are an intelligent person, but many will
judge you to be the exact opposite by what you have said here.
: office manager and says, "Okay, I put my question on alt.os.linux - -
: we'll see what happens." Even worse, "I emailed RedHat - - does this
: have to be answered before the new millenium arrives?" Much better to
: be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
: office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
How the hell would this differ from saying, "Well, I contacted Mr. such
and such at RedHat, and he says we should try this, that and the other
thing."??? Your argument has totally failed.
The last time I spoke to MS tech support, I got some so-called techie who
was reading from a FAQ, for Christ's sake! This is not tech support...
this is rubbish.
Whenever I had a problem posted on Usenet, I ALWAYS got a response in at
the very most a half of a day. Hmmm... which would I prefer... Hmmm.
: least you have someone to blame if no answer appears within 24 hours.
: This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
This whole issue of 'accoutability' is pure nonsense. I had a situation
where my NT partition crashed on me in the middle of a 3-D rendering, and
I lost the whole image (it was a large, print-rez image, so it had been
rendering for about a day and a half). How could I get Microsoft to
compensate me for lost time or work?... The answer was simple... I
couldn't, simply because they have such a ridiculously rigid and strict
license agreement that prevents them from taking any heat whatsoever.
You should lose this silly notion that commercial software vendors take
ANY accoutability for their products... they don't... it's as simple as
that... read MS's licensing agreement, and you will see that the only
difference between using Microsoft Windows 95/NT, and freeware UNIX, is
that you actually gave money in exchange for no accountability.
The only thing that I can see that Microsoft is accoutable for, it making
sure the CD they packaged is free from read errors (scratches, incorrect
burn image type, etc.).
Even so, almost all freeware authors list all of their known bugs in their
software releases... I have never seen MS do that for anything crucial in
their products.
: Trying to document the cost of crashes reminds me of the anti-IBM,
: pseudo-mathematicians who have estimated the cost of ownership for
: some piddly Compaq PC/Workstation at $20K/yr. It's a joke and any
: rational person knows it. Crashes cost money, but so does a down
: system with no formal support network. People get fired over this
: kind of stuff. That's why they choose Netware, NT, or the various big
: bux Unices.
You have not said a single thing here that remotely resembles the truth.
I would suggest that you educate yourself a little better about these
issues, and then you will be in a better position to argue your point.
TL
On 19 Sep 1997 11:17:04 -0700, Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com>
Said Unto Me:
>
>You are uninformed vastly. You really should have the facts before
>posting... I believe you are an intelligent person, but many will
>judge you to be the exact opposite by what you have said here.
>
>
Perhaps.
However, anyone who would begin to compare support facilities at
Walnut Creek or RedHat with those at Microsoft is the one who needs a
reality check. I'm no Gates trumpeter, but Microsoft does know how to
treat corporate clients. Certainly you don't believe that the average
small office or individual tinkering with W95 or NT is going to get
the red carpet treatment that, say, Morgan-Stanley/Dean-Witter does?
Be realistic. Money talks, bullshit walks.
This, my friend, is where the "free OS" deal loses steam in my
estimation. If you are small, you must take what is thrown to you.
That includes first-line support, which often appears to be
pimple-faced CS students reading from if/then scripts. If you are big
and you know it, then you negotiate for the kind of support you must
have, and you will get it or go elsewhere. Rest assured that
administrators for the big NT networks don't dial the same phone
number that you do.
Finally, from personal experience: my wife is employed by
Morgan-Stanley. Because she prefers not to deal with the Manhattan
helpdesk, I occasionally get the calls when small problems pop up.
More than once, I have called the problem correctly and suggested the
paid help be brought in. In such cases, the pager-toting technician
arrived within two hours. Where Gates & Co. are concerned, I have seen
the custom scripts and apps written for Dean-Witter by Microsoft for
their TCP/IP monster that spiders over every city of any size from
coast to coast. Now tell me something - - how many networks such as
this one are running Slackware or anything resembling it?
Stoney Edwards
TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
: However, anyone who would begin to compare support facilities at
: Walnut Creek or RedHat with those at Microsoft is the one who needs a
: reality check. I'm no Gates trumpeter, but Microsoft does know how to
How exactly do those facilities differ?... Just because Microsoft has a
larger employee base, does not make them a better source for technical
support. The key to good tech support is having people in your
company/corp. who have the knowledge...
In many commercial ventures, the people with the know how, are secluded to
the technical aspects of the company/corp., whereas an area such as tech
support is populated merely with people who have had substandard training
on the company/corp.'s products.
: treat corporate clients. Certainly you don't believe that the average
: small office or individual tinkering with W95 or NT is going to get
: the red carpet treatment that, say, Morgan-Stanley/Dean-Witter does?
: Be realistic. Money talks, bullshit walks.
You still have yet to come up with an effective argument against my
recent, or even my original post.
And if Microsoft did ignore the smaller companies (which they do not, as
I get calls all the time from them, offering support contracts, and such),
then they would be making a huge mistake. If a smaller company suddenly
goes fortune 500 in the next 10 years, think of the money they would have
lost by not attending to them. Microsoft is selfish, but not stupid.
: This, my friend, is where the "free OS" deal loses steam in my
: estimation. If you are small, you must take what is thrown to you.
Then you really have no idea what the freeware license world is about
then, do you... In the freeware world, yes, you may depend on others'
software to work for you, but because you have no licensing bullshit to
worry about, you can easily integrate, customize, and exploit that
environment in the workplace. If you need support, then there are tons of
independent support contractors out there who will assist you at any time
during the day... even ones who make 'house calls,' so to speak.
: That includes first-line support, which often appears to be
: pimple-faced CS students reading from if/then scripts. If you are big
: and you know it, then you negotiate for the kind of support you must
: have, and you will get it or go elsewhere. Rest assured that
: administrators for the big NT networks don't dial the same phone
: number that you do.
Yeah, you're right... anyone who doesn't use Microsoft software
exclusively, and is a large corp., is just a pee-on, and they have no
right to even consider punching in the holy tech support number that the
almighty NT administrator gets to use. We are worthless, pieces of maggot
infested turd, and we should just give in, kiss Microsoft's butt, and
admit defeat to the obviously superior software vendor. Boy, were we
stupid to think that we had a chance.
Your condescending attitude only complements your incredible ignorance.
It's true that better customers get better treatment, but that still does
not refute the original issue. You have blinded the issue with
'wordiness.'
: coast to coast. Now tell me something - - how many networks such as
: this one are running Slackware or anything resembling it?
Slackware, GNU Debian, RedHat, Caldera, MCC, they all use the exact same
kernel in their distrubution... the Linux kernel is the Linux kernel... no
matter how it is deistributed. Now that we have that out of the way...
There are tons of ISP's that are using Linux... Yahoo uses FreeBSD...
Walnut Creek CDROM (no longer the humber company it once was) uses
FreeBSD, NASA uses Linux... SGI will be using Linux in its products
soon... Apple bundles MkLinux with its PPC's...
What were you saying again?...
Tracy R Reed
TL (twli...@erols.com) wrote:
: rational person knows it. Crashes cost money, but so does a down
: system with no formal support network. People get fired over this
: kind of stuff. That's why they choose Netware, NT, or the various big
: bux Unices.
Several vendors sell support contracts for Linux. Buy yourself one.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Love is blindness. I don't wanna see."
TL
On 19 Sep 1997 01:21:40 -0700, k...@latte.cafe.net (Kaz) wrote:
>(TL)>Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
>>100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
>
>More like stupid! Ever heard that saying about all your eggs in one basket?
>
Sure, I must be stupid . . . .
Go ask a broker what the gain on MS has been since 1991. Take a look
at the graph. With that in mind, consider what even a modest
investment then would look like now. This isn't roulette, you know.
One can avail himself of information.
When I see MS revenues down in three straight quarters, we'll see
about spreading it out. And my guess is that, at the same time, we'll
be getting ready for a big, big recession here in the US, and possibly
the second coming of Christ.
>Software is a high risk, unpredictable industry; and you hedge your bets
>on a single software company.
>
I consider MS very, very secure. You'd do well to think and act
similarly if you haven't already.
Maybe you'll remember this message five years from now after MS stock
has split and risen like a big bread loaf.
>I hope you have some non-stock investments too!
Ummmm . . . . indeed.
TL
John Savard
Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>Curtis A. Johnson wrote:
>> The IBM PC design was not open at the start. A few guys from Texas were
>> the first to clone the architecture. Can you say Compaq. Before them,
>> there were no "off the shelf components." The Wintel market became open by
>> default. No one designed it that way, the market force it to be that way.
>> If all the PC manufactorers had it there way, they would all be
>> proprietary.
>This is incorrect. The original IBM PC was made up /entirely/ of off the
>shelf
>components. Thats precisely what enabled Compaq and others to clone
>them.
>The only hitch in the process was reverse engineering the BIOS, and that
>(clearly) wasn't so tough.
You're forgetting your history. It _was_ tough, and IBM sued several
early cloners out of existence, such as Hyperion. Except for COMPAQ,
clone making only became a viable business once the Phoenix BIOS was
written - that was several years into the existence of the IBM PC, and
it was an epoch-making event at the time.
And let's not forget the PS/2 with the MCA bus...IBM was eventually
willing to license it, but at higher royalties. They wanted their
architecture to be proprietary, or at least close to it.
John Savard
John Soloman
TL (twli...@erols.com) wrote:
: On 19 Sep 1997 01:21:40 -0700, k...@latte.cafe.net (Kaz) wrote:
:
: >(TL)>Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
: >>100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
: >
: >More like stupid! Ever heard that saying about all your eggs in one basket?
:
: Sure, I must be stupid . . . .
:
: Go ask a broker what the gain on MS has been since 1991. Take a look
I'm certainly not going to call you stupid, but I worked as a broker for
several years, and nobody with any sizeable stock holdings should have it
all in one stock, or even in one fund, regardless of past performance.
: When I see MS revenues down in three straight quarters, we'll see
: about spreading it out. And my guess is that, at the same time, we'll
: be getting ready for a big, big recession here in the US, and possibly
: the second coming of Christ.
A couple of quarters of revenue growth slightly below the growth rate of
the industry would likely take at least 25% off the price of the stock, a
not unlikely event in the next 12 months. Three quarters of reduced
revenues and you wouldn't have to worry much about spreading what was
left around.
John S.
Stoney Edwards
TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
: >Software is a high risk, unpredictable industry; and you hedge your bets
: >on a single software company.
: >
: I consider MS very, very secure. You'd do well to think and act
: similarly if you haven't already.
You must realize that not even Bill Gates thinks Microsoft's future is
assured... he is very fearful, because he knows how unpredictable this
field is. You would be wise to heed the advice of the person you
responded to.
Tim Little
--------------B4F7E86FAFE45CA5CE66FEF3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stoney Edwards wrote:
>
>
> You must realize that not even Bill Gates thinks Microsoft's future is
> assured... he is very fearful, because he knows how unpredictable this
> field is. You would be wise to heed the advice of the person you
> responded to.
> --
>
Bill's a good businessman, don't you think? Always vigilant.
It's one thing to be fearful. It's something else altogether to be fearful AND
have a $10 billion warchest. How fearful can he be, really?
Bill's going to make several more mortage payments for his loyal investors.
Don't start worrying just yet.
TL
--
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------B4F7E86FAFE45CA5CE66FEF3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Stoney Edwards wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>You must realize that not even Bill Gates thinks Microsoft's future
is
<BR>assured... he is very fearful, because he knows how unpredictable this
<BR>field is. You would be wise to heed the advice of the person
you
<BR>responded to.
<BR>--
<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill's a good businessman, don't you think? Always vigilant.
<P>It's one thing to be fearful. It's something else altogether to be fearful
AND have a $10 billion warchest. How fearful can he be, really?
<P>Bill's going to make several more mortage payments for his loyal investors.
Don't start worrying just yet.
<BR>
<P>TL
<PRE>--
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</PRE>
</HTML>
--------------B4F7E86FAFE45CA5CE66FEF3--
Stoney Edwards
root <ro...@news.mindspring.com> wrote:
: The problem is not proprietary OSs or hardware so much as it is
: proprietary data-storage formats. Once your company has committed
: to MS-Word, all your documents are in Word format, and you change
: to something else at your own (significant) risk. And if Word is
: only available for Windows and Mac - well, to hell with linux, right?
This is a very valid point that I neglected to consider... however, since
other software companies can create filters that will read these formats,
is it not feasible that software for freeware OSes could have the same
filters made?
: We should all be more interested in promoting open formats for word
: processors, spreadsheets and so forth.
I think that Linux programmers do, for the most part... things like
postscript, and dvi files come to mind. Maybe these are not as open or
as versatile as I am led to believe, however.
: And we should resist companies which seek to inflict proprietary
: extensions on open formats like HTML (Netscape comes to mind).
Well, I think we are all doing pretty good at that so far, but I
understand what you are saying here. It's funny that you mention
Netscrape, since they have allied themselves with IBM, and Sun who do
support open standards, for the most part (unless I have been severely
mislead :) ).
Tim Little
--------------AC6A93833AEEFC577E596EB0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Scott Stevens wrote:
> All the gas leaked out of your arguement with your phrase "or anything
> resembling it", cuz near as I can tell, Slackware mightily resembles Unix, and
> only the ignorant would claim that Unix can't and doesn't scale and work well
> in large nationwide networks. In fact, the software that people currently are
> debating wether it will ever 'grow up' and be robust enough to run a large
> enterprise is Windows NT.
>
>
Pardon me - - perhaps it was unclear that I was talking about companies and
support as opposed to kernels. Who in this forum doesn't know about Unix
scalability?
I'm pointing out that there isn't a company built around Slackware Linux - - or
any other distribution of Linux - - that offers, at any price, the support
services Microsoft offers for NT and '95. Where is a Slackware consulting firm
who offers comprehensive support through every step of design and installation of
a continent-wide network? Has Linux made it that far? I'm not seeing it in IS
news if it has. Tell me if I've missed something, I'd like to read about it.
Note that we're not talking about "which is better." Besides, NT is developing
rapidly. It will be Unix any day now.
TL
--
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------AC6A93833AEEFC577E596EB0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Scott Stevens wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>All the gas leaked out of your arguement with your phrase "or anything
<BR>resembling it", cuz near as I can tell, Slackware mightily resembles
Unix, and
<BR>only the ignorant would claim that Unix can't and doesn't scale and
work well
<BR>in large nationwide networks. In fact, the software that people
currently are
<BR>debating wether it will ever 'grow up' and be robust enough to run
a large
<BR>enterprise is Windows NT.
<BR>
<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon me - - perhaps it was unclear that I was talking about companies
and support as opposed to kernels. Who in this forum doesn't know about
Unix scalability?
<P>I'm pointing out that there isn't a company built around Slackware Linux
- - or any other distribution of Linux - - that offers, at any price,
the support services Microsoft offers for NT and '95. Where is a
Slackware consulting firm who offers comprehensive support through every
step of design and installation of a continent-wide network? Has
Linux made it that far? I'm not seeing it in IS news if it has.
Tell me if I've missed something, I'd like to read about it.
<P>Note that we're not talking about "which is better." Besides,
NT is developing rapidly. It will be Unix any day now.
<BR>
<BR>
<P>TL
<PRE>--
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</PRE>
</HTML>
--------------AC6A93833AEEFC577E596EB0--
Eugene O'Neil
In article <5vu436$1mq$2...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>, p...@spiff.uni-sw.gwdg.de (Peter Suetterlin)
<34216bdb...@news.zippo.com> <EGqwI...@totoro.bug.co.jp> wrote:
>
>In article <EGqwI...@totoro.bug.co.jp>,
> "T. Colin Mack" <co...@bug.co.jp> writes:
>
>> These people need the reliability, and clear lines of responsibility
>> that you get with an established supplier, so they can cover their
>> asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no accountability with
>> these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue when you are sued
>> because your linux based systems crashed and caused huge data/money
>> loss for some client?) So no matter how much they excel technically,
>> they will have trouble displacing MS from any large-ish organization
>> where "grown ups" make the decisions.
>
>Sorry if I laugh. Mayby you try to estimate how many *billion* dollar
>of wasted money MS OS and Apps have caused by crashes?
>Have you ever seen someone sue MS for that? No. So the argument does
>not hold. It is at most a threadbare excuse for narrow-mindness.
Yes, it is a threadbare excuse for narrow-mindedness, that no sane or rational
person would believe. That is exactly why it is so popular with
middle-managers...
Techie: if we use linux, we won't have any more of these stupid crashes!
Manager: (furrowing brow) But who do I blame if something goes wrong?
Techie: Nobody! We will have the source, we can fix it ourselves!
Manager: Our computers crash way too much for us to fix them every time.
Techie: (exasperated) But if we use linux, we won't have any more of these
stupid crashes!
Manager: But who do I blame if something goes wrong?...
-Eugene
Tim Little
John Soloman wrote:
> TL (twli...@erols.com) wrote:
> : On 19 Sep 1997 01:21:40 -0700, k...@latte.cafe.net (Kaz) wrote:
> :
> : >(TL)>Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
> : >>100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
> : >
> : >More like stupid! Ever heard that saying about all your eggs in one basket?
> :
> : Sure, I must be stupid . . . .
> :
> :
>
> I'm certainly not going to call you stupid, but I worked as a broker for
> several years, and nobody with any sizeable stock holdings should have it
> all in one stock, or even in one fund, regardless of past performance.
I know, I know. This much I concede. You know the saying, then, about what
happens to pigs. And I know I'm being a little piggy.
>
>
>
> A couple of quarters of revenue growth slightly below the growth rate of
> the industry would likely take at least 25% off the price of the stock, a
> not unlikely event in the next 12 months. Three quarters of reduced
> revenues and you wouldn't have to worry much about spreading what was
> left around.
>
> John S.
We know (or could bet) that MS is going to show up with two sequential quarters
of flat earnings in '97. You probably would agree that MS is trading way too high
right now on its inflated PE. Some analysts believe MS is at or near its
earnings peak.
Oh, well. I actually am prepared for my position to be weakened slightly. It's
still been a great ride up, better than any I've had elsewhere. I can't imagine
what it would take to make me dump this old friend. Unless my wife makes me.
Famous Last Words,
TL
Stoney Edwards
Tim Little <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
: I'm pointing out that there isn't a company built around Slackware Linux - - or
: any other distribution of Linux - - that offers, at any price, the support
: services Microsoft offers for NT and '95. Where is a Slackware consulting firm
: who offers comprehensive support through every step of design and installation of
: a continent-wide network? Has Linux made it that far? I'm not seeing it in IS
: news if it has. Tell me if I've missed something, I'd like to read about it.
You have missed a lot... like I said...
Linux is Linux is Linux is Linux is Linux! It doesn't matter WHAT
distribution that you get... whether it's Slackware, or GNU Debian, or
RedHat, or Caldera... if there is no support purchased with the dist that
you purchase, then you can hire an independent support contractor to help
your investment along... The Linux kernel from RedHat is EXACTLY IDENTICAL
in function to the Caldera Linux Kernel. The Linux kernel from the
Slackware dist is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the kernel from GNU Debian. So, it
doesn't matter what dist you get... what matters is who you contract to
support you.
: Note that we're not talking about "which is better." Besides, NT is
: developing rapidly. It will be Unix any day now.
NT will be UNIX, when it can
- be updated without kicking all users off of the system
- perform as well as BSD Unices as a server
- implement a filesystem that is not so susceptible to fragmentation
- is truly multi-user, and not just more-than-one-user-account
- can be installed on another machine across the network, without using
sneakernet, tirenet, or tying CDs to messenger pigeons' feet.
- operate from a CLI, without having the GUI compiled into the kernel
- plus several other technical considerations that I do not have the
ability to list here, as I am not as learned in the UNIX OS model as
many others here are
I like NT, and I use it right alongside my Linux box... I don't hate MS,
but I don't care for their licensing. So, I am not bigoted against NT,
but I DO know what NT can and can't do.
Microsoft has had NT on the market for about 5 years now, and I don't see
them changing NT in ANY way to make it work similarly to UNIX.
Another user here has a sigfile that says:
"20 years ago, people were switching from UNIX to VMS...
Now, everybody is switching from UNIX to Windows NT...
I am the only one who sees what is happening here?"
Timothy J. Lee
|be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
|office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
|This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
In other words, an external scapegoat is necessary. If the response
is "it can't be done with this product" or "we'll have that bug fixed
in the next version next year, which you can upgrade to for $300 per
license" then what does the organization do?
Something is wrong when an organization values the existence of an
external scapegoat more than the quality of the product.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
root
On 19 Sep 1997 00:22:44 GMT, TBCASS <tbc...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>: For the short term, I believe you are right, but, like I said above...
>:
>: What about 5-10 years from now?...
>
>I believe that 5-10 years from now all existing OS's will be obsolete.
You probably said that about UNIX in 1987, huh?
Scott Stevens
In article <timleeEG...@netcom.com>, see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome wrote:
>te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
>|
>|On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:46:08 GMT, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
>|
>|>te...@iquest.net (Tom Elam) writes:
>|>| Also, "Open" has never been important
>|>|word in a corporate OS environment. We here in the IT division want an OS
> that
>|>|is anything but open. the last thing we want is for our programmer's to be
>|>|adding OS extensions.
>|>|
>|>|Tom Elam
>|>|Windows 95 user since 7/95
>|>
>|>But isn't the type of "closed" that is desirable to IT divisions somewhat
>|>different from the type of "closed" that is being referred to in this
>|>thread?
>|>
>|>An IT division would find it desirable to ensure that regular users don't
>|>make a mess of the system configuration, since IT typically is called to
>|>clean up the mess. But that is a lot easier to do when the OS provides
>|>the notion of an "administrator" or "super" user with full privileges,
>|>while limiting the ability of "regular" users to change system settings.
>|>In this respect, both Unix and Windows NT offer better control of such
>|>permissions than Windows 95 or MacOS do. Of course, with console access,
>|>a determined cracker can crack the system, but many IT clean up jobs are
>|>due to users accidentally making a mess because they didn't realize that
>|>they were making a mess.
>|
>|By closed I was referring to a OS where the users cannot play with system
>|settings
>
>NT are "closable" in this sense.
>
>| and where the core is also locked from systems types writing their
> own
>|code.
>
>aren't going to be installing their own OS code without IT's permission,
>unless they crack the system (in which case it may be wise to either move
>them into the IT group to help with security or dismiss them).
>
>Under Windows 95, how do you prevent users from changing the system
>settings, or installing any kind of binaries that they find on the net
>or wherever?
Under Windows 95, the REAL question tends to be "how do you prevent the system
from changing itself and fouling up a previously working configuration?" I
know people who have had a fine, properly working computer system, only to
have the evile "plug and play" Wizards jump out and foul up driver and
resource settings, rendering the system less usable than before. I have read
of networked Win95 machines where hundreds of users had an icon on their
'desktop' linked to an app on the server. When the server crashed, users who
clicked on that icon invoked another Wizard, the evile wizard of the waving
flashlight, which permanently relinked the icon to a random app somewhere else
on the system. (if you want to see this one, just delete the .exe
that lurks beneath one of your icons, then click the icon and watch the fun as
the OS scrambles to find something else at random to link the Icon to).
Windows 95 is prone to self destruction because of features like this.
root
>
>First off, this is NOT anti-Microsoft nonsense... it's just something that
>my buddy and I were rappin' about the other night, and I wondered what you
>all think about this so-called 'theory' of ours. :)
>
>Secondly, in case you didn't notice, I am crossposting this. This is not
>so that I can start a flame war (and PLEASE, lets not flame each other in
>this thread). I am crossposting this to get everyone's perspective on the
>subject matter at hand.
>
>Last night, a friend and I were talking about Windows NT, and what it
>needs to become easier to use for things that UNIX does without even
>breaking a sweat (things that NT's current design simply won't allow).
>
>Then we started talking about how Apple screwed up by not licensing their
>technology right from the beginning, and it brought up some interesting
>points about closed, proprietary hardware and software.
>
>Now, in the 60's and 70's, the thing to do was to share knowledge, and
>technology. This attitude was directly responsible for the Personal
>Computer becoming so well developed. Granted, it took Steve Jobs'
>initiative to bring the PC to the general consumer, but the technology
>advanced very quickly because everybody shared... everybody had the latest
>and greatest hardware and software in their system, and therefore
>everybody won.
>
>Now, consider this...
>
>So far, everyone who has tried to endorse a closed proprietary hardware
>system, has ended up either belly up, or out of the PC market.
>
>IBM -- MCA architecture
>systems. MCA is buried somewhere under Jimmy Hoffa's skull, last I heard.
>
>Commodore -- Amiga
>This was a classic example of how people actually must know about your
>product before they will even consider looking at it, let alone, buy it.
>As of just a few years ago, these guys went belly up for good. The
>technology is still around, and in use, but only in very small, niche
>market circles (digital video, and the like).
>
>Apple -- Macintosh
>Apple is really in big trouble, according to financial reports in the
>market... and what is Apple's hardware?... you guessed it!... CLOSED!
>
>Do you see a trend here?
>
>The IBM PC design has done so well, because right from the start, the
>design was open, and could be built with parts 'off the shelf.' An open
>system is more likely to be adopted by the market, because it's easier
>to get specs for it, and adopt it into what you are doing. Is it REALLY
>any different for software?... Before you say 'YES,' and tell me I'm
>crazed, read on. :)
>
>Now consider this... freeware OSes are getting much easier to get a
>hold of (no longer necessary to spend hours downloading, etc.), and
>easier to use due to more 'friendly' enhancements, and better
>documentation. More and more people are leaving the MS front to use OSes
>like Linux, FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD, etc. Is it not possible, that as
>Freeware gets more and more established, that people will choose it over
>easier to impelement a freeware OS, that comes with the source, into a
>fortune 500 corporation, and leave that corp.'s flexibility intact at the
>same time. And now that there are a lot of independent support
>contractors for Linux, and the freeware BSD's, popping up everywhere,
>freeware's lack of liability is no longer an issue.
>
>IBM addresses the problem with closed software... when you purchase a
>Microsoft based software system, for example, you are buying into
>Microsoft, and have little or no compatibility with system configurations
>that are already established.
>
>There are many large corporations that are still using old PDP
>minicomputers on a daily basis... will Microsoft software integrate with
>these?... nope. Freeware OSes can be made to integrate with ANY current
>systems or networks.
>
>Now, keep in mind, I am not necessarily talking about UNIX here
>exclusively, for there may very well be a 'friendly-to-average-joe'
>freeware OS developed in the next few years. In fact, I remember seeing a
>web page that was hosting a project to create a Windows NT clone
>(freeware, of course).
>
>From the scenarios presented earlier, we can see that the most 'open'
>hardware was ultimately the victor... what about software?... could this
>scenario repeat itself in the realm of Operating Systems, and
>Applications?... I see no reason why it wouldn't.
>
>Thoughts?...
The problem is not proprietary OSs or hardware so much as it is
proprietary data-storage formats. Once your company has committed
to MS-Word, all your documents are in Word format, and you change
to something else at your own (significant) risk. And if Word is
only available for Windows and Mac - well, to hell with linux, right?
We should all be more interested in promoting open formats for word
processors, spreadsheets and so forth.
And we should resist companies which seek to inflict proprietary
John C. Randolph
In <3424092a...@news.erols.com> TL wrote:
-> I consider MS very, very secure. You'd do well to think and act
-> similarly if you haven't already.
Sure, MicroSquish is secure: they inherited the IBM FUD franchise, lock,
stock, and barrel. It's their *customers* who are hosed.
--
John C. Randolph (408) 358-6732
Chief Technology Officer, WARPnet Incorporated.
@"Hey, %s! You're a NAZI, and you can't spell!"
Scott Stevens
In article <3424f09e....@news.erols.com>, twli...@erols.com (TL) wrote:
>On 19 Sep 1997 11:17:04 -0700, Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com>
>Said Unto Me:
>
>
>>
>>You are uninformed vastly. You really should have the facts before
>>posting... I believe you are an intelligent person, but many will
>>judge you to be the exact opposite by what you have said here.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps.
>
>
>Walnut Creek or RedHat with those at Microsoft is the one who needs a
>reality check. I'm no Gates trumpeter, but Microsoft does know how to
>small office or individual tinkering with W95 or NT is going to get
>the red carpet treatment that, say, Morgan-Stanley/Dean-Witter does?
>Be realistic. Money talks, bullshit walks.
>
>estimation. If you are small, you must take what is thrown to you.
>pimple-faced CS students reading from if/then scripts. If you are big
>and you know it, then you negotiate for the kind of support you must
>have, and you will get it or go elsewhere. Rest assured that
>administrators for the big NT networks don't dial the same phone
>number that you do.
>
>Morgan-Stanley. Because she prefers not to deal with the Manhattan
>helpdesk, I occasionally get the calls when small problems pop up.
>More than once, I have called the problem correctly and suggested the
>paid help be brought in. In such cases, the pager-toting technician
>arrived within two hours. Where Gates & Co. are concerned, I have seen
>the custom scripts and apps written for Dean-Witter by Microsoft for
>their TCP/IP monster that spiders over every city of any size from
>this one are running Slackware or anything resembling it?
>
resembling it", cuz near as I can tell, Slackware mightily resembles Unix, and
only the ignorant would claim that Unix can't and doesn't scale and work well
in large nationwide networks. In fact, the software that people currently are
debating wether it will ever 'grow up' and be robust enough to run a large
enterprise is Windows NT.
>
>
>TL
>"There's a lot to learn
> from wasting time." -Mr. Neil Young
>
Jonathan Hendry
> : >Software is a high risk, unpredictable industry; and you hedge your bets
> : >on a single software company.
> : >
> : I consider MS very, very secure. You'd do well to think and act
> : similarly if you haven't already.
> You must realize that not even Bill Gates thinks Microsoft's future is
> assured... he is very fearful, because he knows how unpredictable this
> field is. You would be wise to heed the advice of the person you
> responded to.
Microsoft itself recently decided not to repurchase its own stock,
for the first time in years.
T. Colin Mack
>> These people need the reliability, and clear lines of responsibility
>> that you get with an established supplier, so they can cover their
>> asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no accountability with
>> these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue when you are sued
>> because your linux based systems crashed
>Sorry if I laugh.
Feel free.
>Mayby you try to estimate how many *billion* dollar
>of wasted money MS OS and Apps have caused by crashes?
>Have you ever seen someone sue MS for that? No.
True. "Who are you going to sue..." was meant to be a bit of a sarcastic
exaggeration -- the point is that there is more accountability with
commercial providers operating under standard business models
than there is with something like linux. My company is small --
we started out as 4 people and are now 50, but even at this size
you can feel the pressure to cover your own ass when making
decisions. For example, we use a lot of macs, and I prefer macs
to wintel pcs, but when we start talking about where we should
be going for the next five years... well, will apple be in the
business anymore? I don't know. Will MS? Yes. Will linux be in
a form that people can confidently base big corporate computing
on? We'll see.
In small companies where you can still "wing it" a lot, you can
avoid facing these choices without there being a huge risk,
but some guy who has to lay out a 5 year strategy for a network
system including 1,000's of people and many millions of dollars,
is in the position to cost the company *huge* money if he
screws up, and covering his ass has got to be one of the higher
priorities in a decision. As they used to say about IBM, "no
one ever got fired for buying microsoft."
On top of this, the decision will at some point have to be
explained to some probably rather conservative, old fart, not
very tech-y executive type. Will this person be happier to have
his big company run on a foundation provided by a) King Capitalist
and World's Richest Man Bill G, or b) a bunch of morally upstanding
hippy computer geeks from around the world? Many people close to
technology do not like this decision-making process, but it *is*
very common, especially among big established companies, and
that will make it very hard to displace established suppliers
from those companies with nothing more than a "technically better",
or "theoretically better" solution. While there certainly are
some IS managers willing to stick their neck out a bit for
what they personally feel is a superior solution, a lot of
people make their decision by playing through this little
scenario: When that terrible day comes (and you know it will)
when a horrible crash wipes out your network or important
data and some multi-million dollar account leaves the company
in anger, and the big boss comes down the hall looking for
blood, comes into your office and says, "What the HELL happened?!",
and you've got 2 kids, one in college and $300,000 left on
your mortgage... you need to be able to deflect the heat
quickly. You can do this if you have stuck with nice
industry standards that they boss can understand; you may
be in big trouble if all you can offer is a demonstration
of why linux is a fundamentally superior OS to what is offered
by any large commercial supplier. Sad but true.
I do not think it is such a good thing, but the
OS wars are looked at much differently in middle-management
meetings than at universities and on usenet.
- Colin
----------------
T. Colin Mack
Satelight, Inc.
Sapporo, Japan
co...@bug.co.jp
----------------
Simon Story
TL wrote:
> Yes, but . . . . one can document the absence of support for, say,
> Slackware. The IS grunt will be beheaded if he goes back to the
> office manager and says, "Okay, I put my question on alt.os.linux - -
> we'll see what happens." Even worse, "I emailed RedHat - - does this
> have to be answered before the new millenium arrives?" Much better to
>
> be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
> office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
> least you have someone to blame if no answer appears within 24 hours.
> This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
That's why you get your own Unix geek! Jeez. Even seen MS get
sued because NT crashed? Nope. The licence's of NT and Linux
are the same in that respect, basically "We take no responsibility for
whatever the hell you do with our software" (And then MS have
the nerve to restrict what you do with it... Re: No more than 10 inbound
connections in 10 minutes or something daft like that)
If you want that kinda support, one has go to EDS, IBM, Unisys
or whatever... The 'big bux' Unix boxen you talk about..
Scott Stevens
In article <34230460...@nntp.netcruiser>, sew...@butterflynetcom.ca (John Savard) wrote:
>Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>
>>Curtis A. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> The IBM PC design was not open at the start. A few guys from Texas were
>>> the first to clone the architecture. Can you say Compaq. Before them,
>>> there were no "off the shelf components." The Wintel market became open by
>>> default. No one designed it that way, the market force it to be that way.
>>> If all the PC manufactorers had it there way, they would all be
>>> proprietary.
>
>>This is incorrect. The original IBM PC was made up /entirely/ of off the
>>shelf
>>components. Thats precisely what enabled Compaq and others to clone
>>them.
>
>>The only hitch in the process was reverse engineering the BIOS, and that
>>(clearly) wasn't so tough.
>
>You're forgetting your history. It _was_ tough, and IBM sued several
>early cloners out of existence, such as Hyperion. Except for COMPAQ,
>clone making only became a viable business once the Phoenix BIOS was
>written - that was several years into the existence of the IBM PC, and
>it was an epoch-making event at the time.
It was tough to clone the BIOS. The rest of the machine was so obvious and
open that I personally was able to repair old XT-clone motherboards using the
schematics for other brands of motherboards. And I am talking about component
level troubleshooting. In many cases the cloner motherboards had the chips
placed in the same physical locations on the circuit board as one another, and
as the IBM Xt boards. Cloning the BIOS, the part of the PC/XT that IBM kept
proprietary, was difficult, but using the IBM BIOS was easy, mainly
because IBM openly published the commented assembly langauge code for the BIOS
in the "Technical Reference Manual" which was available at fairly low cost (a
few hundred $ even when new from IBM), and without anybody having to sign a
non-disclosure agreement. The technical reference manual also included
complete schematics for the motherboard and all peripheral cards.
>
>And let's not forget the PS/2 with the MCA bus...IBM was eventually
>willing to license it, but at higher royalties. They wanted their
>architecture to be proprietary, or at least close to it.
The PS/2 and the MCA bus was IBM's "freaking out" at how open they had flung
the door to cloners. Remember, when IBM produced the first PC, they thought
that it would become an inexpensive extension of their mainframe architecture,
a "thin client" so to speak, using peripherals like the SDLC card to access
the big iron. For the home user, they produced the PC Junior, of which I have
one in my collection. A machine expandable to 128KB of RAM that doesn't even
use DMA to access the floppy drive. And a machine with a Norton SI of
something like .7 (70% of the performance of a 4.77 MHz 8088 PC/XT, although
benchmarks can lie, it is MUCH slower than an XT in normal use.) I like to
think that by owning a PC Junior I will always have a machine optimized to run
a Microsoft OS (MS-DOS version 2.1 thankyouverymuch).
>
>John Savard
Byron A Jeff
In article <slrn624sjg...@chaosnet.wahnapitae.on.ca>,
Andrew Costa <sea...@isys.ca> wrote:
>A W95 client on the other hand can easily be trashed by anyone who uses it,
>whether by mistake or intention.
I'm a Linux guy living in a Microsoft world. So I ask a lot of question of my
M$ hobbled colleagues.
A standalone W95 client works as you describe. However in a net situation it's
possible to set up a W95 client to only log into an NT server and operate from
there. Users can only change their personal configs on the server and not any
of the local machine configs nor global server configs.
It can be done: just don't ask me how to do it.
>
>What I would do to set up an intranet, clients to be used by non-techy people,
>is this:
>
>Server - Runs unix (Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX), provides all logins
>and applications.
>
>Clients - Remote-booted X stations, basically dumb graphical terminals.
>
>The server maintains all the data, does all the work, has all the security.
>The clients are just displays, nearly impossible for joe_user to screw up.
>
>Not only is this setup secure, it's a fair sight cheaper than having a
>building full of fully functional PCs. Not to mention more reliable.
Quite true. In fact I have one of my students working on such a design. However
we're looking at the diskless workstation concept instead of X stations. The
difference is that the applications are pulled through the network from the
server to the client and executed locally. the server still has complete
control of what apps are available and the client has no local storage. We're
shooting for a $700 price point (in quantity) for:
- AMD K5 166Mhz + MB /w 512k cache
- 64MB 60ns EDO ram
- 2MB accelerated video card
- 17 In monitor
- 10/100Mb ethernet card
- Keyboard, mouse, case.
By transporting the application instead of the display we can have a better
disitrubtion of CPU/Ram instead of concentrating all that with the server.
We think it'll scale better.
I can make a case to the university to buy 100 boxes for $70000. They're used
to paying 3 times that price. And running Linux on both ends obviates the
need for worrying about licensed and whatnot.
I'm planning on introducing these as diskless NetStations. The only real
problem is that they won't run M$ apps or Netscape/MSIE net plugins. We're
in the process of examining NTrigue with projected X displays as a vehicle
to get access to M$ apps.
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
Sang K. Choe
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:33:44 GMT, dan...@mindspring.com (Alan
Daniels) wrote:
: The "Menu Delay" setting is something that MS should have put into the
: display settings. Hopefully they'll fix this in a future version. (And,
: for what its worth, my Menu Delay is set to zero. Waiting for a damn
: menu to show up is annoying).
Actually, if you install their freeware TweakUI, you get the menu
delay as configurable parameter in the TweakUI Control Panel applet.
-- Sang.
brian kimball
Zico <zic...@spamTHIS.net> wrote in article <5vvuca$e...@news.win.net>...
> x-no-archive: yes
> >When I use Windows
> >95 at school I wince at all the design flaws and inconsistencies that
would
> >cause riots if it showed up in a mac os. (Things like a different key
> >command to quite every single program
>
> Is ALT-F4 really that difficult? It will close whatever program you're
> using,
> in Win 3.1, Win 95, or Win NT.
He was most likely referring to differences like ALT-F then X, ALT-F then
C, and also ALT-F4. Oh, and NT's cli won't respond to ALT-F4. I am forced
to type 'exit'. I can't even do ALT then down arrow then left arrow to
access the menu, thus the menu's functions (including close window) are
innaccessable from the keyboard.
> >scroll bars that sometimes grey out
> >when disabled and sometimes dissapear
>
> Not exactly sure what you're referring to here, but it sounds like a good
> feature to me. If I disable something, I'd prefer it to be greyed out or
> to disappear all together. If I wanted to use it, I wouldn't have
disabled
> it.
The point is that it varies between programs, causing inconsistencies.
> Maximizing a window forces it to fill the entire screen, nothing more.
> Maybe you *Restored* a window and it overflowed an edge of the
> screen. However, the only way this would happen is if you had purposely
> overflowed the window before you minimized it in the first place. Can't
> blame Windows for that.
After I installed Adobe Premiere it opened for the first time with the
bottom extending about an inch underneath the taskbar. I certainly didn't
do that.
> You obviously aren't very familiar with
> Windows, so you just end up looking ignorant.
Clearly he knows what he's talking about and has formed the opinion shared
by many other people that windows is lacking in certain areas. Remember
that I said 'opinion' and not 'fact'. To each his own. No need to say
he's ignorant just because you disagree with him.
-brian
Timothy J. Lee
|exaggeration -- the point is that there is more accountability with
|commercial providers operating under standard business models
|than there is with something like linux.
Seems like "accountability" simply means having a convenient scapegoat
when something goes wrong. Even if the commercial vendor's solution
fails to fulfill the advertised needs, and the vendor is unable or
unwilling to correct the problem, the person who chose it can deflect
the blame onto the vendor rather than taking the flames himself/herself.
|My company is small --
|we started out as 4 people and are now 50, but even at this size
|you can feel the pressure to cover your own ass when making
|decisions. For example, we use a lot of macs, and I prefer macs
|to wintel pcs, but when we start talking about where we should
|be going for the next five years...
In five years, the top end mass market computers and software one
can buy today will be obsolete and may have to be replaced anyway.
Someone with an Mac LCIII running MacOS <7, or a 486 PC running
MS-DOS 4.whatever or Linux 0.99, or a Sun SS1 running SunOS 4.1.2
will have to change to something new if s/he needs to upgrade anyway.
Similarly, a MacOS 8, MS Windows 95, Linux 2.0.whatever, SunOS 5.6,
etc. will be long out of date in 2002. Will the commerical products
among these be supported by the vendors in 2002, or will the word
"upgrade" be heard in every support call?
zap...@ibm.net
In <5vrnes$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Stephen S. Edwards II <la...@primenet.com> writes:
>>IBM -- MCA architecture
>Unless I am mistaken, this was used only in the IBM PS/1 and PS/2 model
>systems. MCA is buried somewhere under Jimmy Hoffa's skull, last I heard.
I have a personal love for the microchannel architecture. It is used in all
the AS/400 and RS/6000 systems, because it is after the fastest computer bus
available.
>Commodore -- Amiga
>This was a classic example of how people actually must know about your
>product before they will even consider looking at it, let alone, buy it.
>As of just a few years ago, these guys went belly up for good. The
>technology is still around, and in use, but only in very small, niche
>market circles (digital video, and the like).
Amiga rocks the house, that is all I have to say.
>Apple -- Macintosh
>Apple is really in big trouble, according to financial reports in the
>market... and what is Apple's hardware?... you guessed it!... CLOSED!
Apple? wazzat? That company. Buy their stock. make a quick buck.
Timothy J. Lee
by...@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
|Quite true. In fact I have one of my students working on such a design. However
|we're looking at the diskless workstation concept instead of X stations. The
|difference is that the applications are pulled through the network from the
|server to the client and executed locally. the server still has complete
|control of what apps are available and the client has no local storage. We're
Another option is to use systems with local disks that contain only the OS
and swap space (and, optionally, some commonly used applications). Such
systems can be configured to take all user information from and do all data
storage on servers. This can be advantageous over a completely diskless
setup if the applications cause a lot of swapping. There are tradeoffs in
places like security and maintenance, though.
Tim Little
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> twli...@erols.com (TL) writes:
> | The IS grunt will be beheaded if he goes back to the
> |office manager and says, "Okay, I put my question on alt.os.linux - -
> |be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
> |office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
> |least you have someone to blame if no answer appears within 24 hours.
> |This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
>
> is "it can't be done with this product" or "we'll have that bug fixed
> in the next version next year, which you can upgrade to for $300 per
> license" then what does the organization do?
>
> Something is wrong when an organization values the existence of an
> external scapegoat more than the quality of the product.
>
> --
Tim, I think the choice of which NOS to use for the organization's
backbone is based on much more than the program's code. An operating
system is, as a corporate asset, much more than its code. It's
everything that comes with it, including track record and the provider's
capability to provide support. That's why names like Sun, DEC, and
Microsoft mean something to the people who make the decisions. There is
unquestionably a history of reliable service behind all of those names.
If they've made mistakes here and there, they've done what was required
to keep credibility intact - - in the opinions, at least, of the people
who approve budgets.
People who own and operate businesses - - I among them - - are not
unaccustomed to paying for value. The saying that you get what you pay
for is true with everything from raw materials to employees. You have to
check yourself every time you think you're getting a great deal. My
feeling is that, as much as Linux can do, and as much as I enjoy playing
with it, the idea of a free/open OS as the enterprise OS comes very
close to being too good to be true. More power to any who are pulling it
off successfully.
Going with the leaders is not about retaining scapegoats, I think. It is
just business the way business has always been done. Decisions are
multifaceted, and support - - formal and, at least in the eyes of the
board of directors, reliable - - is highly valued. This is where Linux
comes up short for now, based at least on industry journals I rely on
for information.
TL
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrew Costa
On 19 Sep 1997 01:21:40 -0700, Kaz <k...@latte.cafe.net> wrote:
>In article <34219a02....@news.erols.com>, TL <twli...@erols.com> wrote:
>Before that, the very idea of a free, high-quality OS might have seemed
>like an unrealistic dream.
Indeed.
I first read of this "free unix" in 1994, and the very idea seemed ridiculous.
I'd been conditioned by MS to believe that an operating system must be
proprietary and the product of a big company to be any good.
My, how my perception has changed!
Installing mini-linux in 1995 opened my eyes.
Real, honest-to-goodness protected multitasking? Wow! Win-3.1 had been
my closest experience to that, and we all know its deficiencies.
Turning the resulting system into something usable opened my mind.
A bit over two years on, I'd put the results up against NT with confidence.
Or AIX, which I now also have running here, for that matter.
The system I run now can be traced back to that original mini-linux install
of June 1995. It's almost totally different today, but there are still
three or four binaries and the basic directory structure existing from then.
This system has to be about the most personally-customised around. I've done
most of my upgrading and installing with gcc: haven't downloaded an RPM yet,
and I think I ftp'd in my last binary set over a year ago.
>Compared to the technical challenges that have been overcome, spreading the
>word seems trivial. Without the money, it might just take a little longer.
Indeed.
Though it certainly _is_ getting out all over the place on this newfangled
interwhatsit :)
>>Microsoft will continue to get rich with its closed OSs. That's why
>>100 percent of my stock portfolio is in MS. Sad, but practical.
>More like stupid! Ever heard that saying about all your eggs in one basket?
>Software is a high risk, unpredictable industry; and you hedge your bets
>on a single software company.
>I hope you have some non-stock investments too!
I'd invest in: MS (but be ready to bail on short notice), Sun, SGI, and
Digital. Caldera, if possible, perhaps. Red Hat, definitely. IBM just
because it's IBM - it is not going to be knocked over any time soon.
That's just the computeroid stuff, I'd be in all sorts of other things
as well.
Andrew Costa
On 20 Sep 1997 12:29:13 GMT, Byron A Jeff <by...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrn624sjg...@chaosnet.wahnapitae.on.ca>,
>Andrew Costa <sea...@isys.ca> wrote:
>>A W95 client on the other hand can easily be trashed by anyone who uses it,
>>whether by mistake or intention.
>A standalone W95 client works as you describe. However in a net situation it's
>possible to set up a W95 client to only log into an NT server and operate from
>there. Users can only change their personal configs on the server and not any
>of the local machine configs nor global server configs.
Ah. Okay, so W[NT/95] isn't _quite_ as bad as I thought.
However, it's still NT on the other end... ;)
>>What I would do to set up an intranet, clients to be used by non-techy people,
>>is this:
[great big heavy server + dumb X terminals]
>>Not only is this setup secure, it's a fair sight cheaper than having a
>>building full of fully functional PCs. Not to mention more reliable.
>Quite true. In fact I have one of my students working on such a design. However
>we're looking at the diskless workstation concept instead of X stations. The
>difference is that the applications are pulled through the network from the
>server to the client and executed locally. the server still has complete
>control of what apps are available and the client has no local storage. We're
>shooting for a $700 price point (in quantity) for:
[high-ish performance diskless PCs]
>By transporting the application instead of the display we can have a better
>disitrubtion of CPU/Ram instead of concentrating all that with the server.
>We think it'll scale better.
Yes indeed. You have tradeoffs whichever way you go. Running diskless
PCs is about as secure and the performance per-application is better,
the load on Central less so you don't have to put as much iron there -
whereas my approach demands much more of Central but results in cheaper clients.
It depends partly on financial considerations, partly on network design,
partly on what's acceptable performancewise at the terminal/client end.
I can see both loading the network pretty good - the X terminals continually
at a moderate level each, the client boxes in heavy bursts by downloading
the applications.
>I can make a case to the university to buy 100 boxes for $70000. They're used
>to paying 3 times that price. And running Linux on both ends obviates the
>need for worrying about licensed and whatnot.
Saving $140k is definitely an improvement, I'd say.
Here's hoping it comes through!
>I'm planning on introducing these as diskless NetStations. The only real
>problem is that they won't run M$ apps or Netscape/MSIE net plugins. We're
>in the process of examining NTrigue with projected X displays as a vehicle
>to get access to M$ apps.
Hmmm. The NT server would be an adjunct to the main server, I presume?
As to netscrape, I don't quite see - there are plenty of plugins for unix, no?
Edward Dodge
On Thu, Sep 18, 1997 1:50 PM, Stoney Edwards <mailto:la...@primenet.com>
wrote:
: its employees, and compensate them well. No person is able to produce
: his personal best when his future is speculative. There has to be
Hmmm...
That writes off about every *musician* I've ever known! Every artist too,
now that I come to think about it...
Edward
---------------------------------------------------------
Cyberdog ---A Product of Apple Computer, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy R Reed
Tim Little (twli...@erols.com) wrote:
: any other distribution of Linux - - that offers, at any price, the support
: services Microsoft offers for NT and '95. Where is a Slackware consulting firm
: who offers comprehensive support through every step of design and installation of
: a continent-wide network? Has Linux made it that far? I'm not seeing it in IS
: news if it has. Tell me if I've missed something, I'd like to read about it.
Uh....RedHat. Caldera. And others. Yes, Linux has made it that far.
: Note that we're not talking about "which is better." Besides, NT is developing
: rapidly. It will be Unix any day now.
*snicker* Any day now. MS claimed it was as good as Unix ages ago.
ACK! What is this crap? Somehow you attached a bunch of html stuff to your
email.
: "There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
: postm...@onlinebiz.net pmdat...@aol.com ad...@submitking.com
: c...@llv.com wa...@pwrnet.com
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</PRE>
: </HTML>
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Love is blindness. I don't wanna see."
Tim Little
Stoney Edwards wrote:
>
>
>
> Linux is Linux is Linux is Linux is Linux! It doesn't matter WHAT
> distribution that you get... whether it's Slackware, or GNU Debian, or
> RedHat, or Caldera... if there is no support purchased with the dist that
> you purchase, then you can hire an independent support contractor to help
> your investment along... The Linux kernel from RedHat is EXACTLY IDENTICAL
> in function to the Caldera Linux Kernel. The Linux kernel from the
> Slackware dist is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the kernel from GNU Debian. So, it
> doesn't matter what dist you get... what matters is who you contract to
> support you.
No kidding. Tell me something I didn't know, Stoney. I'm curious - -
how long have you been in the workforce? Can you legally buy liquor?
Since I have missed so much in my reading, why don't you help me out.
Why don't you point out one or two consulting firms specializing in free
OSs who also maintain the kind of networks I've mentioned here already.
Internationally recognized and profiled, like MS, or at least regionally
established. One- and two-man operations definitely do not count here.
Independent consultants that connect dink ISPs do not, either. I'm
talking about manpower, a company that backs its technicians with big
liability insurance policies. The kind that has a phone listing we can
find in the internet yellow pages. The kind that installs and maintains
the systems for hospitals, universities, airlines and resorts. Big
scale. We are talking about bigness, aren't we? About Linux and free OSs
getting "big?" Is there a big commercial enterprise running Linux as a
backbone?
Why have I not seen mention of these powerhouse consulting firms in
Linux Journal or ComputerWorld? Why are they not listed in the yellow
pages of my heavily militarized/industrialized metroplex of 1.5 million
people? Shouldn't they be right in there with, say, DEC? For the life of
me, I'm just not finding Linux in my yellow pages. And the nearest LUG
is in Wash., DC.
I want to know more about these Linux prosand their companies, Stoney,
because the members of my local AITP chapter would like to hear a
presentation on it. We're always looking for good program material, and
this would rock their world.
>
> : Note that we're not talking about "which is better." Besides, NT is
> : developing rapidly. It will be Unix any day now.
>
>> NT will be UNIX, when it can (Blah Blah Blah)
This is called humor, Stoney. Sort of like saying, "Why does Netscape
always copy MSIE?" Or, "Why does Apple always rip Microsoft off?" You
know, facetious, like.
Maybe I needed to put " :) " in there for you.
TL
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food for Spambots: dom...@cyberpromo.com postm...@netvigator.com
Kari L Beischer
Grant Fischer <gfis...@ki.net> wrote:
> A rumoured story floating around here: a large corporation with
> 15,000 NT nodes was experiencing a problem, and wanted a fix
> done. The answer they got from MS when their CIO talked to the
> highest person they could get on the phone: "Upgrade."
> Well, I thought it was funny...
Hopefully the big corporations will see that the biggest isn't
necessarily the best :) Unfortunately those signing the contracts
have no idea what the advantages or disadvantages are with different
operating systems and applications. And unfortunately the rest of
us have to work within their 'corporate approved' guidelines,
knowing that something better, quicker and in the end, cheaper
exists. *sigh*
Hey, Gates deserves everything he has been asking for and I personally
hope he gets it ;)
--
Thanks, Kari Beischer
____________________________________________________________________
AT&T ASCII, MIME, PGP, SUN, & NeXTmail OK
Systems mailto:ka...@gti.net
Development to want is natural, to need is negotiable...
____________________________________________________________________
Opinions expressed are mine, not those of my employer...
David Corn
>For most programmers out there, changing a registry value is not that
>big of a deal, but you can't just tell Mom and Pop to fire up REGEDIT
>and start hacking away.
So give them the 1k or so .reg file, and tell them to 2x click on it.
__________________________________
Reachable at: 281-549-3977 Nights
Please quote in all replies
Note my e-mail address: dcorn at pdq.net
Remove **foo** to reply
Eric Leblanc
T. Colin Mack wrote:
> In article <5vu436$1mq$2...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>, p...@spiff.uni-sw.gwdg.de (Peter
> Suetterlin) wrote:
>
> >> These people need the reliability, and clear lines of responsibility
> >> that you get with an established supplier, so they can cover their
> >> asses when the doodoo hits the fan. There is no accountability with
> >> these "free love" systems, (who are you going to sue when you are sued
> >> because your linux based systems crashed
>
> [snip]
>
> >Mayby you try to estimate how many *billion* dollar
> >of wasted money MS OS and Apps have caused by crashes?
> >Have you ever seen someone sue MS for that? No.
>
> True. "Who are you going to sue..." was meant to be a bit of a sarcastic
> exaggeration -- the point is that there is more accountability with
> commercial providers operating under standard business models
> than there is with something like linux.
Is there really more accountability? I suggest you reread your Microsoft
license or any other license whatsoever. You will be surprised of how
accountable a provider operating under a standard business models is. I quote
Microsoft's because it is the one i have handy : "...In no event shall
Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any other damages whatoever
(Including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits,
business interruption, loss of business information, or other pecuniary loss)
arising out of the use of or anibility to use this Microsoft product, even if
Microsoft has been advised of the possibility of such damage. In any case,
Microsoft's entire lability under any provision of this ageement shall be
limited to the amount actually paid by you for the software...."
Not bad, you can get back the price you paid for the software. I guess Linux
or any "free love" systems will give you back the same thing : The price you
paid!
> My company is small --
> we started out as 4 people and are now 50, but even at this size
> you can feel the pressure to cover your own ass when making
> decisions. For example, we use a lot of macs, and I prefer macs
> to wintel pcs, but when we start talking about where we should
> be going for the next five years... well, will apple be in the
> business anymore? I don't know. Will MS? Yes. Will linux be in
> a form that people can confidently base big corporate computing
> on? We'll see.
There is something i don't like in the above. You didn't ask if Linux will be
around in 5-10 years. Apple? I agree with you. MS? They will be there but in
a changed form. It is a gut feeling but i think MS will be a big players
among other in 5 years. Markets are too fast and an huge entity like MS will
be getting tougher to steer as the years go by. Look at IBM, they had an huge
market slice 20 years back. If you look as of today at their market it is
diminished. ( I'm not talking about asset here only market ) Why? they didn't
see Personnal computing as a big thing then
>
>
> In small companies where you can still "wing it" a lot, you can
> avoid facing these choices without there being a huge risk,
> but some guy who has to lay out a 5 year strategy for a network
> system including 1,000's of people and many millions of dollars,
> is in the position to cost the company *huge* money if he
> screws up, and covering his ass has got to be one of the higher
> priorities in a decision. As they used to say about IBM, "no
> one ever got fired for buying microsoft."
>
Ideally, it should be that guy's job to find the best solution that work not
to cover his ass. If this is the way you think it should be done then i sure
hope i never do business with you. "I stand by my word and take full
responsibility for what i do." , this is what companies want. Not a mild
approach : "Let's do like they do because everybody else do it and my ass is
covered then"
> On top of this, the decision will at some point have to be
> explained to some probably rather conservative, old fart, not
> very tech-y executive type. Will this person be happier to have
> his big company run on a foundation provided by a) King Capitalist
> and World's Richest Man Bill G, or b) a bunch of morally upstanding
> hippy computer geeks from around the world?
Irrelevant, why? Simple, it is not Bill G. that does his implementation. It
is not the Linux team that does his implementation. It is the persons hired
by that executive that stand by the product. Mr. V-P won't know that Linux is
made by the public. Won't care if it's made by MS or JoeSoft. If Mr.
Vice-President decide to upgrade his network he will : 1) Look how much
money he can put into this
2) Hire or assign somebody to implement it
3) Keep himself informed on the studies done by 2)
4) Approve the expense (Be pleased if its less than he anticipated or be
less pleased )
5) Ask progress reports on the upgrade
6) In a very absent minded way, he will look how well it work and the
forget about it
> Many people close to technology do not like this decision-making process,
> but it *is*
> very common, especially among big established companies, and
> that will make it very hard to displace established suppliers
> from those companies with nothing more than a "technically better",
> or "theoretically better" solution. While there certainly are
> some IS managers willing to stick their neck out a bit for
> what they personally feel is a superior solution, a lot of
> people make their decision by playing through this little
> scenario: When that terrible day comes (and you know it will)
> when a horrible crash wipes out your network or important
> data and some multi-million dollar account leaves the company
> in anger, and the big boss comes down the hall looking for
> blood, comes into your office and says, "What the HELL happened?!",
> and you've got 2 kids, one in college and $300,000 left on
> your mortgage... you need to be able to deflect the heat
> quickly. You can do this if you have stuck with nice
> industry standards that they boss can understand; you may
> be in big trouble if all you can offer is a demonstration
> of why linux is a fundamentally superior OS to what is offered
> by any large commercial supplier. Sad but true.
>
hmmm, even if you stick with the industry standard and it happens. You'll be
held accountable. So what's the diff? Maybe, and i say maybe, you'll be able
to say : "uh, it wasn't me...NT crashed. Everybody uses it. You know the
thing you paid $ for it." I'm sure he'll be more pleased then. Do you think
the big boss is dumb? He'll know you covered your ass. Pass the buck goes
only so far especially when the competitor didn't crash whatever system it
use. So i think in my humble opinion, that what is best is to stick to ethics
and recommend was you think is the best solution to your problem. Anyway, a
well planned network has contingencies. If you had a crash proof OS and one
of your servers goes down anyway. You have to have a fast replacement.
Breakage will happens even if you have that crash proof OS or the worst OS
ever. Hey, a network card will bring part of your network down. A bad HD
controllers will thrash your disks even if they are RAID 5. You need the
whole things. Not just good hardware and software but also maintenance,
replacement and contingencies.
> I do not think it is such a good thing, but the
> OS wars are looked at much differently in middle-management
> meetings than at universities and on usenet.
I always though that Middle-Management wanted something that worked. I also
though they wanted the most bang for theirs bucks. Isn't it so? I think
universities and usenet folks also wants more bang for theirs bucks. Look the
same to me.
> - Colin
Regards,Eric LeblancE&L consultants
jug...@generation.net
Nathan Hand
Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com> writes:
> This is a very valid point that I neglected to consider... however, since
> other software companies can create filters that will read these formats,
> is it not feasible that software for freeware OSes could have the same
> filters made?
Other software companies pay big bucks and sign NDA's to get the
necessary information.
Or they pay Microsoft to write the import/export filters. Either
way it's not conducive to free (code available) software.
> : We should all be more interested in promoting open formats for word
> : processors, spreadsheets and so forth.
>
> I think that Linux programmers do, for the most part... things like
> postscript,
Postscript is extremely open. There is a number of books written
by Adobe that describe everything, from fonts to protocols.
> and dvi files come to mind. Maybe these are not as open or
> as versatile as I am led to believe, however.
DVI files are completely documented in Knuth's web format. There
isn't a much more open format available.
> : And we should resist companies which seek to inflict proprietary
> : extensions on open formats like HTML (Netscape comes to mind).
>
> Well, I think we are all doing pretty good at that so far, but I
> understand what you are saying here. It's funny that you mention
> Netscrape, since they have allied themselves with IBM, and Sun who do
> support open standards, for the most part (unless I have been severely
> mislead :) ).
Sun is very open. You can clone their hardware, their OS, and a
good whack of their software too.
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Windows 95,
Windows NT 4.0, or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
John Sheehy
Simon Story <cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz> writes:
>Here's something funny that happened last weekend:
>
>I just got started on a doc when I discovered a bug in Word 97, a minor
>one,
>but a bug non-the-less; I wrote "south-east asia" and the grammer
>checker
>suggested that it should be "Southeast". No worries, I agreed and
>changed it,
>then the spelling checker told me that "Southeast" was incorrect. I
>laughed
>and selected "Send feedback" from the help menu. Word promptly
>crashed.
The spelling checker accepts "Southeast" here. It does not accept
"southeast", though. If you let the grammar checker "change"
"south-east" to "southeast", it then wants to change "southeast" to
"Southeast", which it accepts. "Southeast" (with capital) is actually
what is first suggested when you right-click on the grammar error.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Timothy J. Lee
Tim Little <twli...@erols.com> writes:
|Timothy J. Lee wrote:
|>
|> twli...@erols.com (TL) writes:
|> | The IS grunt will be beheaded if he goes back to the
|> |office manager and says, "Okay, I put my question on alt.os.linux - -
|> |we'll see what happens." [...] Much better to
|> |be able to say, "I have contacted Ms. X at Microsoft's NT support
|> |office. She is to report back to me before the end of the day." At
|> |least you have someone to blame if no answer appears within 24 hours.
|> |This is what is meant when one speaks of accountability.
|>
|> In other words, an external scapegoat is necessary. If the response
|> is "it can't be done with this product" or "we'll have that bug fixed
|> in the next version next year, which you can upgrade to for $300 per
|> license" then what does the organization do?
|>
|> Something is wrong when an organization values the existence of an
|> external scapegoat more than the quality of the product.
|
|Microsoft mean something to the people who make the decisions. There is
|unquestionably a history of reliable service behind all of those names.
No company has an unquestionable history of reliable service. Many
people have had bad experiences with customer support at one or more
of the named companies and others -- how do you expect people to believe
you when you claim that their history of reliable service is unquestionable?
Granted, some companies have better records than others, but no company
I've heard of is perfect. Even with commercial stuff, one might still
find the answer on the net, since the diversity of ways that people out
in the world use the software is likely to be far greater than what the
vendor has -- so there may be a better chance that someone out on the
net has run into a similar situation.
|If they've made mistakes here and there, they've done what was required
|to keep credibility intact - - in the opinions, at least, of the people
|who approve budgets.
Perhaps that is the problem. The people who approve budgets don't have
to work around the bugs, call customer support, or query the net for
help.
|People who own and operate businesses - - I among them - - are not
|unaccustomed to paying for value. The saying that you get what you pay
|for is true with everything from raw materials to employees.
On the other hand, you must always watch out to avoid being overcharged,
or sold something that does not fit your needs.
|You have to
|check yourself every time you think you're getting a great deal.
Maybe those who buy Microsoft stuff because it looks cheaper need to
look around and see how much extra money they need to spend to get
additional functionality (such as remote administration, good backups,
automated administration, good scripting, execution on remote computers
with display on the local computer, etc.) that is bundled with some other
OSes.
| the idea of a free/open OS as the enterprise OS comes very
|close to being too good to be true. More power to any who are pulling it
|off successfully.
Like Yahoo and Best (they use FreeBSD)?
Also, look at the web server survey on http://www.netcraft.com/survey
(ignore the Microsoft advertising and compare the market share that
freeware apache has versus the big name commercial stuff).
|Going with the leaders is not about retaining scapegoats, I think. It is
|just business the way business has always been done.
If businesses only copied each other, who would innovate?
| This is where Linux
|comes up short for now, based at least on industry journals I rely on
|for information.
Which industry journals?
C Sanjayan Rosenmund
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> Tim Little <twli...@erols.com> writes:
>
> | This is where Linux
> |comes up short for now, based at least on industry journals I rely on
> |for information.
>
> Which industry journals?
The ones written about and for Microsoft products, perhaps? <evil grin>
--
Sanjay
tech...@pacbell.net
Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies
the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry
penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more
careful about what they say if they had.
-- Linus Torvalds
T. Colin Mack
In article <timleeEG...@netcom.com>, nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J.
Lee) wrote:
>Seems like "accountability" simply means having a convenient scapegoat
>when something goes wrong.
That is a pretty important part of it for most pointy-haired managers.
>In five years, the top end mass market computers and software one
>can buy today will be obsolete and may have to be replaced anyway.
Of course the hardware and software will change, but the ranks of
the "big time players" will not change so much. Compare now to
5 years ago -- how many big time suppliers have become unviable?
How many companies started in the last 5 years are serious competitors
to supply an OS for big corporate accounts? Things change, but
simply through the effects of inertia, it takes a while for a big,
stable supplier to become a non-entity, so you have enough time
to make plans to move to someone else if necessary. This alone
makes big suppliers attractive -- there's security there. Look at Apple,
where years of suicidal business policies and a loss of technical
leadership have still failed to kill the company off. If Apple
can't kill itself off in 5 years, no big company can :-)
My main point with that whole diatribe was that we have gotten
to a point where many company-wide technical decisions are getting
further away from daily hands-on techie types, and moving into
the realm of spreadsheet-watcher/pointy-hair manager types. These
people tend to make decisions based not on the inherent technical
merits of a system, but on their spreadsheet based forecast, and
"sound business practices." Also, as the stakes get larger, avoiding
mistakes becomes more important than making "the best" decision.
Let's face it, if you go 100% MS, you will *not* have the best
setup possible, but you will have an *adequate* system, and
while they may be reaming you at every turn with upgrades, etc.,
at least you know that they will ream you at about the same level
next year as this year and fill out your spreadsheets accordingly. :-/
I am not saying that it is good to be a wimp when making decisions;
I am saying that many people are, and big name companies such as MS
know how to cash in on that. This makes them hard to displace.
You never know what will happen with Apple next week let alone next
year, and nobody knows where linux and friends are going.
Simon Story
Stoney Edwards wrote:
> The only thing that I can see that Microsoft is accoutable for, it
> making
> sure the CD they packaged is free from read errors (scratches,
> incorrect
> burn image type, etc.).
> Even so, almost all freeware authors list all of their known bugs in
> their
> software releases... I have never seen MS do that for anything crucial
> in
> their products.
Here's something funny that happened last weekend:
I just got started on a doc when I discovered a bug in Word 97, a minor
one,
but a bug non-the-less; I wrote "south-east asia" and the grammer
checker
suggested that it should be "Southeast". No worries, I agreed and
changed it,
then the spelling checker told me that "Southeast" was incorrect. I
laughed
and selected "Send feedback" from the help menu. Word promptly
crashed.
I had only worked on the thing for about 5 minutes.. I wonder if I could
get MS to give me compensation....
Byron A Jeff
In article <timleeEG...@netcom.com>,
Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome> wrote:
-by...@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
-|Quite true. In fact I have one of my students working on such a design. However
-|we're looking at the diskless workstation concept instead of X stations. The
-|difference is that the applications are pulled through the network from the
-|server to the client and executed locally. the server still has complete
-|control of what apps are available and the client has no local storage. We're
-
-Another option is to use systems with local disks that contain only the OS
-and swap space (and, optionally, some commonly used applications). Such
-systems can be configured to take all user information from and do all data
-storage on servers. This can be advantageous over a completely diskless
-setup if the applications cause a lot of swapping. There are tradeoffs in
-places like security and maintenance, though.
Actually we may consider small swap disks. As for the other stuff we
probably will use net loaded ramdisks which mount user/applications via
NFS. So heavily written files (like logs) won't actually go over the net.
Right now though my thinking is that we spend on RAM and not disks.
Tim Little
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> No company has an unquestionable history of reliable service. Many
> people have had bad experiences with customer support at one or more
> of the named companies and others -- how do you expect people to believe
> you when you claim that their history of reliable service is unquestionable?
>
I realize that this is a Linux advocacy group, but surely you will not
say that Linux and the people contributing to its development are 100
percent without fault or error. What makes you think that any company or
organization is? People vote with their dollars; it isn't too hard to
see who is getting the most votes at the moment. The statement I make is
that these companies provide necessary services reliably more often than
not. Can you provide survey statistics to prove me wrong? Nowhere have I
stated that these companies score 100 percent on every exam. Give me a
little more credit than that, please. The world is not black and white.
> Which industry journals?
>
Perhaps the one with broadest appeal and the least bias is
Computerworld, which is certainly not beholden to Microsoft if you've
ever read this weekly paper for IS managers.
I devour every issue of Linux Journal, and frequently SCO World.
I use PC Magazine to keep in touch with Wintel. I trade magazines with
other enthusiasts to keep up with Mac. I read whatever else I find in
the airport and, for that matter, the technology section of the Wall
Street Journal Online daily.
I have yet to see the first article about Linux having been selected as
the backbone of a Fortune 500 company.
Nathan Hand
jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy) writes:
> Simon Story <cha...@sans.vuw.ac.nz> writes:
>
> >Here's something funny that happened last weekend:
> >
> >I just got started on a doc when I discovered a bug in Word 97, a minor
> >one, but a bug non-the-less; I wrote "south-east asia" and the grammer
> >checker suggested that it should be "Southeast". No worries, I agreed and
> >changed it, then the spelling checker told me that "Southeast" was
> >incorrect. I laughed and selected "Send feedback" from the help menu.
> >Word promptly crashed.
>
> The spelling checker accepts "Southeast" here. It does not accept
> "southeast", though. If you let the grammar checker "change"
> "south-east" to "southeast", it then wants to change "southeast" to
> "Southeast", which it accepts. "Southeast" (with capital) is actually
> what is first suggested when you right-click on the grammar error.
<attenborugh>
Notice how the native winvocate ruffles his plumage, yet fails to
see anything wrong when Word crashes. In their native environment
the Speckled Tail Winvocate is used to such occurences, and rates
them less worthy of attention than capitalisation of the "S" such
as found in local words like "Southeast".
</attenborugh>
Andrew Costa
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 05:25:21 GMT,
Timothy J. Lee <nob...@not.for.email> wrote:
>Tim Little <twli...@erols.com> writes:
>|Going with the leaders is not about retaining scapegoats, I think. It is
>|just business the way business has always been done.
>If businesses only copied each other, who would innovate?
The little guy, of course.
That _is_ part of what got GNU, Linux, et cetera, going in the first place.
GNU's utilities are still far in advance of most commercial unix utilities,
and the Linux kernel is similarly a ways ahead in its field.
In a way, the commercial unix people are doing the right thing.
Let the freeware community try these things out first and let them
work the worst bugs out. That way when you do incorporate new
functionality into your product, you have examples to work from.
You already know some of the pitfalls and can avoid them.
Andrew Costa
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:19:45 -0700,
C Sanjayan Rosenmund <tech...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>> Which industry journals?
>The ones written about and for Microsoft products, perhaps? <evil grin>
>--
>Sanjay
>tech...@pacbell.net
>Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies
>the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry
>penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more
>careful about what they say if they had.
> -- Linus Torvalds
I still think it should have been this:
A slightly-altered-to-avoid-legal-difficulties Windows logo with a
brick imprinted LINUX in military letters on its side flying through.
Cracks radiating from the impact point, bits of glass flying everywhere,
et cetera.
It'd actually make a good non-MS logo in general.
Just substitute NetBSD, AIX, OS/2, Solaris, QNX, et cetera for LINUX.
Joe Ragosta
In article <timleeEG...@netcom.com>,
see-signature-for-email-address---ads-not-welcome wrote:
> "T. Colin Mack" <co...@bug.co.jp> writes:
> |True. "Who are you going to sue..." was meant to be a bit of a sarcastic
> |exaggeration -- the point is that there is more accountability with
> |commercial providers operating under standard business models
> |than there is with something like linux.
>
> Seems like "accountability" simply means having a convenient scapegoat
> when something goes wrong. Even if the commercial vendor's solution
> fails to fulfill the advertised needs, and the vendor is unable or
> unwilling to correct the problem, the person who chose it can deflect
> the blame onto the vendor rather than taking the flames himself/herself.
It's not that simple.
Every corporate decision is a gamble. In general, the _perceived_ risk of
having a problem is a lot lower if you choose a well-established and
supported OS like Netware, Commercial Unix, or NT. That's simply the way
companies work.
Having the source code is meaningless to most companies. When we buy a
solution, we want _a solution_, not a toolkit.
It's not a matter of assigning blame. When we have a problem with a piece
of equipment, we're not looking for someone to blame. My first question
every time is "what went wrong and how soon can it be fixed?" The second
question is "how much will it cost". Again, the perception is that the
solution will be more timely with a commercial solution.
You also have to understand the importance of head count at most companies.
There's no way we'd keep a Linux guru on staff. It's just more
cost-effective to call Novell or Sun or whoever when there's a problem and
have them fix it.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
Visit the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Erik Funkenbusch
On 19 Sep 1997 18:57:00 -0700, Stoney Edwards <la...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>NT will be UNIX, when it can
>
>- be updated without kicking all users off of the system
Since when can you update the kernel without rebooting?
>- perform as well as BSD Unices as a server
Strange that NT runs the sites that get the most hits on the web.
>- implement a filesystem that is not so susceptible to fragmentation
fragmentation is not an issue with server file systems, since multiple
users cause severe seeking anyways.
>- is truly multi-user, and not just more-than-one-user-account
NT *IS* multi-user. You can indeed have multiple users logged in at
one time.
>- can be installed on another machine across the network, without using
> sneakernet, tirenet, or tying CDs to messenger pigeons' feet.
NT can be do this. In fact, i've done it on machines without CD
Rom's.
>- operate from a CLI, without having the GUI compiled into the kernel
NT can be completely operated from a CLI.
>- plus several other technical considerations that I do not have the
> ability to list here, as I am not as learned in the UNIX OS model as
> many others here are
Nor are you as leared about NT.
>I like NT, and I use it right alongside my Linux box... I don't hate MS,
>but I don't care for their licensing. So, I am not bigoted against NT,
>but I DO know what NT can and can't do.
Not liking liscensing is indeed a viable complaint about NT. That
doesn't stop most people from using it though.
>Microsoft has had NT on the market for about 5 years now, and I don't see
>them changing NT in ANY way to make it work similarly to UNIX.
Strange that you can run UNIX alongside NT on the same box.
>Another user here has a sigfile that says:
>
>"20 years ago, people were switching from UNIX to VMS...
> Now, everybody is switching from UNIX to Windows NT...
> I am the only one who sees what is happening here?"
20 years ago Unix was the only real OS on the market. Today, people
are switching from Windows to NT, OS/2 to NT, and Unix to NT.
remove the _x at the end of my address to reply.
Tim Little
Edward Dodge wrote:
>
No person is able to produce
> : his personal best when his future is speculative. There has to be
>
> Hmmm...
> That writes off about every *musician* I've ever known! Every artist too,
> now that I come to think about it...
>
>
One must wonder whether the art spawned from angst, desperation,
depression, and anger is indeed the artists' personal best.
Peter F. Curran
In article <m23emzn...@stoli.spirits.org.au>,
Nathan Hand <natha...@anu.edu.au> writes:
[snip]
>
><attenborugh>
>Notice how the native winvocate ruffles his plumage, yet fails to
>see anything wrong when Word crashes. In their native environment
>the Speckled Tail Winvocate is used to such occurences, and rates
>them less worthy of attention than capitalisation of the "S" such
>as found in local words like "Southeast".
></attenborugh>
Heh, I've got a friend who after only 1 week of using NT4 and Office
97 is _completely_ frustrated! When he uses Word, it starts gobbling
up ALL his memory, (Physical and Virtual), no matter how much he has
available! It has used over 380MB! After a reinstall of Office, the
problem persisted. Later, he tried a full NT+Office reinstall and
that fixed it.... For now....
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
Lloyd Parsons
Tim Little wrote:
> TL
>
> "There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
>
Nor should Linux be running the backbone of a Fortune 500 company. It
just isn't ready for the task, regardless of the support issue.
In the same vein, MS/NT isn't ready for that either. Consistently,
testing and real-world results point that out.
This doesn't make either Linux or NT bad, it just means they are not at
either the proper maturity or scaleability levels. In reality, this is
the reason the mainframe refuses to die. It is mature, scaleable and
secure in a way no other system is at the moment. But, these are all
moving targets.
If I were a guessing man, I would guess that NT would get to the
backbone sooner than Linux, because the driving force is business needs
not technical needs. In other words, MS will make the business needs
force the technology, while Linux, for all its power and flexibility
will be driven by technology with less emphasis on the business side.
Time will tell....
Peter F. Curran
In article <slrn62ae8n...@chaosnet.wahnapitae.on.ca>,
c_c...@chaosnet.wahnapitae.on.ca (Andrew Costa) writes:
[snip]
>
>A slightly-altered-to-avoid-legal-difficulties Windows logo with a
>brick imprinted LINUX in military letters on its side flying through.
>Cracks radiating from the impact point, bits of glass flying everywhere,
>et cetera.
>
>It'd actually make a good non-MS logo in general.
>Just substitute NetBSD, AIX, OS/2, Solaris, QNX, et cetera for LINUX.
Heh, good one! My most recent idea was to have the MS logo
inside its own recycling bin. Perhaps I should make the
recycling bin more like a street-sweeper's cart with a guy
with a Linux cap pushing it.
M. Kilgore
Peter F. Curran <nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu> wrote in article
<603mc4$cvp$2...@proxye1.nycap.rr.com>...
> In article <m23emzn...@stoli.spirits.org.au>,
> Nathan Hand <natha...@anu.edu.au> writes:
> [snip]
>
> Heh, I've got a friend who after only 1 week of using NT4 and Office
> 97 is _completely_ frustrated! When he uses Word, it starts gobbling
> up ALL his memory, (Physical and Virtual), no matter how much he has
> available! It has used over 380MB! After a reinstall of Office, the
> problem persisted. Later, he tried a full NT+Office reinstall and
> that fixed it.... For now....
>
> --
I'm not interested in getting into an argument here so this is more in the
way of help. Win users did notice this problem and others with the release
of Office 97. I think that MS now has a patch that takes care of the
problem. I haven't tried the patch since I don't have the problem but there
was quite a bit about this on MS's Word forum.
mark
Lloyd Parsons
Timothy J. Lee
Tim Little <twli...@erols.com> writes:
|Timothy J. Lee wrote:
|>
|
|> No company has an unquestionable history of reliable service. Many
|> people have had bad experiences with customer support at one or more
|> of the named companies and others -- how do you expect people to believe
|> you when you claim that their history of reliable service is unquestionable?
|
|I realize that this is a Linux advocacy group, but surely you will not
|say that Linux and the people contributing to its development are 100
|percent without fault or error.
Not something that I ever claimed. You were the one who used the word
"unquestionably" regarding the reliability of service by some commercial
OS vendors.
|Nowhere have I
|stated that these companies score 100 percent on every exam.
"Unquestionably" in the context that you used it means that no one
questions the reliability record that you describe. That implies
100 percent satisfaction.
Tim Little
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
>
>
> "Unquestionably" in the context that you used it means that no one
> questions the reliability record that you describe. That implies
> 100 percent satisfaction.
>
> --
>
I stated: "There is unquestionably a history of reliable service behind
all of those names."
That a company has a history is not debateable - - all objects do, of
one sort or another. If at any time the history included reliable
service, then my statement is true.
Had I said that the companies had a history of nothing other than
reliable service, then you would be correct.
But I never suggested anything of the sort.
TL
"There's a lot to learn from wasting time." - Mr. Neil Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tim Little
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> If, at any time, the company failed to provide adequate service, then
> how can that be said to be "reliable"?
>
> Also, even if we accept your interpretation, then you statement means
> little -- a company could have provided good service once, and poor
> service every other time, but you could make your statement and be
> telling the truth by your interpretation (service was reliable at that
> one time). Therefore, your statement should count for very little in
> terms of something like a purchasing decision, based on your interpretation.
>
> --
>
Excellent!! You are quite right. It is a valid criticism that a more
meaningful statement - - and, in this case, an applicable one - - would
have been, "The aforementioned unquestionably have a history of
providing a satisfactory level of support more often than not, based on
the results of numerous independent surveys."
While we're at it, consider that the syntax can be interesting in
another way. For instance, if a person tells the truth 6 times out of
ten, and one must indicate by yes or no whether the person is honest,
what is the correct answer?
TL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Timothy J. Lee timlee@
> Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
> No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
--
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <34230460...@nntp.netcruiser> "sew...@butterflynetcom.ca (John Savard)" writes:
>Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>>Curtis A. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> The IBM PC design was not open at the start. A few guys from Texas were
>>> the first to clone the architecture. Can you say Compaq. Before them,
>>> there were no "off the shelf components." The Wintel market became open by
>>> default. No one designed it that way, the market force it to be that way.
>>> If all the PC manufactorers had it there way, they would all be
>>> proprietary.
>
>>This is incorrect. The original IBM PC was made up /entirely/ of off the
>>shelf
>>components. Thats precisely what enabled Compaq and others to clone
>>them.
>
>>The only hitch in the process was reverse engineering the BIOS, and that
>>(clearly) wasn't so tough.
>
>You're forgetting your history. It _was_ tough, and IBM sued several
>early cloners out of existence, such as Hyperion.
Indeed. Lawyers got rich at that time.
> Except for COMPAQ,
>clone making only became a viable business once the Phoenix BIOS was
>written - that was several years into the existence of the IBM PC, and
>it was an epoch-making event at the time.
Hmm, your history is a bit one-eyed. I don't think that Commodore was
the only other company which also made its own BIOS in 1985, got sued
by IBM and won. So Commodore could get rather successful at least for
the first years of its PC clones, with self-made BIOSes. Phoenix and
Award came into the game much, much later.
>And let's not forget the PS/2 with the MCA bus...IBM was eventually
>willing to license it, but at higher royalties. They wanted their
>architecture to be proprietary, or at least close to it.
And this could be the exact example what now will happen to Apple.
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de