Does anyone in the Bay Area use Linux?
George MacDonald
I am wondering how popular Linux is in the Bay Area. Do you
use Linux? Why? Whenever I talk to "ordinary" consumers
they all use MS Windows. When I ask them why, they say
they "have to". Is Linux only for geeks and programmers?
Ben Pfaff
There are plenty of Linux users in the Bay Area. Plenty of users
groups, too; e.g.:
http://www.balug.org
http://linuxmafia.com/cabal/
http://bad.debian.net
--
<b...@cs.stanford.edu> <pfaf...@msu.edu> <pfaf...@debian.org> <b...@gnu.org>
Stanford Ph.D. Student - MSU Alumnus - Debian Maintainer - GNU Developer
Personal webpage: http://www.msu.edu/~pfaffben
Jeffrey Siegal
Here's one geek who does (check my headers), at least sometimes.
I don't always use it on my desktop, but even when I'm using a Windows
or Macintosh desktop, there's always one or more Linux systems doing
work for me behind the scenes.
Ken
@orbit2orbit.com:
Linux is popular with many corporate/commercial users. What operating
system does your ISP use?
Ken
Kenneth Crudup
>Do you use Linux?
Yes.
-Kenny, not really in the BA any more
--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: P.O. Box #914 Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914 ke...@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217 Fremont, CA 94536-7525 (510) 745-0101
us...@example.com
George MacDonald
I went looking for a Linux based ISP. I was just wondering how
much Linux has moved into the consumer market place. I am
left with the impression that many people think MicroSoft
Windows is the "only" option they have. It seems so strange
to me since I have been using Linux as my desktop everyday
for a couple of years now! I also see very little in the
Bay Area Media(especially TV) about Linux, the SJMN is
a bit better. What info there is also seems to be rather
biased. Is it just me, or does anyone else see it that
way?
Jeffrey Siegal
> What info there is also seems to be rather
> biased. Is it just me, or does anyone else see it that
> way?
I don't see it as biased, since they're reporting on what people are
actually using. Chicken and egg thing, of course.
Lots of people are using Linux to run their TiVos (and a few to run
their 2Wire box, etc.), by the way, but most of them don't know it.
Gandalf Parker
Most windows users I know should not be on windows but thats just my
opinion. (they would be happier on Macs)
As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most peoples
desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet server
world.
Just for clarification, I do use all of the above daily.
Gandalf Parker
There is no best, only pros and cons.
George MacDonald
>
> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
> news:3C8C06A4...@orbit2orbit.com:
>
> > I am wondering how popular Linux is in the Bay Area. Do you
> > use Linux? Why? Whenever I talk to "ordinary" consumers
> > they all use MS Windows. When I ask them why, they say
> > they "have to". Is Linux only for geeks and programmers?
>
> Most windows users I know should not be on windows but thats just my
> opinion. (they would be happier on Macs)
>
> As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most peoples
> desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet server
> world.
Why do you think that? Is it because of lack of applications? Or do you
think that Gnome or KDE don't provide a sufficient user environment?
To me they seem every bit as good as Windows 95/98 was, and in
some ways better. The builtin virtual screen support is very
powerful and allows me to maintain many different work contexts.
Gnomes dynamic task bar is very powerful and really excels at
keeping a nice global context for the user....
I use my Linux system for a lot of A/V stuff:
http://www.orbit2orbit.com/gmd/RedRat/images/latest_large.jpg
something I had trouble creating on a MS windows environment.
Does anyone have a rough idea of how many Linux systems are in
use in the Bay Area? Is it a few thousand? Tens of thousands?
Do these people buy software for their systems, if so what
do they buy?
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
>> news:3C8C06A4...@orbit2orbit.com:
>> As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most peoples
>> desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet server
>> world.
>
> Why do you think that? Is it because of lack of applications? Or do you
> think that Gnome or KDE don't provide a sufficient user environment?
> To me they seem every bit as good as Windows 95/98 was, and in
> some ways better. The builtin virtual screen support is very
> powerful and allows me to maintain many different work contexts.
> Gnomes dynamic task bar is very powerful and really excels at
> keeping a nice global context for the user....
Again, there is only pros and cons. It depends on what the person wants to
do with it. Some people are still swayed by the fact that there are more
things in the comuter store that say "windows" than anything else. New
applications still seem to appear in windows. More answers are available,
especially in shops, for windows.
Internet of course makes a difference, both pro and con. Anyone can write
an app for windows and distribute it. Thats a wealth of new toys, and new
problems.
Linux can be an alternative. There are now versions of linux which offer
everything that windows has to offer but it seems that such a goal tends to
include both the good and the bad. Some are easy to load, lots of support,
lots of new toys coming out all the time, lots of security headaches, and
extremely gui. But they arent quite windows yet.
Other versions of linux are stable and powerful, excellent for internet
servers, and only recently I am now willing to consider them viable
alternatives to Unix.
> Does anyone have a rough idea of how many Linux systems are in
> use in the Bay Area? Is it a few thousand? Tens of thousands?
> Do these people buy software for their systems, if so what
> do they buy?
If you are really interested then this is what I would do.
Search google for a linux user group in your area. Then search for a PC
users group (which for some obnoxious reason seems to often mean Windows
users group). Ask both of them your questions. Take the answers and figure
that reality is probably somewhere between the two. =)
Gandalf Parker
Dont tell me you know computers, if you really only mean one.
George MacDonald
>
> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
> news:3C8CEAB7...@orbit2orbit.com:
>
> > Gandalf Parker wrote:
> >> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
> >> news:3C8C06A4...@orbit2orbit.com:
> >> As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most peoples
> >> desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet server
> >> world.
> >
> > Why do you think that? Is it because of lack of applications? Or do you
> > think that Gnome or KDE don't provide a sufficient user environment?
> > To me they seem every bit as good as Windows 95/98 was, and in
> > some ways better. The builtin virtual screen support is very
> > powerful and allows me to maintain many different work contexts.
> > Gnomes dynamic task bar is very powerful and really excels at
> > keeping a nice global context for the user....
>
> Again, there is only pros and cons. It depends on what the person wants to
> do with it. Some people are still swayed by the fact that there are more
> things in the comuter store that say "windows" than anything else. New
> applications still seem to appear in windows. More answers are available,
> especially in shops, for windows.
Hmm, good observation! I suppose shelf space yardage in
stores is "advertising" ones market dominance. Linux comes bundled
with a whole bunch of apps that I would have to buy separately. For
example:
Windows Linux
------- -------
Visual Dev GNU C/C++ included
PhotoShop Gimp Included
Office KDE Office, Star Office, Gnome tools usually included
Perhaps these should be broken out and sold separately just
to establish "presence". I suppose this concept is absurd to
most Linux people, but makes sense from a Marketing point of view!
One could probably charge $15 dollars for each of them to cover
the costs of boxing, distributing, ... Of course anyone who
knows better will just get it off the net, but I suppose sometimes
it's faster/easier just to pick it up at the store.
>
> Anyone can write
> an app for windows and distribute it. Thats a wealth of new toys, and new
> problems.
And more market presence!
>
> Linux can be an alternative. There are now versions of linux which offer
> everything that windows has to offer but it seems that such a goal tends to
> include both the good and the bad. Some are easy to load, lots of support,
> lots of new toys coming out all the time, lots of security headaches, and
> extremely gui. But they arent quite windows yet.
I have tried 4 distributions so far(Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, TurboLinux)
most of them installed without a hitch. In fact I had better luck with
Red Hat on one of my boxes than I did with Win 98. There were no new
drivers for the TV card that I had, sigh. After I switched to a new
card I ended up with a machine that crashed when I used it! The
really strange thing was that the free software I ended up getting
for Linux was much more reliable! Not only that I modified it to
support a remote control, something I could not do on Windows!!!
I'm curious about exactly which aspects of Linux you feel are not
"quite Windows yet". The OS itself has been amazingly reliable
for me. Crashed less than even some Solaris systems I used before.
Perhaps I was unlucky with the Win 95/98 systems crashing so much
on me. I have grown so used to a desktop that stays up for months
at a time. It's not perfect, but to me the difference was huge.
Security on Linux seems to be about the same as on Windows,
if you count the Cert advisories. I setup a firewall recently
using IPTables, which was a bit of a bear to figure out. The
comparable mechanism on Windows was so much easier, although
a little buggy. I think the "mediated" or "guided" interfaces
that many of the Windows apps have is a distinct advantage
for most consumers. They significantly reduce the knowledge
burden required to install and use new functionality. I
wonder if there is a way to effect the same thing for new
Linux users. Something like an online "InstallFest" that
consumers could call upon at anytime.
>
> Other versions of linux are stable and powerful, excellent for internet
> servers, and only recently I am now willing to consider them viable
> alternatives to Unix.
Yeah some of the Unix systems I worked on had rated downtimes
of less than 2 minutes per hundred years! The latest memory
management and low latency kernel interrupt changes are
bringing Linux up to the level of Unix servers. Something
that consumers probably don't care that much about, but
makes a big difference to commercial users.
Thanks for the input.
Joe Chung
non-representative group of the "Bay Area" computer users, here.
I'm futher willing to guess that, of the few individuals who read
this newsgroup and who also care enough to post, most use Linux
in some capacity.
This particular horse has been beaten to dust in numerous other
newsgroups (see the comp.os advocacy groups, if you can sift the
signal from the noise).
Most ordinary consumers don't know what an "operating system"
really is. They just want to get their work done. They don't
care. This is true with *all* consumer goods. The masses
*never* buy the best (however one defines it). Only the
hobbiests do.
As it stands M$FT has a combination of deep pockets and
compelling apps for the "ordinary" consumer than Linux has.
It's not enough to say, "Linux can also read your MSFT
word documents." Just look at how far that got the Mac.
-jc
--
(apply 'concat (reverse (list "com"
(char-to-string 46) "yahoo"
(char-to-string 64) "joechung")))
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
>> news:3C8CEAB7...@orbit2orbit.com:
> Perhaps these should be broken out and sold separately just
> to establish "presence". I suppose this concept is absurd to
> most Linux people, but makes sense from a Marketing point of view!
> One could probably charge $15 dollars for each of them to cover
> the costs of boxing, distributing, ... Of course anyone who
> knows better will just get it off the net, but I suppose sometimes
> it's faster/easier just to pick it up at the store.
There is definetly something to that. At the moment linux is mostly used by
guru's (dont get angry yet, Im not saying thats a good thing). As more and
more "users" start using it, there will be a market for off-the-shelf apps.
There will even be a market for bloated apps. You could take a slightly
modified version of Star Office (or something you could legally do this
with) and package it for a thousand dollars on the shelf. Some admin in a
suit, or CEO, will see it and buy it. The tech will be forced to install
and use it just because the suit bought it. I remember getting a unix
version of XTree (an old DOS alternative to Windows Explorer) shoved on me
once because the suit saw it and recognized it as something he loved. Not
knocking the program or anything but it really didnt have any use on our
system.
>> Anyone can write
>> an app for windows and distribute it. Thats a wealth of new toys, and
>> new problems.
>
> And more market presence!
Exactly. Even on the net the "users" feel that there is far more available
for windows than for anything else. It doesnt matter that so much of it is
written by non-programmers, and are things no one would ever download. The
percentage of useful programs available are probably higher in linux
and mac, and in both cases are more than anyone could possibly use up and
feel wanting for more. But the impression of more is still an important
factor.
> I have tried 4 distributions so far(Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe,
> TurboLinux) most of them installed without a hitch. In fact I had
> better luck with Red Hat on one of my boxes than I did with Win 98.
RedHat is definetly a Windows contender. Nearly any pro and con you can say
about Windows is possible with RedHat. For example, they are just about
neck and neck in the security area.
> I'm curious about exactly which aspects of Linux you feel are not
> "quite Windows yet". The OS itself has been amazingly reliable
> for me. Crashed less
Linux is much more stable. But then versions such as RedHat are slightly
more controlled as to new apps appearing. Much of windows instability is
the instability of downloaded apps. When I say that Linux isnt quite
Windows yet I didnt necessarily mean that it was lacking the good things. I
tend to think that some versions of linux are moving just as quickly to
become equal to windows in the bad things.
> Security on Linux seems to be about the same as on Windows,
Well I guess thats a true enough statement. Of course Windows advocates
will rush forward to say "what version?" And Linux advocates will rush
forward to say "what distribution?"
For my own view, redhat has as many exploits for it as any version of
windows does. In fact, on any exploit download site those are by far the
larger directorys. Rather amazing considering how long operating systems
such as mac, solaris, bsd, have been around that they should be so small
but the numbers using an OS probably have as much of an affect on the
creation of good products for an OS as the creation of evil products toward
an OS.
In my experience Debian seems amazingly stable right out of the box, and as
easy as redhat for keeping patched. The drawbacks being that its more
trouble to initially install, and less support.
> a little buggy. I think the "mediated" or "guided" interfaces
> that many of the Windows apps have is a distinct advantage
> for most consumers. They significantly reduce the knowledge
> burden required to install and use new functionality.
Reminds me of years and years of consults on "unix or nt" for internet
servers. Ive always said... there is no best, only pros and cons. For any
OS there are questions to ask first which might decide the matter either
way. Anyone who has an absolute "this is best" answer for everyone must
have limited experience in my opinion. I feel this is true whether the
"which is best" question was about computers, internet providors, dogs,
cars, restaurants, careers, etc etc etc.
> I wonder if there is a way to effect the same thing for new
> Linux users. Something like an online "InstallFest" that
> consumers could call upon at anytime.
Im really pleased with the dselect command on Debian linux. It goes to the
offical sites and updates the list of packages, with descriptions. Security
or "highly recommended" are right at the top. You tag what you want and it
downloads/installs/configs the apps as much as possible. It even reminds
you of dependencys on other packages. Very automatic but not overly so. (I
dont like the idea of the machine going out and doing ALL of this on its
own)
Gandalf Parker
I knew DOS before it was spelled DoS
I knew UNIX before it was spelled L I N U X
and I knew INTERNET before it was spelled W W W
George MacDonald
>
> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
> news:3C8D0E9F...@orbit2orbit.com:
>
> > Gandalf Parker wrote:
> >> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
> >> news:3C8CEAB7...@orbit2orbit.com:
> > Perhaps these should be broken out and sold separately just
> > to establish "presence". I suppose this concept is absurd to
> > most Linux people, but makes sense from a Marketing point of view!
> > One could probably charge $15 dollars for each of them to cover
> > the costs of boxing, distributing, ... Of course anyone who
> > knows better will just get it off the net, but I suppose sometimes
> > it's faster/easier just to pick it up at the store.
>
> There is definetly something to that. At the moment linux is mostly used by
> guru's (dont get angry yet, Im not saying thats a good thing).
Actually you are quite right, I think it's that way by design. For it
to be a consumer friendly, mass market item it will need to be
"engineered" for that purpose. MS Windows and Apple MAC's are like
that, Windows more so. MAC's are designed to be easier to use, something
that's part of a mass market product, but other things are
needed as well. GNOME and KDE are steps along the road to usability.
However, consumers are still a ways away from being able to go to the store,
buy a box, take it home, plop in the CD and have it work 100%
of the time. That's essential for mass market products.
> As more and
> more "users" start using it, there will be a market for off-the-shelf apps.
> There will even be a market for bloated apps. You could take a slightly
> modified version of Star Office (or something you could legally do this
> with) and package it for a thousand dollars on the shelf. Some admin in a
> suit, or CEO, will see it and buy it. The tech will be forced to install
> and use it just because the suit bought it. I remember getting a unix
> version of XTree (an old DOS alternative to Windows Explorer) shoved on me
> once because the suit saw it and recognized it as something he loved. Not
> knocking the program or anything but it really didnt have any use on our
> system.
Reminds me of the GUI design tool and memory purifier I got once :)
Already had all my mem functions wrapped ... and the nice multi
thousand dollar GUI painter produced 10 times the code and
took longer to use than vi! They are great if you don't know what
your doing though ???
>
> For my own view, redhat has as many exploits for it as any version of
> windows does. In fact, on any exploit download site those are by far the
> larger directorys. Rather amazing considering how long operating systems
> such as mac, solaris, bsd, have been around that they should be so small
> but the numbers using an OS probably have as much of an affect on the
> creation of good products for an OS as the creation of evil products toward
> an OS.
I suppose the disadvantage of the open source model is that all
yer bugs are there for all to see. Ultimately it should lead to
more secure code, since more eyes are looking ...
> Im really pleased with the dselect command on Debian linux. It goes to the
> offical sites and updates the list of packages, with descriptions. Security
> or "highly recommended" are right at the top. You tag what you want and it
> downloads/installs/configs the apps as much as possible. It even reminds
> you of dependencys on other packages. Very automatic but not overly so. (I
> dont like the idea of the machine going out and doing ALL of this on its
> own)
I need to give debian a try one of these days! I got started with
RedHat and they supported Motif way back then. That was important
to me since I was working with motif at the time. I ported over
my "test application" -> http://www.treeps.org and got started
on the linux learning curve. Coming from Unix programming it was
not very steep. Now I develop on Linux and port back to Solaris
and UnixWare. My app is still stuck with Motif, even though I
can do Gtk and Qt programming. I recently figured out how to
do toolkit independent GUI's so am planning on rewriting that
part(fun stuff)!
Seems to me that each distro ought to have an update agent
that auto/manual downloads updates then lets users auto/manual
install them. I would also like to see a step_back/step_forward
mechanism so that users can try_and_buy, or stay with older
if they want. I suppose other "trusted" delivery services
would also work, but a lot of security features would need
to be built in. It would be nice to be able to subscribe to the
"electrical CAD toolchain" service or the "Musician's recommended tools"
service and then have the best stuff auto delivered/installed.
A lot of people must be duplicating the search/downaload/try/drop
effort! There should be a better way to leverage the expertise.
I suppose that's what distros are for, but they are not
specialized enough.
George MacDonald
>
> I'm willing to guess that you're bound to find a very
> non-representative group of the "Bay Area" computer users, here.
>
> I'm futher willing to guess that, of the few individuals who read
> this newsgroup and who also care enough to post, most use Linux
> in some capacity.
Hmm, good point. But most people probably know people who use
MS Windows because they want/have to.
> Most ordinary consumers don't know what an "operating system"
> really is. They just want to get their work done. They don't
> care. This is true with *all* consumer goods. The masses
> *never* buy the best (however one defines it). Only the
> hobbiests do.
Another excellent point! So they probably won't switch
even if it's better AND cheaper! What would cause them
to switch? Being behind on a trend?
>
> As it stands M$FT has a combination of deep pockets and
> compelling apps for the "ordinary" consumer than Linux has.
> It's not enough to say, "Linux can also read your MSFT
> word documents." Just look at how far that got the Mac.
Do you think M$FT success in the Market is due to lower
cost? It's partnership with IBM? Aggressively pursuing
anyone who could edge them out? Fostering an environment
that would leverage independent software developers?
Courting the X gen, suits, ... Realizing the importance
of being the largest installed base and doing anything
and everything to get there?
Jeffrey Siegal
> I use my Linux system for a lot of A/V stuff:
>
> http://www.orbit2orbit.com/gmd/RedRat/images/latest_large.jpg
That looks pretty interesting. What is that replay stuff?
Jeffrey Siegal
> Hmm, good observation! I suppose shelf space yardage in
> stores is "advertising" ones market dominance.
More than that. Some shelf space is actual advertising. Vendors pay
for shelf space in a lot of stores, particularly premium placements or
large displays.
> One could probably charge $15 dollars for each of them to cover
> the costs of boxing, distributing, ... Of course anyone who
> knows better will just get it off the net, but I suppose sometimes
> it's faster/easier just to pick it up at the store.
Sometimes it is, but the important question is how many people would buy
it, and how much revenue would it genrate at $15 a pop. You have to
generate enough revenue that way to justify the shelf space, or it won't
stay in the store for long.
George MacDonald
ReplayTV is a personal video recorder(PVR) or some people like
to call them Hard Disk Recorders(HDR). They use computer hard
disks to record TV programs, basically making timeshifting
almost effortless. Much easier to use than a VCR. They also
let you pause live TV, do your own instant replays for sports,
skip 30 second intervals for "boring" parts of shows ...
Comes with built in Channel Guide (EPG), ability to record
themes, search for shows via keywords, control your PVR
via the web. New models(4000's) let you share shows across
the internet(requires broadband) or with multiple units
you can stream shows around your house as well.
Let's see, what else. Ah, you can upgrade them with more hard
disk space. Some people have well over 100 hours of storage,
new models go up to 320 hours! Some people have written
programs for PC's so that you can pull shows off and burn
them to CD/DVD, or use your PC as a server! The new models
come with ethernet built in and have a picture slide show
as well!
The above image shows my ReplayTV hooked up to the computer.
I like to watch some shows while browsing the web and listening
to music, I'm a bit of a Multitasker :) Anyhow to control the
ReplayTV I hooked up a serial port IR remote control device.
It lets me send the IR codes to the ReplayTV without going for
it's real remote control. I also control my other A/V components
from the desktop using the same device(RedRat2). I wrote some
tools to do the virtual remote control panels seen in the
above image:
http://www.orbit2orbit.com/gmd/RedRat/index.html
and then wrote a search engine to drive the ReplayTV find
utility:
http://www.orbit2orbit.com/gmd/RedRat/ReplayTV/index.html#ReplayTools
Which makes it easier to find shows to record.
Let's see, ah yes I also control the MP3 player on my Linux
juke box and have one of several custom channel selectors displayed.
Not much really, just blending my A/V and computer systems into one
large supremo media system.
Oh, ReplayTV is owned by SonicBlue, the people who do the Rio
and some other Linux related products(web pads, MP3 servers, ...).
Last year there was some talk of them joining a Linux based PVR
consortium, so maybe newer versions of the Replay will be Linux,
who knows :)
Joe Chung
> Joe Chung wrote:
> > Most ordinary consumers don't know what an "operating system"
> > really is. They just want to get their work done. They don't
> > care. This is true with *all* consumer goods. The masses
> > *never* buy the best (however one defines it). Only the
> > hobbiests do.
>
> Another excellent point! So they probably won't switch
> even if it's better AND cheaper! What would cause them
> to switch? Being behind on a trend?
It would take a concerted effort by a single entity with deep
pockets to unseat Windows. The Linux community is too fragmented
to dominate the consumer market. It doesn't matter if Linux
starts taking the server market away from Windows. Those apps
are not in the same space as users' apps. I've always said that
Sun has more to worry from Linux than Microsoft (for the moment).
> > As it stands M$FT has a combination of deep pockets and
> > compelling apps for the "ordinary" consumer than Linux has.
> > It's not enough to say, "Linux can also read your MSFT
> > word documents." Just look at how far that got the Mac.
>
> Do you think M$FT success in the Market is due to lower
> cost? It's partnership with IBM? Aggressively pursuing
> anyone who could edge them out? Fostering an environment
> that would leverage independent software developers?
> Courting the X gen, suits, ... Realizing the importance
> of being the largest installed base and doing anything
> and everything to get there?
Those are great questions. Are you doing a paper or something? :)
M$FT is now in a great position. The world's most compelling
apps run on Windows, and most of those apps are made by M$FT
itself! How it got here is another dead horse that's been beaten
to death: they were certainly facilitated by IBM in the early
days and luck probably had a lot to do with it too.
But this bears repeating, if it weren't for Office and a handful
of other compelling apps (productivity and leisure tools),
Windows would have no market.
Everything comes together around this. ISV's desire a wide
platform, and M$FT has it, so more apps are designed on this
platform. Some of these apps join the small rank of "compelling
apps". This is a snowball effect that's hard to stop.
These days, email and web surfing have become the most compelling
apps. Unfortunately, M$FT is just in such a position to create
cheap and *easier to launch* alternatives for those apps.
M$FT never have to "innovate." Their dominance in OS allows them
to "bundle" any compelling app that might appear. IE is a
classic example - it was (and some may argue still is) inferior
to Netscape in many ways but M$FT can afford to give it away -
they're sitting on $38 billion in cash and $0 debt, with economy
of scale in their favor, well established channels, and virtually
no material cost to manufacturing and inventory (it's software!).
Most users don't know (to this day) that Netscape made/makes an
alternative to IE. They just know that when they click on the
Big Blue E icon on their desktop, they can surf the Internet!
So if one can create a compelling consumer app that is divorced
from their OS, then one can start to take M$FT's consumer
dominance away.
This is why M$FT answered the Sony PS2 with the XBox, because
they knew that the PS2 has the ability to take all the modern
compelling apps away from the Windows platform: games, internet,
email.
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
>> news:3C8D0E9F...@orbit2orbit.com:
>> > Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> For my own view, redhat has as many exploits for it as any version of
>> windows does. In fact, on any exploit download site those are by far
>> the larger directorys. Rather amazing considering how long operating
>> systems such as mac, solaris, bsd, have been around that they should
>> be so small but the numbers using an OS probably have as much of an
>> affect on the creation of good products for an OS as the creation of
>> evil products toward an OS.
>
> I suppose the disadvantage of the open source model is that all
> yer bugs are there for all to see. Ultimately it should lead to
> more secure code, since more eyes are looking ...
And more eyes looking for new holes. Personally I think RedHat is working
alittle too hard to be Windows. They seem quicker to add new toys than
other Linux, and therefor end up with more holes in every version. Pros and
Cons I guess. As long as there are other linux doing it differenty then I
guess we end up with "to each their own".
>> Im really pleased with the dselect command on Debian linux. It goes
>> to the offical sites and updates the list of packages, with
>> descriptions. Security or "highly recommended" are right at the top.
>> You tag what you want and it downloads/installs/configs the apps as
>> much as possible. It even reminds you of dependencys on other
>> packages. Very automatic but not overly so. (I dont like the idea of
>> the machine going out and doing ALL of this on its own)
>
> Seems to me that each distro ought to have an update agent
> that auto/manual downloads updates then lets users auto/manual
> install them. I would also like to see a step_back/step_forward
> mechanism so that users can try_and_buy, or stay with older
> if they want.
The Debian dselect has that. All of your packages show up in the list
tagged with whether they are installed or not. You can choose it to be
uninstalled and when you hit the menu option it will automatically handle
that. I havent tested that part nearly as well as the install part but I
havent heard there are any problems with it.
I know that the redhat followers are quick to say that redhat is fine if
you just patch it as soon as you install it (actually so do the windows
followers). However Ive seen redhats cracked within 2 hours of being
installed. I have installed Debians and done nothing but run dselect on a
regular basis with no cracks at all for over a year now. Redhat has its
pros also. I think its the closest there is to a desktop linux. I just fly
into battle when someone gives the impression that any OS is going to "win"
the war.
Gandalf Parker
Jeffrey Siegal
> It would take a concerted effort by a single entity with deep
> pockets to unseat Windows.
Not necessarily. Sometimes a market develops where there need not be a
single entity. For example, PCs became a major factor in computing
marketplace, seriously challenging mainframes, in the mid 80s, long
before MS was any kind of powerhouse and before it spent any significant
amount on marketing. At that time, there was no dominant entity; the
single largest PC vendor had 5-10% market share.
In the home (which is about half the PC market, I think) market, you may
be right. It is certainly the case that it is much harder to change
consumer behavior than business behavior, and it is hard to come up with
examples where consumer behavior changes without some deep-pocketed
entity pushing the change. (Maybe someone can think of some, though.)
> I've always said that
> Sun has more to worry from Linux than Microsoft (for the moment).
This appears to be true, but again, it isn't because there is any single
deep-pocketed entity doing it. The threat is coming from development of
a technology and a marketplace that solves the problem more efficiently.
> > Do you think M$FT success in the Market is due to lower
> > cost? It's partnership with IBM? Aggressively pursuing
> > anyone who could edge them out? Fostering an environment
> > that would leverage independent software developers?
> > Courting the X gen, suits, ... Realizing the importance
> > of being the largest installed base and doing anything
> > and everything to get there?
>
> Those are great questions. Are you doing a paper or something? :)
You can find well-researched answers to most of these questions in the
Findings of Fact in the recent antitrust case. Everyone won't
necessarily agree with everything there, but it is at least a carefully
prepared answer.
> M$FT is now in a great position. The world's most compelling
> apps run on Windows, and most of those apps are made by M$FT
> itself!
As discussed in the FoF, the most important apps from the point of view
of market dominance are not the apps made by MS itself, but the
countless apps made by thousands of ISV (as well as compatible hardware
products made by IHVs). This is the so-called "applications barrier to
entry." Most users use Windows, many use office, but virtually all use
their own unique subset of the various third party software and hardware
products. 10000 distinct third party products (and that may be low)
means billions of combinations of *just three* third party products.
If it were just the apps made by MS, someone else could come into the
market and develop a competing platform, including those very apps.
Others have tried that, and it simply doesn't work because you can't
attract third party developers without an installed base, and you can't
get an installed base without third party developers. Now that
Macintosh systems are pretty attractive price-wise, and Apple's product
placement, marketing, manufacturing and distribution skills have
improved a lot, it is the lack of many of these third-party solutions
that is the biggest barrier to Macintosh increasing its market share at
this point. (Office exists on the Macintosh and is cheaper and arguably
better than the Windows version).
George MacDonald
>
> And more eyes looking for new holes. Personally I think RedHat is working
> alittle too hard to be Windows. They seem quicker to add new toys than
> other Linux, and therefor end up with more holes in every version. Pros and
> Cons I guess. As long as there are other linux doing it differenty then I
> guess we end up with "to each their own".
It makes sense to have quite a few linux distros to handle the wide
array of hardware and user needs. As you say, each tuned to it's audience.
It's amazing my web site gets at least 5 attacks per day. All of
them MS software exploits! Somedays that's the most traffic I get!
>
> >> Im really pleased with the dselect command on Debian linux. It goes
> >> to the offical sites and updates the list of packages, with
> >> descriptions. Security or "highly recommended" are right at the top.
> >> You tag what you want and it downloads/installs/configs the apps as
> >> much as possible. It even reminds you of dependencys on other
> >> packages. Very automatic but not overly so. (I dont like the idea of
> >> the machine going out and doing ALL of this on its own)
> >
> > Seems to me that each distro ought to have an update agent
> > that auto/manual downloads updates then lets users auto/manual
> > install them. I would also like to see a step_back/step_forward
> > mechanism so that users can try_and_buy, or stay with older
> > if they want.
>
> The Debian dselect has that. All of your packages show up in the list
> tagged with whether they are installed or not. You can choose it to be
> uninstalled and when you hit the menu option it will automatically handle
> that. I havent tested that part nearly as well as the install part but I
> havent heard there are any problems with it.
Sounds like a significant step in the right direction! RedHat has an
updater mechanism, but didn't do the auto/manual download as a separate
step(last time I checked).
>
> I know that the redhat followers are quick to say that redhat is fine if
> you just patch it as soon as you install it (actually so do the windows
> followers). However Ive seen redhats cracked within 2 hours of being
> installed.
Really! As local exploits or net exploits? I have been following most of
the alerts and it looks like it's pretty safe if you default to the
most secure level when installing a server. I did that then setup
IPtables, clamping down pretty tight. No incoming connections ...
I'm sure if someone put enough effort into they could get in though,
nothing is that secure when you put it on the net.
> I have installed Debians and done nothing but run dselect on a
> regular basis with no cracks at all for over a year now. Redhat has its
> pros also. I think its the closest there is to a desktop linux. I just fly
> into battle when someone gives the impression that any OS is going to "win"
> the war.
Man you sound real down on RH and pro Debian, I was under the impression they
were not that different. Do you go to any of the User Group meetings?
It would be nice to get a serious demo to see what the differences are.
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> I know that the redhat followers are quick to say that redhat is fine
>> if you just patch it as soon as you install it (actually so do the
>> windows followers). However Ive seen redhats cracked within 2 hours
>> of being installed.
> Really! As local exploits or net exploits? I have been following most
> of the alerts and it looks like it's pretty safe if you default to the
> most secure level when installing a server. I did that then setup
> IPtables, clamping down pretty tight. No incoming connections ...
> I'm sure if someone put enough effort into they could get in though,
> nothing is that secure when you put it on the net.
I havent tried the latest version of redhat. These were mostly 6.x
versions. And they were systems where the owners were trying to figure out
how to harden the system after the install. For people who already have an
idea of what to do right after the install then its usually much smoother.
>> I have installed Debians and done nothing but run dselect on a
>> regular basis with no cracks at all for over a year now. Redhat has
>> its pros also. I think its the closest there is to a desktop linux. I
>> just fly into battle when someone gives the impression that any OS is
>> going to "win" the war.
> Man you sound real down on RH and pro Debian, I was under the
> impression they were not that different. Do you go to any of the User
> Group meetings? It would be nice to get a serious demo to see what the
> differences are.
Im not totally down on RH. I even recommend it sometimes. Mostly for those
who wish to learn about security =) But the same level of knowledge does
tend to make Debian stay up better.
I know of one that is still the out-of-the-box install. No ipchains, telnet
on, standard sendmail/ftp/inetd/bind just as it came in the package. Any
changes were pretty much just things done by dselect. It was basically
setup as a honeypot project but we figured out that Debian is no good for
honeypots. Granted, this may be because debian isnt getting alot of use.
Less targets, less interest in exploits, less exploits available. I get
lots of scans, but no follow-thrus.
Gandalf Parker
Jeffrey Siegal
> I havent tried the latest version of redhat. These were mostly 6.x
> versions. And they were systems where the owners were trying to figure out
> how to harden the system after the install. For people who already have an
> idea of what to do right after the install then its usually much smoother.
6.x was a disaster security-wise, because it exposed numerous services
to the net by default. That is no longer the case.
> I know of one that is still the out-of-the-box install. No ipchains, telnet
> on, standard sendmail/ftp/inetd/bind just as it came in the package.
When was this installed? Several of those packages have known
vulnerabilities that certainly existed in the Debian versions at one
point.
Joe Chung
> Joe Chung wrote:
> > M$FT is now in a great position. The world's most compelling
> > apps run on Windows, and most of those apps are made by M$FT
> > itself!
>
> As discussed in the FoF, the most important apps from the point of view
> of market dominance are not the apps made by MS itself, but the
> countless apps made by thousands of ISV (as well as compatible hardware
> products made by IHVs). This is the so-called "applications barrier to
> entry." Most users use Windows, many use office, but virtually all use
> their own unique subset of the various third party software and hardware
> products. 10000 distinct third party products (and that may be low)
> means billions of combinations of *just three* third party products.
>
I agree with you about the "applications barrier to entry," but,
everyone uses an internet browser and an email client these days.
That's my point about the compelling app. It doesn't matter what
else you have, it's pretty hard to live without them.
Since one can't convince ten thousand ISV's to support a brand
new platform all at once, the best way is to introduce a platform
that has all the compelling apps divorced from Windows, and back
that up with the lots of $$$ for establishing the market and
channels.
> If it were just the apps made by MS, someone else could come into the
> market and develop a competing platform, including those very apps.
M$FT is already in a well entrenched position. No one can
compete on any level playing field with them.
If I make joe-office XP that runs on joe-linux, and give it away.
Who would use it? I don't have the well established channels to
push this into people's homes.
> Others have tried that, and it simply doesn't work because you can't
> attract third party developers without an installed base, and you can't
> get an installed base without third party developers. Now that
> Macintosh systems are pretty attractive price-wise, and Apple's product
> placement, marketing, manufacturing and distribution skills have
> improved a lot, it is the lack of many of these third-party solutions
> that is the biggest barrier to Macintosh increasing its market share at
> this point. (Office exists on the Macintosh and is cheaper and arguably
> better than the Windows version).
Again, my whole pov here concerns only the consumer PC market.
I still think the Mac is not attractive price-wise enough.
And it's too little, too late.
Even if Mac had the software to match the PC's one-to-one, the
PC's would still win the consumer's mind-share. Just imitating
the well-established leader is not enough in the consumer market.
Look at Coke vs. Pepsi. McDonald vs Burger King.
Jeffrey Siegal
> I agree with you about the "applications barrier to entry," but,
> everyone uses an internet browser and an email client these days.
> That's my point about the compelling app. It doesn't matter what
> else you have, it's pretty hard to live without them.
And every platform has an internet browser and an email client. It
doesn't particularly help such platforms compete with MS. It is not the
browser, email client, or even "office suite" that makes the difference
-- it is the 10,000 other products.
> Since one can't convince ten thousand ISV's to support a brand
> new platform all at once, the best way is to introduce a platform
> that has all the compelling apps divorced from Windows, and back
> that up with the lots of $$$ for establishing the market and
> channels.
Since one can't convince ten thousand ISVs to support a brand new
platform all at once, one simply can not compete with MS, until and
unless there is a sufficient technological shift that changes the rules
of the game (as in PCs being able to take on mainframes, not by
competing with IBM head-to-head, but by doing some of the same things --
and many new things -- in very different ways).
> > If it were just the apps made by MS, someone else could come into the
> > market and develop a competing platform, including those very apps.
>
> M$FT is already in a well entrenched position. No one can
> compete on any level playing field with them.
Agreed.
> If I make joe-office XP that runs on joe-linux, and give it away.
> Who would use it? I don't have the well established channels to
> push this into people's homes.
Homes, maybe not. As I said, I am as skeptical about being able to
unseat MS from homes as I am about trying to unseat Coke or Tide or any
other consumer preference. Businesses, however, may well be a different
story. If you can offer something that does what they need done at
lower cost, they will often flock to it without the need for any great
push, as has been the case with Linux and servers.
> Even if Mac had the software to match the PC's one-to-one, the
> PC's would still win the consumer's mind-share. Just imitating
> the well-established leader is not enough in the consumer market.
Probably nothing is enough in the consumer market, period. Consumers
just don't change, at least not over a short period of time. It takes
generations, which is why advertisers of products that depend on brand
loyalty only target young customers. They've given up on changing
anyone's mind and decided instead to fight the battle for those of the
next generation who haven't made up their minds yet.
> Look at Coke vs. Pepsi. McDonald vs Burger King.
Not sure what the point is, as these four are all very successful.
Sure, Coke is somewhat more successful than Pepsi, I guess, but I
wouldn't mind being Pepsi. Would you?
Gandalf Parker
news:3C8D9C1B...@quiotix.com:
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>> I havent tried the latest version of redhat. These were mostly 6.x
>> versions. And they were systems where the owners were trying to
>> figure out how to harden the system after the install. For people who
>> already have an idea of what to do right after the install then its
>> usually much smoother.
> 6.x was a disaster security-wise, because it exposed numerous services
> to the net by default. That is no longer the case.
I admit that Ive seen far less exloits being touted for 7.x than for 6.x
but it does seem as though the drive-by scanners are still searching for
RedHat and Windows. Maybe they are looking for 6.x redhats still waiting
for newbie owners who are still trying to figure out what to do with them.
>> I know of one that is still the out-of-the-box install. No ipchains,
>> telnet on, standard sendmail/ftp/inetd/bind just as it came in the
>> package.
> When was this installed? Several of those packages have known
> vulnerabilities that certainly existed in the Debian versions at one
> point.
Looks like it was June 19, 2001 and the version is Potatoe which is now a
couple of versions old. Of course Im not saying that its unpatched.
Running dselect on a regular basis does keep whatever is loaded patched to
the latest versions. Its just that in my experience this has seemed to be
the easiest to maintain of any linux. All of the services have run great
with no config changes at all except what I wanted to play around with.
Now if they could jsut make the initial install easier. For that you do
need to understand more about partitions, and network IP assignments, and
bootup, than you do installing redhat. And Debian isnt as quick with new
toys, drivers, librarys, languages, as RedHat is. This is why, in my humble
opinion, redhat is one of the better choices for desktop of someone who
wants to learn linux. And debian is one of the better choices for linux
server. None are best, they only have their pros and cons.
Gandalf Parker
Jeffrey Siegal
>>6.x was a disaster security-wise, because it exposed numerous services
>>to the net by default. That is no longer the case.
>
> I admit that Ive seen far less exloits being touted for 7.x than for 6.x
> but it does seem as though the drive-by scanners are still searching for
> RedHat and Windows. Maybe they are looking for 6.x redhats still waiting
> for newbie owners who are still trying to figure out what to do with them.
Perhaps. There are probably still a lot of vulnerable (not to mention
already compromised) 6.x systems out there. Nevertheless, 7.x can
certainly still be vunerable if vulnerable services get turned on; it
just doesn't come that way out of the box.
>>When was this installed? Several of those packages have known
>>vulnerabilities that certainly existed in the Debian versions at one
>>point.
>
> Looks like it was June 19, 2001 and the version is Potatoe which is now a
> couple of versions old. Of course Im not saying that its unpatched.
> Running dselect on a regular basis does keep whatever is loaded patched to
> the latest versions.
Ah, that's different. When you said "out of the box", I misunderstood
that to mean an old version that had not been patched.
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
>>>When was this installed? Several of those packages have known
>>>vulnerabilities that certainly existed in the Debian versions at one
>>>point.
>> Looks like it was June 19, 2001 and the version is Potatoe which is
>> now a couple of versions old. Of course Im not saying that its
>> unpatched. Running dselect on a regular basis does keep whatever is
>> loaded patched to the latest versions.
>
> Ah, that's different. When you said "out of the box", I misunderstood
> that to mean an old version that had not been patched.
Yes sorry. I dont think any OS can be installed and simply neglected
safely. Maybe when the new version of linux from the NSA (National Security
Agency) is released. There are a few mini-versions of linux which are
supposed to be for non-maintained systems such as a site which takes
readings, or a remote web-cam, but they have no toys so arent really
goodfor personal use.
When I said out-of-the-box I meant that there were no "hardening
procedures" implemented such as I have seen for other releases. A long list
of "replace this program with this other one" and "turn off this list of
services" and "add this security feature". Some unix people are so
surprised when they hear of all of the things I never bothered to turn off
or turn on with these systems. But then on the other hand since I do alot
of forensics on cracked systems Ive come to be rather uncaring for many of
the more extreme security measures anyway.
Gandalf Parker
>
>
Jim Bianchi
wrote:
>George MacDonald <g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote in
>news:3C8C06A4...@orbit2orbit.com:
>
>> I am wondering how popular Linux is in the Bay Area. Do you
>> use Linux? Why? Whenever I talk to "ordinary" consumers
>> they all use MS Windows. When I ask them why, they say
>> they "have to". Is Linux only for geeks and programmers?
>
>Most windows users I know should not be on windows but thats just my
>opinion. (they would be happier on Macs)
>
>As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most peoples
>desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet server
>world.
Ahh, Gandalf, I'd say just the opposite is true. MS Windows is
making a big headway into the internet server world. Heckfire, sonic started
with a server/shell box running RH Linux and still uses Linux in (at least)
the shell. Most Linux distros already have everything one needs to set up a
server. I'm not sure, but I don't think everyone who buys a Windows o/s can
just set up their system as a server without buying something else. In any
case, aside from the minimal cost of media, Linux is free, whereas Windows
is not.
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)
Gandalf Parker
news:slrna94rqi...@newbolt.sonic.net:
>>As for Linux I dont personally feel that it would work for most
>>peoples desktop machine but its making a big headway into the internet
>>server world.
> Ahh, Gandalf, I'd say just the opposite is true. MS Windows is
> making a big headway into the internet server world. Heckfire, sonic
> started with a server/shell box running RH Linux and still uses Linux
> in (at least) the shell. Most Linux distros already have everything
> one needs to set up a server. I'm not sure, but I don't think everyone
> who buys a Windows o/s can just set up their system as a server
> without buying something else. In any case, aside from the minimal
> cost of media, Linux is free, whereas Windows is not.
Im alittle confused. You start out seeming to disagree then you give
reasons which almost seem to support my statement.
Windows servers are good for dedicated machines. Linux has an edge for
doing many services for many users. Most ISPs that I know of start on a
unix or linux server, then a few of them, then start adding Windows servers
as they get large enough to put each job on its own machine.
Having DNS on a windows server has advantages. Having smtp on a windows
server, or having pop on a windows server, or backups, or authentication,
or logging, even web or ftp I guess. Definetly an advantage for admining.
But I sure wouldnt want to have all of them on a windows server and have it
handling thousands of users.
Then you have the ISPs which get yet larger still, and start shifting back
toward unix for even larger dedicted machines.
The numbers of inroads for either operating system tends to depend alot on
the parameters you choose as acceptable criteria.
Gandalf Parker
George MacDonald
Do you think Linux users would buy a "guard dog" type service/package that
monitors security issues for them and recommends/implements
appropriate changes?
Gandalf Parker
> Gandalf Parker wrote:
> Do you think Linux users would buy a "guard dog" type service/package
> that monitors security issues for them and recommends/implements
> appropriate changes?
As a "hacker" (in the old sense, not the new movie-media criminal image) I
really hate to say that yes its probably coming time that such a product
would sell on the shelves at the local computer stores. Its probably just
barely entering that stage. Up to recently Linux was being used almost
entirely by people who wnated to learn it. Lately its more people who want
to use it, without learning more than they have to.
I prefer doing my own forensics and writing my own watchdog programs (thats
what Ive always called them, really its true). But there is also some truth
in the fact that some people will trust purchased software more than free
software.
Come to think of it, "guard dog" might be a good comparison. I would prefer
to train my own dogs. And doing it that way is usually recommended. However
there definetly is a market for people who would rather purchase pre-
trained guard dogs.
Gandalf Parker
Jeffrey Siegal
> Do you think Linux users would buy a "guard dog" type service/package that
> monitors security issues for them and recommends/implements
> appropriate changes?
Some would. Some have.
Paracelsus
<g...@orbit2orbit.com> wrote:
> I am wondering how popular Linux is in the Bay Area. Do you use Linux?
> Why? Whenever I talk to "ordinary" consumers they all use MS Windows.
> When I ask them why, they say they "have to". Is Linux only for geeks
> and programmers?
No and yes!
Linux is,
1. Free
2. Stable
3. Has thousands of applications for it (most free)
4. Runs on any hardware
5. Is supported by millions of enthusiasts worlwide
6. Available in (almost) all languages
7. Distributions for every perpose.
8. Great graphical user interfaces available
9. Classes available at most adult education facilities
10. The Mac haters only non Windblows choice
Jym Dyer
> Windows. When I ask them why, they say they "have to".
=v= Mostly they "have to" because of brain-dead company
policies, such as a requirement that everything be Word
documents and Excel files. Or that all employees must use
MS Outlook Express. (Companies with this last requirement
have a lot of downtime whenever a new virus comes along.)
=v= At many businesses, though, people install Linux even
though it's forbidden. There's even some add-ons that
make it look as if the machine's still running Windows,
for whenever the boss walks by.
<_Jym_>