Please help generate EDA tools for Linux
Chris Carlen
I will enclose a copy of a recent email I sent to Newbury Tech. the
makers of the Simetrix circuit simulator, http://www.newburytech.co.uk .
I am trying to suggest to various simulator vendors that there is a
growing market on the horizon for Linux EDA tools, hoping they will
begin to port their simulators to Linux.
If anyone else cares about having a choice about what OS you run your
software on, or prefer Linux, or for whatever reason you see this as a
good idea, please quote or paraphrase my email (and change whatever
sections might not be suitable for your situation) and send your own
copy to a few tool vendors. Or write your own email from scratch if you
wish.
Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
you don't care so much for your own sake about this
political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
version to have that software become available someday soon. I'm not
asking that you help to convert the software world to Linux, I'm only
asking that you consider helping to make more *choices* available for
those of us who want an alternative to Microsoft, and for those who
might be able to do better business with a less expensive and better
performing platform.
My email to Newbury:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Newbury Technology:
Linux is taking over the IT server world. The signs are also piling up
that Linux as a desktop platform will soon evolve into a sustainable
market share as well.
It is likely that scientific and engineering applications will wind up
being proportioned more heavily toward Linux than office type
applications. This is logical since these applcations coupled with
superior OS features of Linux for scientific and engineering type
demands add up to better performance, which will ultimately make people
realize that running their EDA tools on Linux will produce more results
in less time and for less $$$.
Thus, it would be very wise for your organization to get your EDA tools
ported to Linux. There are perhaps wide open opportunities waiting to
be exploited by partnering with other tool vendors, such as Cadsoft, for
example, to create mid-range integrated EDA tool sets for the Linux
platform.
The future is soon to be the present, and the future is Linux! The
simulator vendor that releases first for the Linux platform will gain a
head start that will benefit their market share for a long time to come,
in the coming Linux market.
Why do I email you, you wonder? Because I am a potential customer! I
have emailed you several times in the past from my work location at [XYZ
Corporation], asking you when a Linux port of Simetrix will be made
available. You might be interested to know that I send the same type of
emails to your competitors! The first one of you EDA tool makers of the
circuit simulation variety to produce a mid-range and respectable
circuit simulator package for Linux, I will be one of the first
purchasers! And I'll probably stick with that package after that if it
works well, because you know there is much inertia in software usage
among users.
It is up to you to become my vendor! I will do everything I need to do
to avoid purchasing a circuit simulator until I can get one that runs on
Linux. I will use your demo version, I will use the demo versions of
your competitors, I will use the painful command line SPICE 3f4 for
Linux, I will model my circuits by hand and solve the differential
equations in a generic math package that runs on Linux. Yes, it means
that much to me to do my work solely on Linux.
I understand that it doesn't mean that much to some others, but let me
tell you this additional fact: I am in a position professionally to
influence the EDA tool buying decisions of a number of other engineers
and technologists, and possibly to establish standard tool choices for
site licensing at large R&D facilities. I have been responsible for
generating quite a few customers for Cadsoft, because their PCB package
runs on Linux, even though some of the other users choose to run their
Cadsoft software on Windows.
I will try to do the same for Newbury and Simetrix if you port to Linux!
I await your response.
Thank you for your consideration.
Good day!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all folks! Thank you for your consideration of this idea.
--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
cr...@earthlink.net
Suse 7.3 Linux 2.4.10
Ilija Kovacevic
requests then I will do it. see www.autotraxEDA.com
Regards
Ilija
il...@kov.com
"Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
Geraldo Sazias
What we need now are more and better Open Source / Free EDA tools.
"Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
Kevin Aylward
news:rh5b9.159$yQ....@castor.casema.net...
> Eagle from Cadsoft (www.cadsoft.de) is already available for Linux!!
>
> What we need now are more and better Open Source / Free EDA tools.
I'm sure you do. It certainly is in your best interest for you to
personally get everything that you desire for free. This is of course
nothing more then a manifestation of the selfish gene. Unfortunately the
world don't work like that. Why you believe that people should spend
years writing 100,000's line of code for no benefit to themselves but
purely to benefit yourself, is beyond me.
Kevin Aylward
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Christopher R. Carlen
> "Geraldo Sazias" <re...@in.newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:rh5b9.159$yQ....@castor.casema.net...
>
>>Eagle from Cadsoft (www.cadsoft.de) is already available for Linux!!
>>
>>What we need now are more and better Open Source / Free EDA tools.
>
>
> I'm sure you do. It certainly is in your best interest for you to
> personally get everything that you desire for free. This is of course
> nothing more then a manifestation of the selfish gene. Unfortunately the
> world don't work like that. Why you believe that people should spend
> years writing 100,000's line of code for no benefit to themselves but
> purely to benefit yourself, is beyond me.
They don't so it purely to benefit Geraldo, they do it to benefit
everyone, including themselves. There are other forms of "benefit"
besides profit, you know. Or perhaps you don't, which isn't uncommon
these days.
As to why one would "believe that people ... [would] spend years writing
100,000's line of code for ... [some] benefit to themselves ... [and]
... to benefit ... [everyone]:"
Perhaps because there are many good examples of free software around.
In fact, one estimate put the value of the Debian Linux distribution at
$1.5 billion worth of coding man-hours. Most of that was done for free,
and some of it was originally done for profit, but when the function
that the code implemented became a commodity or was otherwise in the
business interest of the coder to release it publically (such as to
promote open standards so that everyone can compete on *implementing*
the standard rather than on the standard itself), they did so.
I agree it is a manifestation of the selfish "gene" that someone might
expect others to provide them with free software. The key word here is
"expect".
However, it is not selfish to *believe* that people would do such a
thing, particularly in the face of massive examples of such unselfish
contributions of many individuals to the public software pool.
It is however clearly a manifestation of the selfish gene for one to be
unable to see how another might be motivated to code for free, and
donate that product to the greater good. And so it is simply because of
the selfishness of the greedy capitalist type folks that a society in
which people contribute to the benefit of society instead of solely for
their own gratification, is out of reach. The very people who reject
the plausibility of such a society are one of the main reasons for its
implausibility.
Note that I'm not saying that "greedy capitalist type folks" are
*wrong*, I'm just saying it is selfish to be greedy, and capitalism is
partly based on greed. I accept fully that elements of this selfishness
are present in myself as a human being, no big deal.
Not that I'm advocating any particular economic or social ideology here,
because from what I've seen so far, none of the extant ideologies
succeeds in implementing the ideas expressed here without destructive
inconsistencies. Nor do I assert to be certain that any unselfish
ideology will ever be possible, without destructive inconsistencies. Of
course captalist society has plentiful inconsistencies itself. But I'm
not concerned about that. Rather, my point is simply that it is true
that there are some (quite a bunch, actually) people who are willing to
work for the greater good, and perhaps not exclusively or to the
detriment of their own welfare, but they are willing to make generous
contributions. In addition, there is ample evidence to support this,
one category being that of abundant free software. Finally, it is
selfishness that makes one unable to see that this is so. And perhaps
lunacy as well in the face of the example of Linux and much of the free
software that runs on it.
Finally, while I think it would be nice to have good free EDA tools,
that is not my expectation. Rather, I expect to pay for them because
EDA tools are quite a specialized sort of thing, and so not being a
natural commodity they can't reasonably be expected to be made available
for free.
I just wish to pay for them when they run on Linux, because then by not
purchasing software that runs on Windows, I will be detracting from the
profitability of software development for Windows, and contributing to
the profitability of developing for Linux. If enough people would do
that, then the Windows monopoly might be cut down to a non-monopoly, and
other software vendors that produce all kinds of software could compete
more effectively. If one accepts that substantial damage has been done
to the progress of software technology as well as to the economy by the
Microsoft monopoly (not an unreasonable thing to accept, considering
that this must have been at the root of the enactment of laws against
anti-competitive behavior on the part of monopolists, the law which
Microsoft has been convicted of violating and has yet to be punished or
to repent), then to boycott both Microsoft software as well as
non-Microsoft software that is developed for Windows only, is an act
that contributes to the potential return of competitiveness and
innovation to the software industry. Such a boycott might incur
inconveniences and sacrifices however, so Kevin, this might be another
example of how people can be "selfish gene repressed" and willing to
incur costs to themselves for the benefit of society as a whole.
Good day!
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crc...@sandia.gov
Kevin Aylward
news:3D6D40DB...@sandia.gov...
Well, this is quite a mouthful, so I am not going to address all the
details. I agree, that the selfish gene theory fully supports doing
apparent good for society as a whole, but this is only because of the
potential net benefit to the selfish individual, not the society.
Essentially all models of evolution that characterise the replication of
the group as fundamental over the individual fails. There is no escaping
that we are all *absolutely* selfish, no matter how one tries to deny
the fact. You have consciousness. You are only truly aware of yourself.
Seeing another's point of view is an attempt to look out for yourself.
Microsoft are the classic example that occurs when one gets so powerful
you don't have to worry about the consequences of your actions. Its only
the consequences of what you do that limits one's selfishness. However,
limiting ones selfishness is in itself, still selfish. It is only done
because being too selfish will harm you. e.g. no one will help you at
all.
Frank Bemelman
news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
> Hi Folks:
[snip]
> Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
> liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
> you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
> consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
[snip]
--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)
Eric Bohlman
> They don't so it purely to benefit Geraldo, they do it to benefit
> everyone, including themselves. There are other forms of "benefit"
> besides profit, you know. Or perhaps you don't, which isn't uncommon
> these days.
In particular, self-interest does not automatically imply zero-sum
competition. You can also have exponential-sum quantities, where the more
others have of something, the more you benefit (connectivity to a
communications network is a classic example; being the only kid on the
block to have a phone makes that phone less valuable to you).
If I write, say, a compiler for myself because I need it, I don't
necessarily have an incentive to make it the best compiler possible; I'll
write something that's "good enough" for my needs. But if I then make it
freely available, someone else who has slightly different needs will modify
it to meet those as well. And then guess what, I take on a new project
that gives me new needs, and now there's a good chance that I'll find
someone has already developed what was originally my compiler so that it
meets them. By letting other people benefit from the time I put in, I get
to benefit from the time they put in. Simple reciprocity. Of course, this
only works for a limited class of software, namely the kinds of programs
where there's a substantial overlap between producers and consumers. There
have to be other (perhaps purely philosophical) motivations for producing
free software when there's no expectation of getting anything back from its
users.
And, BTW, there are definitely circumstances where you can charge to write,
not just support, free software. In those cases, what the customer is
paying for is not for you to write the software; it's for you to write the
software *now*, rather than whenever you feel like it, and the way they
want it, rather than what meets your personal tastes. Time is money, after
all.
Note that I'm not a free software fanatic; there are circumstances in which
I definitely will retain complete control of the software I write. But I
just wanted to point out some reasons why non-fanatics would release at
least some free software.
Would reciprocity work for CAD software? I'm not sure it would for actual
program code, but it might very well work for part libraries and the like,
and having someone else do the tedious work of keying in specs from
datasheets might well be enough "payment" for the more interesting work of
developing the algorithms.
Al Davis
> I'm sure you do. It certainly is in your best interest for you to
> personally get everything that you desire for free. This is of course
> nothing more then a manifestation of the selfish gene. Unfortunately the
> world don't work like that. Why you believe that people should spend
> years writing 100,000's line of code for no benefit to themselves but
> purely to benefit yourself, is beyond me.
One very flagrant manifestation of the selfish gene is
those who make propriatary derivatives of free software, without giving
anything back. This is why the BSD license has fallen into disfavor
among developers.
Most good free software is funded somehow. There are a variety of ways
this happens. Most of it is also part of a community effort. We make it,
and get our return in the form of other free software.
So, to those who want it, I invite you to participate in its development
in some way. There are many ways to contribute, not all cash, not all code.
Contributions of money often really go to student scolarships,
work-study programs, graduate student stipends, and the like.
Contributions of code directly contribute to enhancing the software
you want, it a way you want it. Contributions of documentation,
tutorials, and libraries help in the same way.
Getting involved in an open source project can also be an incredible
learning experience. This experience may not be available to you any
other way, yet it can be as rich as the best graduate schools, without
the pressure or the stiff admission requirements.
Kevin Aylward
"Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9278B23F17D4E...@207.217.77.23...
Not necessarily. It could be a simple mistake. Evolution, as you note
here, actually demands helping others in a limited sense, i.e when there
is a possibility of payback. However, there is no guarantee that in any
particular case that there will be a payback. Without being able to
predict the future, one must therefore take a probabilistic course of
action. Manipulating peoples "good will" program is done all the time,
e.g. Jerry Fawell type evangelists.
Geraldo Sazias
"Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uD5b9.467$Se2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> news:rh5b9.159$yQ....@castor.casema.net...
> > Eagle from Cadsoft (www.cadsoft.de) is already available for Linux!!
> >
> > What we need now are more and better Open Source / Free EDA tools.
>
> I'm sure you do. It certainly is in your best interest for you to
> personally get everything that you desire for free. This is of course
> nothing more then a manifestation of the selfish gene. Unfortunately the
> world don't work like that. Why you believe that people should spend
> years writing 100,000's line of code for no benefit to themselves but
> purely to benefit yourself, is beyond me.
>
Well, you could ask the same question about many other Open Source project
such as Linux, all the GNU tools, dozens of libraries and thousands of
applications. People do this for the general good for mankind. There's a
proven added value in providing the source code and letting people modify it
for their own use.
I guess it's because I'm fed up with there being dozens of CAE packages on
the market which are all incompatible. It seems that CAE is one of the last
bastions of 'vendor lock-in' on the ISV market and the prices are high to
very high for most products. I would like to see this last bastion broken up
by free and high-quality, compatible Open Source projects.
Geraldo Sazias
I would be more than happy if vendors decided on a single XML data format;
but I can't seem to persuade them to adopt this. I'm fed up with all the
incompatible data formats out there. Hell, I don't even mind paying for a
CAE package, as long as there isn't any vendor lock-in and I can mix and
match applications at will.
They're too stuck in this 'vendor lock-in' mode to be able to change their
habits. I guess someone will have to come up with a free OSS CAE package to
force them to adopt a universal data format. But if the OSS package is any
good, it may be too late for them, since most people will use the free SW
package if they are able.
Geraldo Sazias
"Frank Bemelman" <beme...@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote in message
news:3d6d27cf$0$21852$1b62...@news.euronet.nl...
> "Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
> news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
> > Hi Folks:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
> > liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
> > you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> > political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
> > consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
>
> I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
>
??? Settled a long time ago? And what was the outcome? I'm adamant in my
belief that Linux will eventually take over the desktop crown from Windows,
probably within 5 years. It's inevitable, in my opinion. The cost savings
(not to mention the advantages of having the source code) are simply too
great to be ignored. <End of sermon>
David Brown
>
> > Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
> > liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
> > you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> > political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
> > consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
>
> I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
>
> [snip]
>
While it seems unreasonable to ask someone to "help those of us who want a
Linux" when they don't care about the issue, I think anyone involved in
making or selling EDA tools would be foolish and blind to ignore Linux.
That's not to say they should necessarily make Linux versions of their tools
at the moment - there are many issues involved. Consider the following
points:
1) Contrary to the ramblings of a few pessimists who have given up all hopes
of moving to something better than Windows, Linux is on the steady increase
on desktops and workstations. It is already a major player in server
systems.
2) Many high-end EDA tools are available in versions for Windows and for a
number of Unix flavours (from Sun, IBM, HP, etc.). Porting these to Linux
should be a relatively simple job (certainly as compared to porting the unix
programs to Windows).
3) There are not many high-end EDA tools available for Linux - vendors who
port early are going to get new converts.
4) If these newsgroups are any indicator, then the demand is there.
Requests for Linux tools comes second only to requests for Protel cracks in
popularity.
5) Linux is making great impact for computing farms in applications like
animation rendering - front-end programs run on various systems (Linux,
Windows or Macs), while the back-end work is done on a Linux cluster
rendering farm. I don't know if high-end EDA tools can work like that, but
I could well imagine a design company having several designers doing most of
the work on their own workstations, while long jobs such as autorouting are
handled on a shared Linux cluster.
Nico Coesel
>"Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
>news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
>> Hi Folks:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
>> liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
>> you don't care so much for your own sake about this
>> political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
>> consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
>
>I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
>and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
>The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
????
Why should the Linux version be free? BTW, there are many companies in
Europe using or moving to Linux for server and desktop applications.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bas Arts
> > and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> > The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
> >
>
> ??? Settled a long time ago? And what was the outcome? I'm adamant in my
> belief that Linux will eventually take over the desktop crown from Windows,
> probably within 5 years. It's inevitable, in my opinion. The cost savings
> (not to mention the advantages of having the source code) are simply too
> great to be ignored. <End of sermon>
Although I'm a big advocate of everything in relation to open source, free
software etc. (I'm Dutch! Come on! :)) ), I think for some application
areas, open source software is not the solution. And one of them is EDA
software. First of all, a lot of EDA tool users (the majority, I guess) don't
want to be bothered with software details of their tools. They just want them
to work, and to do what they should do. Next to that, a lot of EDA engineers
simply are no software developers. Furthermore, EDA is a very specific
application area, so the open source software developers that are available,
will problably use their precious time to develop and enhance software that is
useful to a lot more users than EDA users only.
There is one other thing. In my experience, most EDA users already use
Unix/Linux/Sun EDA tools that include license mechanisms. For heavy packages
that have a fairly small audience, it is not possible to develop them for
free.
In other words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a windows-linux
battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its leading
position. Simply because 95% of the computer users is not capable of dealing
with another os; furthermore, 90% has never heard of anything else. For
embedded os-ses, linux is booming. I'm not an expert in that area, but I know
there are a lot of articles about it.
--
greetz, |\_____---_____
Bas |/ (__|||__)
"""
Svenn Are Bjerkem
before you choke on idealism vs. capitalism here, read
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
for a definition on what most oldies on the internet understand with
the word 'free' in conjunction with the word 'software'. 'Free
I guess some of you would rather use words like 'freeware' 'public
domain' instead of 'free software', but reading
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
may make you more aware on differences.
By the way, http://geda.seul.ord is a decent try to make a free eda
for linux. The effort is serious and you may stick some support to
that one instead of reinventing wheels.
Svenn
Geraldo Sazias
"Bas Arts" <Bas.Arts_no_@_spam_philips.com> wrote in message
news:w9g8z2q...@natlab.research.philips.com...
First of all, many EDA engineers are (or at least should be) competent
computer programmers as well, as almost everything uses MCU's and software
these days.
Second, the same could be argued for many OSS Linux programs such as
graphics programs, accounting programs etc etc. yet they are all Open Source
and free.
>
> There is one other thing. In my experience, most EDA users already use
> Unix/Linux/Sun EDA tools that include license mechanisms. For heavy
packages
> that have a fairly small audience, it is not possible to develop them for
> free.
>
> In other words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a windows-linux
> battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its leading
> position. Simply because 95% of the computer users is not capable of
dealing
> with another os; furthermore, 90% has never heard of anything else.
First of all, computer usage isn't dicated by the users, it's dicated by the
corporate IT department. If companies start using desktop Linux, people will
have to adopt whether they like it or not. And as I said before, there's
simply too much saving which can be wrought from Linux to be ignored.
Logical conclusion ==> Linux will win out!
> For embedded os-ses, linux is booming. I'm not an expert in that area, but
I know
> there are a lot of articles about it.
Probably. I personally don't think Linux is all that good for embedded
stuff, but I could be wrong (would someone care to set me straight on
this?). I myself prefer a more lightweight RTOS such as eCos, which is also
OSS and free.
Bas Arts
> computer programmers as well, as almost everything uses MCU's and software
> these days.
I doubt that many EDA engineers are competent computer programmers. Beside
that, they don't have time to change the tools they use.
> Second, the same could be argued for many OSS Linux programs such as
> graphics programs, accounting programs etc etc. yet they are all Open Source
> and free.
Because those programs have a large audience, at least, larger than EDA
software.
> > In other words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a windows-linux
> > battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its leading
> > position. Simply because 95% of the computer users is not capable of
> dealing
> > with another os; furthermore, 90% has never heard of anything else.
>
> First of all, computer usage isn't dicated by the users, it's dicated by the
> corporate IT department. If companies start using desktop Linux, people will
> have to adopt whether they like it or not. And as I said before, there's
> simply too much saving which can be wrought from Linux to be ignored.
> Logical conclusion ==> Linux will win out!
I meant 95% of all home users, the vast majority of desktop users. They will
keep Micro$oft up and running.
Geraldo Sazias
"Bas Arts" <Bas.Arts_no_@_spam_philips.com> wrote in message
news:w9g8z2q...@natlab.research.philips.com...
> > computer programmers as well, as almost everything uses MCU's and
software
> > these days.
>
> I doubt that many EDA engineers are competent computer programmers. Beside
> that, they don't have time to change the tools they use.
Most electronics engineers these days are competent computer programmers as
most new designs involve either DSP or MCU's. People that specialize in PCB
layout probably aren't, though.
>
> > Second, the same could be argued for many OSS Linux programs such as
> > graphics programs, accounting programs etc etc. yet they are all Open
Source
> > and free.
>
> Because those programs have a large audience, at least, larger than EDA
> software.
Yeah right. With dozens of CAE software vendors selling hundreds of
thousands (if not millions) of packages I think that's way of the mark. All
these CAE ISV's have to earn their living, you know. I think the audience is
more than big enough to warrant an Open Source CAE package. GEDA sucks, but
something better will crop up (I hope).
>
> > > In other words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a
windows-linux
> > > battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its
leading
> > > position. Simply because 95% of the computer users is not capable of
> > dealing
> > > with another os; furthermore, 90% has never heard of anything else.
> >
> > First of all, computer usage isn't dicated by the users, it's dicated by
the
> > corporate IT department. If companies start using desktop Linux, people
will
> > have to adopt whether they like it or not. And as I said before, there's
> > simply too much saving which can be wrought from Linux to be ignored.
> > Logical conclusion ==> Linux will win out!
>
> I meant 95% of all home users, the vast majority of desktop users. They
will
> keep Micro$oft up and running.
Like I said: home use is dictated by corporate use. If corporations start
using Brand X Desktop Linux, home users will, sooner or later, make the
switch. Yes, initially Desktop Linux will only sprawl up in corporations
(who's IT dept. has mandated the use of Desktop Linux because it's so much
cheaper) and the home will, in the end, be M$ last bastion.
John Devereux
>Well, this is quite a mouthful, so I am not going to address all the
>details. I agree, that the selfish gene theory fully supports doing
>apparent good for society as a whole, but this is only because of the
>potential net benefit to the selfish individual, not the society.
You have said this sort of thing a lot... I think you are
missing the point that it is the benefit of the *gene*, not
the *person* that is important. Since we share many of our
genes with others, it is this that "explains" altruistic
behavior towards them. It also explains why we are more
altruistic towards family members than non-family, since
they are much more likely to share copies of the same
gene,(and towards members of our community than residents in
distant lands).
>Essentially all models of evolution that characterise the replication of
>the group as fundamental over the individual fails. There is no escaping
>that we are all *absolutely* selfish, no matter how one tries to deny
>the fact. You have consciousness. You are only truly aware of yourself.
>Seeing another's point of view is an attempt to look out for yourself.
Again, it is the genes that are selfish. The book was called
"The Selfish Gene", not "The Selfish Person", for a reason!
It is possible for genes can be selfish to the *detriment*
of the individual person, provided that this makes it more
likely that other copies of the selfish gene live on in
others. This is even more obvious in some species (black
widow spiders etc.)!
>Microsoft are the classic example that occurs when one gets so powerful
>you don't have to worry about the consequences of your actions. Its only
>the consequences of what you do that limits one's selfishness. However,
>limiting ones selfishness is in itself, still selfish. It is only done
>because being too selfish will harm you. e.g. no one will help you at
>all.
--
John Devereux
David Brown
"Bas Arts" <Bas.Arts_no_@_spam_philips.com> wrote in message > > In other
words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a windows-linux
> > > battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its
leading
> > > position. Simply because 95% of the computer users is not capable of
> > dealing
> > > with another os; furthermore, 90% has never heard of anything else.
> >
> > First of all, computer usage isn't dicated by the users, it's dicated by
the
> > corporate IT department. If companies start using desktop Linux, people
will
> > have to adopt whether they like it or not. And as I said before, there's
> > simply too much saving which can be wrought from Linux to be ignored.
> > Logical conclusion ==> Linux will win out!
>
> I meant 95% of all home users, the vast majority of desktop users. They
will
> keep Micro$oft up and running.
>
Home users are not the vast majority of desktop users. They are *possibly*
the majority, but not by a long way (a hefty proportion of people use a
computer at work but not significantly at home). Anyway, home users follow
corporate users - do you think MS Office became so popular for home PC's
because it is the most appropriate solution? No - it's because people
learned to use it at work, and brought home copies (it's too expensive for
most home users to buy off-the-shelf). If companies start standardising on
Linux and packages like Open Office, then people will get used to them, and
people will take that home instead.
Kevin Aylward
"John Devereux" <jo...@devereux.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0nurmu0b11r8bdaha...@4ax.com...
> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Well, this is quite a mouthful, so I am not going to address all the
> >details. I agree, that the selfish gene theory fully supports doing
> >apparent good for society as a whole, but this is only because of the
> >potential net benefit to the selfish individual, not the society.
>
> You have said this sort of thing a lot... I think you are
> missing the point that it is the benefit of the *gene*, not
> the *person* that is important.
Ho hum.... You obviously miss what I say. I indeed agree, and cannot
stress to much, that we are *mere* vehicles for a replicators. I have
posted on this much, e.g. why women pick people who beat them up,
because they are selecting for good offspring, not for themselves
personally.
>Since we share many of our
> genes with others, it is this that "explains" altruistic
> behavior towards them.
Not in all cases.
>It also explains why we are more
> altruistic towards family members than non-family, since
> they are much more likely to share copies of the same
> gene,(and towards members of our community than residents in
> distant lands).
>
Again, well known, but not sufficient to explain general niceness to
others.
> >Essentially all models of evolution that characterise the replication
of
> >the group as fundamental over the individual fails. There is no
escaping
> >that we are all *absolutely* selfish, no matter how one tries to deny
> >the fact. You have consciousness. You are only truly aware of
yourself.
> >Seeing another's point of view is an attempt to look out for
yourself.
>
> Again, it is the genes that are selfish.
I KNOW!
>The book was called
> "The Selfish Gene", not "The Selfish Person", for a reason!
> It is possible for genes can be selfish to the *detriment*
> of the individual person, provided that this makes it more
> likely that other copies of the selfish gene live on in
> others.
If you have a read of the book again, it discusses when such a view is
valid and when not.
This is even more obvious in some species (black
> widow spiders etc.)!
>
But this is not, imo, why there is a general society niceness. It makes
perfect sense to preach and get *other* people to be as nice as
possible, and then stick it to them by taking advantage of that
niceness. The basic reason for getting other people to be nice, is to
personally take advantage of it.
Kevin Aylward
>
> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uD5b9.467$Se2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > "Geraldo Sazias" <re...@in.newsgroup> wrote in message
> > news:rh5b9.159$yQ....@castor.casema.net...
> > > Eagle from Cadsoft (www.cadsoft.de) is already available for
Linux!!
> > >
> > > What we need now are more and better Open Source / Free EDA tools.
> >
> > I'm sure you do. It certainly is in your best interest for you to
> > personally get everything that you desire for free. This is of
course
> > nothing more then a manifestation of the selfish gene. Unfortunately
the
> > world don't work like that. Why you believe that people should spend
> > years writing 100,000's line of code for no benefit to themselves
but
> > purely to benefit yourself, is beyond me.
> >
>
> Well, you could ask the same question about many other Open Source
project
> such as Linux, all the GNU tools, dozens of libraries and thousands of
> applications. People do this for the general good for mankind.
Ahmmm. Quite quaint but quite nonsense. No one does nought for nought,
unless by mistake. It just don't happen dude. I agree, that people will
bend over backward to try and convince one that there are not doing
something for self interest, but there are generally lying to themselves
or delusion.
A main reason for the taking part in these projects, imo, is simple to
gain name recognition. There is an anticipation that the doer will
ultimately gain some sort of benefit. Once someone truly realises that
they are being suckered, they will stop. Its that simple.
There's a
> proven added value in providing the source code and letting people
modify it
> for their own use.
>
> I guess it's because I'm fed up with there being dozens of CAE
packages on
> the market which are all incompatible. It seems that CAE is one of the
last
> bastions of 'vendor lock-in' on the ISV market and the prices are high
to
> very high for most products. I would like to see this last bastion
broken up
> by free and high-quality, compatible Open Source projects.
Well, write you own then, and then you might see why things are the way
they are.
Kevin Aylward
>
> "Frank Bemelman" <beme...@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3d6d27cf$0$21852$1b62...@news.euronet.nl...
> > "Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
> > > Hi Folks:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
> > > liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly.
Even if
> > > you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> > > political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor
to
> > > consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
> >
> > I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> > and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> > The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
> >
>
> ??? Settled a long time ago? And what was the outcome? I'm adamant in
my
> belief that Linux will eventually take over the desktop crown from
Windows,
> probably within 5 years.
A belief that is decidedly incorrect.
>It's inevitable, in my opinion. The cost savings
> (not to mention the advantages of having the source code) are simply
too
> great to be ignored.
No chance of that happening at all. You are thinking as an engineer.
Unfortunately for this view, the 400 million Windows uses are *not*
engineers. There is not a chance in hell that mum, pop, and kiddie are
going to use Linux.
John Devereux
>"John Devereux" <jo...@devereux.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0nurmu0b11r8bdaha...@4ax.com...
>> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, this is quite a mouthful, so I am not going to address all the
>> >details. I agree, that the selfish gene theory fully supports doing
>> >apparent good for society as a whole, but this is only because of the
>> >potential net benefit to the selfish individual, not the society.
>>
>> You have said this sort of thing a lot... I think you are
>> missing the point that it is the benefit of the *gene*, not
>> the *person* that is important.
>
>Ho hum.... You obviously miss what I say. I indeed agree, and cannot
>stress to much, that we are *mere* vehicles for a replicators. I have
>posted on this much, e.g. why women pick people who beat them up,
>because they are selecting for good offspring, not for themselves
>personally.
Fair enough. I thought it was worth pointing out since it
seems to be a common misconception. You were invoking the
"selfish gene", but omitted to mention what the key insight
of the theory actually is (which I don't think is obvious
unless you read the book).
>>Since we share many of our
>> genes with others, it is this that "explains" altruistic
>> behavior towards them.
>
>Not in all cases.
>
>>It also explains why we are more
>> altruistic towards family members than non-family, since
>> they are much more likely to share copies of the same
>> gene,(and towards members of our community than residents in
>> distant lands).
>>
>
>Again, well known, but not sufficient to explain general niceness to
>others.
I think it must be because the selfish gene is not capable
of mathematically evaluating the genetic closeness of
someone, before calculating odds and making a decision to
help. All it can do is instill a general set of
predispositions to be nice to others, and weight this for
family / social group members.
So the key question is, will working on free software EDA
tools increase ones chance of reproductive success? I
suspect not... :(
--
John Devereux
Kevin Aylward
"David Brown" <da...@no.westcontrol.spam.com> wrote in message
news:akktuo$5k9$1...@news.netpower.no...
But not engineers.
> Anyway, home users follow
> corporate users - do you think MS Office became so popular for home
PC's
> because it is the most appropriate solution? No - it's because people
> learned to use it at work, and brought home copies (it's too expensive
for
> most home users to buy off-the-shelf). If companies start
standardising on
> Linux and packages like Open Office, then people will get used to
them, and
> people will take that home instead.
>
But the business users of computer are *not* engineers. Engineering
makes up a pitiful proportion of computer users. Sales, marketing,
accounting, gaming, letter writing... etc are the drives for computer
sales. These dudes are not, on the whole, going to want to use Linux. It
that's simple.
I predict that Windows will survive, and Unix will die and be replaced
by Linux, with Linux always being a small share of the total 500million
+ market. One has to accept that *most* users are non technical. That's
why the computer revolution took everyone by surprise in the early
eighties. No one thought Joe Bloggs in the street had a reason to use a
computer.
Kevin Aylward
I still don't agree that this is the reason. If this was correct the
theory of replicators would have no value at all. Every single situation
could be then explained, i.e. a true or a false condition would have an
explanation. This makes the theory worthless.
One has to be honest with one to see what is happening here. What do we
feel when we realise someone appreciates what we have done? If people
think good of us, what do you usually expect to be the result? Its that
simple really. We only do good because we expect the good to be
returned. The daft ones expect that good to come in an imagined
afterlife.
> So the key question is, will working on free software EDA
> tools increase ones chance of reproductive success? I
> suspect not... :(
>
One must note that selection works by rejecting random mutations that
are detrimental, it does not say that such traits don't occur, so this
somewhat new trait has not yet had sufficient time to be selected out of
the gene pool:-)
Geraldo Sazias
I've said it before and I'll say it again until you understand or hear me:
computer usage is dictated by corporations, not the home user! When
corporatons switch to Linux (which they will because of the cost savings) so
will home users and therefore engineers.
Win Hill
> The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
Hah! The Windows-Linux battle has barely even begun.
An example: The decision this week by HP-Compaq and Dell, the
top "three" computer makers, to switch from Microsoft's Word
to Corel's Word Perfect for their free included word processor
can be seen as a useful move in the Linux direction, because
Corel has made a version of Word Perfect for Linux.
Everywhere we look we see small trickles like this; they are
fast becoming a flood. :-)
Thanks,
- Win
David Brown
> But the business users of computer are *not* engineers. Engineering
> makes up a pitiful proportion of computer users. Sales, marketing,
> accounting, gaming, letter writing... etc are the drives for computer
> sales. These dudes are not, on the whole, going to want to use Linux. It
> that's simple.
>
> I predict that Windows will survive, and Unix will die and be replaced
> by Linux, with Linux always being a small share of the total 500million
> + market. One has to accept that *most* users are non technical. That's
> why the computer revolution took everyone by surprise in the early
> eighties. No one thought Joe Bloggs in the street had a reason to use a
> computer.
>
Consider your Joe Bloggs analogy. Before he had a computer, he wrote all
his letters by hand, and did his accounts by calculator and paper. There
was no doubt that a computer could do a better job of this, but a computer
would take a lot of learning and is more technical (let's ignore costs for
simplicity). But the superiority of the computer won out, and he now uses
that for his correspondance and accounts. Switch to today - Joe Bloggs has
his Windows computer, which he uses for internet browsing, email, touching
up digital photos, copying his favourite CD tracks to CD-Rs to play in the
car, and using office programs. A Linux box can do all this, and much of it
better than with Windows. It will do it without $500 in software, and it
will do it pretty much as easily. That's why shops like Walmart are
begining to sell machines with Linux pre-installed - it's cheaper, and
customers are perfectly happy to use them.
There are basically three mistakes in your argument. First, as you point
out, most users are non-technical. You assume that this counts against
Linux, just because more technical people prefer Windows. In fact it means
that they don't care what the system is, so long as it works. Installing a
Linux Mandrake (for example) system with Open Office is no harder than
installing a Windows system with MS Office - indeed, it is a lot easier
since you don't have to manually feed in a dozen different driver CDs. And
if the system is pre-installed, as is now beginning to happen, then it's a
no-brainer. For the majority of users, KDE + Open Office is pretty much the
same as Windows + MS Office, except that it doesn't get viruses and it
doesn't crash.
Second, you are assuming that businesses will continue to run Windows for
their non-technical people. There are so many advantages for a business to
switch its people over to Linux that it is already starting to become
common. It is not the non-technical users who decide these things - it is
frequently the non-technical PHBs. But as more of the technical IT
deparments persuade their PHBs of the savings, Linux gets more common in the
workplace. It is particularly the non-technical folk that are easiest to
switch - they use fewer problems, and because they knew less about the old
system, they notice fewer differences in the switch.
Third, you are not taking into account the cost. Businesses are beginning
to look more closely at the costs of their software and the TCO of PCs,
especially in light of MS's new licencing. Home users are going to see it
too - until recently, a hefty proportion of people using MS Office at home
did so using an illegal copy from work (and I'm talking about the US and
Europe here). As MS tightens their registration and anti-copying schemes,
people looking for new software are going to have the choice of illegally
using an old copy of MS Office, buying a full MS Office at vast price, or
going for a cheaper or free solution. They can also see PCs in the shops
with Linux pre-installed, and compare the prices to full Windows XP + MS
Office Home Edition (or whatever it's called these days) - the differences
are big, and that sort of incentive means a lot of people are going to go
for it. Sure, it might mean getting the neighbour's kid in to help you get
your printer working, but it's definitely worth it for more and more people.
The key limitation to the home use of Linux is gaming - when (and I do think
it's a "when" rather than an "if") the a sizable proportion of the big game
publishers start making Linux versions of their games, especially if they
provide both versions in the same package so that customers don't have to
choose, then home use of Linux will really take off.
Geraldo Sazias
You're explanation is right on the money. Also, note that with development
toolkits such as SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/index.php)it's becoming easier
and easier to write games which work on both Windows (DirectX) and Linux (X
or OpenGL). Once companies start writing games that work both platforms,
Windows' fate will be sealed pretty quickly.
Kevin Aylward
It dont cost anything in Windows to do this either.
> and it
> will do it pretty much as easily.
Nope. Linux is no near where near as integrated as Windows is.
>That's why shops like Walmart are
> begining to sell machines with Linux pre-installed - it's cheaper, and
> customers are perfectly happy to use them.
>
The nerdy ones you mean.
> There are basically three mistakes in your argument. First, as you
point
> out, most users are non-technical. You assume that this counts
against
> Linux, just because more technical people prefer Windows.
This must be a typo. I'm sure, as you note below, more "...non-technical
people..."
> In fact it means
> that they don't care what the system is, so long as it works.
They care what the rest are using. Who ever is first to market, usually
wins. Its called brand/name recognition.
>Installing a
> Linux Mandrake (for example) system with Open Office is no harder than
> installing a Windows system with MS Office
I doubt it.
> - indeed, it is a lot easier
> since you don't have to manually feed in a dozen different driver CDs.
Nope. I just installed Windows XP. One CD and it automatically went to
the MS website to install all of the updates since the CD was issued. I
was using ME on A Compaq. It figured out all the XP driver updates
totally hidden from my view. It simple worked, with no intervention from
me whatsoever.
> And
> if the system is pre-installed, as is now beginning to happen, then
it's a
> no-brainer. For the majority of users, KDE + Open Office is pretty
much the
> same as Windows + MS Office, except that it doesn't get viruses and it
> doesn't crash.
>
I've used Open Office, and it has a few niggles. Anyway, for the
majority of users I would say Word Pad is quite sufficient. I'm using
Office 97, and I don't see me replacing it.
> Second, you are assuming that businesses will continue to run Windows
for
> their non-technical people. There are so many advantages for a
business to
> switch its people over to Linux that it is already starting to become
> common.
Nope. It aint common at all. Show me 400 Million Linux systems. This is
in your dreams.
Have not seen that at all. Home users don't need full office, e.g. MS
Works came for free when I got my machine.
The cost of ownership to a business is far greater then the small cost
of the software.
>and that sort of incentive means a lot of people are going to go
> for it. Sure, it might mean getting the neighbour's kid in to help
you get
> your printer working, but it's definitely worth it for more and more
people.
>
> The key limitation to the home use of Linux is gaming - when (and I do
think
> it's a "when" rather than an "if") the a sizable proportion of the big
game
> publishers start making Linux versions of their games, especially if
they
> provide both versions in the same package so that customers don't have
to
> choose, then home use of Linux will really take off.
>
I don't see it happening. Its a chicken and egg situation. Vendors wont
write for Linux until there are enough users. Without applications users
wont chose Linux. People *port* applications to Linux from Unix, that's
why it ok for technical stuff. The port is essentially trivial, because
Linux is really just a another Unix. To port Window to Unix/Linux is a
nightmare. It just aint worth the trouble.
At the end of the day, your view is all speculation. The real world has
400million+ Windows users. They are not going to switch to Linux. Its
that simple. The marketing battle has been one. Dr.Pepper will never
beat Coke, no matter how much better it tastes:-)
Kevin Aylward
"Geraldo Sazias" <re...@in.newsgroup> wrote in message
No they wont. Windows is too entrenched.
> so
> will home users and therefore engineers.
When will you listen, corporations are not engineers. Sales are based on
marketing attributes, not technical attributes or cost. Why do people by
Kellogg's cornflakes verses the store brand? Who makes the store brand?
Look, its basic 101 marketing, once peoples opinions have been set, you
can not change them. As a general rule, *all* main brands stay as such.
It is only non representative exceptions where this fails to happen. It
just the way it is. People simple won't change. 400 Million *will* *not*
"upgrade" to Linux. Its that simple. Your dreaming to suggest otherwise.
You need to look at the broader, bigger picture, not what you think
might be more rational.
Bas Arts
> > that, they don't have time to change the tools they use.
>
> Most electronics engineers these days are competent computer programmers as
> most new designs involve either DSP or MCU's. People that specialize in PCB
> layout probably aren't, though.
I think you are mixing up a few things here. Using an EDA tool to build a
design that incorporates a DSP is something different that building/changing
the EDA tool that builds designs.
> > Because those programs have a large audience, at least, larger than EDA
> > software.
>
> Yeah right. With dozens of CAE software vendors selling hundreds of
> thousands (if not millions) of packages I think that's way of the mark. All
> these CAE ISV's have to earn their living, you know. I think the audience is
> more than big enough to warrant an Open Source CAE package. GEDA sucks, but
> something better will crop up (I hope).
Every EDA engineer uses just a small subset of all EDA packages. That means,
per EDA package you won't have the complete EDA engineers pool as possible
users, only a small subset. In other words, per EDA package you have a small
audience.
> Like I said: home use is dictated by corporate use. If corporations start
> using Brand X Desktop Linux, home users will, sooner or later, make the
> switch.
The majority of home computer users throughout the world doesn't see a single
computer at their work.
John Devereux
>"John Devereux" <jo...@devereux.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kd0smus6ukt5j7k3g...@4ax.com...
>> I think it must be because the selfish gene is not capable
>> of mathematically evaluating the genetic closeness of
>> someone, before calculating odds and making a decision to
>> help. All it can do is instill a general set of
>> predispositions to be nice to others, and weight this for
>> family / social group members.
>>
>
>I still don't agree that this is the reason. If this was correct the
>theory of replicators would have no value at all. Every single situation
>could be then explained, i.e. a true or a false condition would have an
>explanation. This makes the theory worthless.
I don't really understand you here.
>One has to be honest with one to see what is happening here. What do we
>feel when we realise someone appreciates what we have done? If people
>think good of us, what do you usually expect to be the result? Its that
>simple really. We only do good because we expect the good to be
>returned. The daft ones expect that good to come in an imagined
>afterlife.
I don't think this is true. People do occasionally do good,
without expectation of a reward, other than the "feel good"
factor. I think this happens because the "selfish gene" is
not able to be sufficiently specific.
>> So the key question is, will working on free software EDA
>> tools increase ones chance of reproductive success? I
>> suspect not... :(
>>
>One must note that selection works by rejecting random mutations that
>are detrimental, it does not say that such traits don't occur, so this
>somewhat new trait has not yet had sufficient time to be selected out of
>the gene pool:-)
:)
--
John Devereux
David Brown
> I don't see it happening. Its a chicken and egg situation. Vendors wont
> write for Linux until there are enough users. Without applications users
> wont chose Linux. People *port* applications to Linux from Unix, that's
> why it ok for technical stuff. The port is essentially trivial, because
> Linux is really just a another Unix. To port Window to Unix/Linux is a
> nightmare. It just aint worth the trouble.
>
In some cases, people *are* porting apps to Linux. In other cases, people
are writing their apps to be cross-platform, or close to it. And many apps,
especially more technical ones, are inherintly unix apps that were ported to
Windows - making them Linux compatible is not a big problem.
There are also many apps that are originally unix/linux programs that are
being ported to Windows. Ironically, that improves the situtation for
Linux, because it makes the transition easier. When I move to Linux as my
main work system (I still have too many Windows-specific programs that I
need at the moment), I'm not going to have to re-learn anything for many of
my basic apps (text editor, office suite, browser, compilers, debuggers,
command-line utilities, programming languages), because most of these are
cross-platform. In most cases, they started as unix/linux programs and have
been ported to Windows.
There is a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that. But if you look at
what's actually happening, rather than prophosising doom, you will see that
Linux is gaining steadily in spite of this. And those vendors that see this
now will reap the benifits later when they are ahead of the competition -
look at what happened when Windows 3.x started becoming popular.
> At the end of the day, your view is all speculation. The real world has
> 400million+ Windows users. They are not going to switch to Linux. Its
> that simple. The marketing battle has been one. Dr.Pepper will never
> beat Coke, no matter how much better it tastes:-)
>
If Dr.Pepper were free and tasted better than Coke, how long would Coke last
out? Remember, the world once had X million DOS users, and they switched to
Windows. It also had X million horse riders, and they switched to cars.
People can in fact change their habits, if it makes sense for them to do so.
David Brown
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again until you understand or hear
> me:
> > computer usage is dictated by corporations, not the home user! When
> > corporatons switch to Linux (which they will because of the cost
> savings)
>
> No they wont. Windows is too entrenched.
>
> > so
> > will home users and therefore engineers.
>
> When will you listen, corporations are not engineers. Sales are based on
> marketing attributes, not technical attributes or cost. Why do people by
Sales to corporations are based on two things - marketing and money. IT
departments try to sneak in systems that are technically superior, but as
you say, it's not the engineers that make the decisions. Linux is already
making serious headways in corporations - mainly at the server level, and
increasingly on the desktop. It will never compete with MS on the marketing
side, but as PHBs begin to learn how much money it saves, they will listen.
That's what makes the difference.
> Kellogg's cornflakes verses the store brand? Who makes the store brand?
Those that can afford it will frequently buy Kelloggs. Those that want to
save money, buy the store brand. In a great many situations, Linux is the
cheaper solution. It costs a lot for a company to move platforms, but there
comes a point where it is worth it. As MS pushes up its real prices, and
Linux knowledge and experiance gets more widespread, the transition point
gets closer and closer for more companies.
Christopher R. Carlen
>>Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
>>liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
>>you don't care so much for your own sake about this
>>political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
>>consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
>
>
> I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Frank Bemelman
You don't have to Frank, it's just a request.
Do you really think that Linux development will *increase* the cost of
Windows software?
And as for the battle between Linux/Windows, it's only just beginning.
The server market is looking like Linux will completely crush Windows,
and even "enterprise" computing is switching to Linux. You may own
stock in Microsoft, but your stock trades won't be getting processed
anytime soon by Windows servers. They are usually done by proprietary
UNIXes right now, because Windows isn't reliable and probably never will be.
But people are switching these mission critial apps to Linux all over
the place.
Now we're even seeing substantial corporate desktop workstation
implementations with Linux, as IT departments can't accept both having
to increase their budgets and increase the proportions of those budgets
that are handed over to Microsoft. Even Windows computers are being
shipped increasingly with non-Microsoft office software packages,
because MS office is too expensive. That will lead to greater
interoperability as the alternative suites must be more compatible than
Office in order to ramain on the radar, and that will only work against
the aims of Office, which is to prevent people fron using any alternatives.
Perhaps you are right Frank, the battle between Linux and Windows was
settled a long time ago, about the time that Linus decided to release
the kernel source to the world under the GPL.
But don't worry Frank, by the time you see your first Linux PC, the
consumer grade of Linux will have been made to look and act so much like
Windows to ease the transition for the basic users, that you'll hardly
notice the difference. You will pay less, however. You can use the
savings to buy the more expensive software that will arise when the
industry is competitive again ;-)
Good day!
--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crc...@sandia.gov
Christopher R. Carlen
> In other words, for EDA tools there is no such thing as a windows-linux
> battle. For a desktop os, I fear that Micro$oft will not loose its leading
> position.
And it doesn't have to. Even if a 10-20% share of the desktop OS
installations are Linux, that will ensure a reasonable proportion of
software that is available for Windows will also be available for Linux.
That would improve the situation immensely.
Christopher R. Carlen
> Like I said: home use is dictated by corporate use. If corporations start
> using Brand X Desktop Linux, home users will, sooner or later, make the
> switch. Yes, initially Desktop Linux will only sprawl up in corporations
> (who's IT dept. has mandated the use of Desktop Linux because it's so much
> cheaper) and the home will, in the end, be M$ last bastion.
That's the top-down motivator. There's also a bottom-up motivator, in
the academic environment.
Christopher R. Carlen
> When will you listen, corporations are not engineers. Sales are based
> on marketing attributes, not technical attributes or cost. Why do
> people by Kellogg's cornflakes verses the store brand? Who makes the
> store brand?
>
> Look, its basic 101 marketing, once peoples opinions have been set,
> you can not change them. As a general rule, *all* main brands stay as
> such. It is only non representative exceptions where this fails to
> happen. It just the way it is. People simple won't change. 400
> Million *will* *not* "upgrade" to Linux. Its that simple. Your
> dreaming to suggest otherwise.
>
> You need to look at the broader, bigger picture, not what you think
> might be more rational.
>
> Kevin Aylward ke...@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with
> Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Wow, you're really breaking into irrationality here Kevin. Maybe
Super-Spice is too heavily involved with the Windows API and
non-portable that you've got quite a motivation to remain attached to
Windows. I think it's coloring your perceptions.
Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows. There are a few
hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting into the
picture in the
next decade or so. Many of those will be in the 3rd world. Do you
seriously think that they are going to spend large proportions of their
income on Windows and Office? No chance. They haven't anyway. That's
why they're using Windows and not Macs, because they pirated it! You
should get out
of England some day, and take a trip to Southeast Asia, or some other
interesting place with good food (and drink, I know you like that too).
There you will see Windows all over the place. And it is pirated! In
time, these people will see that their pirated Windows are becoming
obsolete, as a lot more can be done with XP but there's one little
problem, uh-oh, I can't afford to spend $500 on software upgrade and I
can't pirate XP so well, as even if I do Microsoft can probe my computer
as soon as I put it on the net, and delete my illegal software. And
yes, Windows and office cost the same amount of US $ in Thailand as in
the US, I know). Nor can I afford to buy a new PC every 3-4 years like
rich Americans and Britains, so what am I to do?
The choice of remaining with the old pirated Windows is a perfectly good
one, and many will choose it. But there's another choice as well. It
will be taken by many.
Geraldo Sazias
"Christopher R. Carlen" <crc...@sandia.gov> wrote in message
news:3D6E8694...@sandia.gov...
> Geraldo Sazias wrote:
> > Like I said: home use is dictated by corporate use. If corporations
start
> > using Brand X Desktop Linux, home users will, sooner or later, make the
> > switch. Yes, initially Desktop Linux will only sprawl up in corporations
> > (who's IT dept. has mandated the use of Desktop Linux because it's so
much
> > cheaper) and the home will, in the end, be M$ last bastion.
>
> That's the top-down motivator. There's also a bottom-up motivator, in
> the academic environment.
>
True, but in the end it will be insignificant compared to the top-down
motivator. Businesses ultimately determine which computers, applications and
Operating Systems you and I will use.
Frank Bemelman
news:3d6ddccd...@news.cistron.nl...
> "Frank Bemelman" <beme...@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
> >news:3D6AE10E...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
> >> Hi Folks:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even if
> >> you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> >> political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
> >> consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
> >
> >I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> >and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> >The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
>
> Why should the Linux version be free? BTW, there are many companies in
> Europe using or moving to Linux for server and desktop applications.
I didn't say it should be free, but they can't charge much extra for
the linux version, compared to the windows version. The result is
that both versions will go up in price. The window-users will have to
pay for the linux release/maintenance.
--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)
Frank Bemelman
"Win Hill" <wh...@picovolt.com> schreef in bericht
news:3e852f41.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Bemelman" wrote
>
> > The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
>
> Hah! The Windows-Linux battle has barely even begun.
>
> An example: The decision this week by HP-Compaq and Dell, the
> top "three" computer makers, to switch from Microsoft's Word
> to Corel's Word Perfect for their free included word processor
> can be seen as a useful move in the Linux direction, because
> Corel has made a version of Word Perfect for Linux.
I don't think so; they would have to pay for each MS-word copy
they include with each PC. Presumably they could not negotiate
a fair/low price, and decided to buy the word processor from
Corel. This is a clever ad-hoc solution, not some visionairy
decision, imo.
> Everywhere we look we see small trickles like this; they are
> fast becoming a flood. :-)
I'll keep an eye on the shelf at my local PC shop, to keep
up with the mainstream ;)
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"John Devereux" <jo...@devereux.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:kd0smus6ukt5j7k3g...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I think it must be because the selfish gene is not capable
> >> of mathematically evaluating the genetic closeness of
> >> someone, before calculating odds and making a decision to
> >> help. All it can do is instill a general set of
> >> predispositions to be nice to others, and weight this for
> >> family / social group members.
> >>
> >
> >I still don't agree that this is the reason. If this was correct the
> >theory of replicators would have no value at all. Every single
situation
> >could be then explained, i.e. a true or a false condition would have
an
> >explanation. This makes the theory worthless.
>
> I don't really understand you here.
>
If a theory is to have any predictive power it must be able to
distinguish between results. If the theory can be used to justify result
A *and* result B *always*, you don't have a theory.
> >One has to be honest with one to see what is happening here. What do
we
> >feel when we realise someone appreciates what we have done? If people
> >think good of us, what do you usually expect to be the result? Its
that
> >simple really. We only do good because we expect the good to be
> >returned. The daft ones expect that good to come in an imagined
> >afterlife.
>
> I don't think this is true. People do occasionally do good,
> without expectation of a reward, other than the "feel good"
> factor.
But fundamentally the "feel good" is that identification of doing
something in ones own interest. People usually avoid doing things that
make them "feel bad". Remember doing things in your own good is
fundamentally non-conscious. If some one has sex, they don't go, well
this is propagating my genes, its just a this feels good sort of thing
so lets do it. There is no difference.
>I think this happens because the "selfish gene" is
> not able to be sufficiently specific.
>
I agree that the selfish gene can not be very specific in all cases. It
takes more information to determine what is in the genes interest. The
point is still that doing things that make you feel good, is inhentaly
selfish, by definition really.
Frank Bemelman
news:3D6E8588...@sandia.gov...
> Frank Bemelman wrote:
> >
> > I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> > and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> > The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
[snip]
> And as for the battle between Linux/Windows, it's only just beginning.
> The server market is looking like Linux will completely crush Windows,
> and even "enterprise" computing is switching to Linux. You may own
> stock in Microsoft, but your stock trades won't be getting processed
> anytime soon by Windows servers. They are usually done by proprietary
> UNIXes right now, because Windows isn't reliable and probably never will
be.
I don't have any MS-stock and Bill Gates ought to be hanged and shot
and locked up, in that order, and ASAP.
> But people are switching these mission critial apps to Linux all over
> the place.
>
> Now we're even seeing substantial corporate desktop workstation
> implementations with Linux, as IT departments can't accept both having
> to increase their budgets and increase the proportions of those budgets
> that are handed over to Microsoft. Even Windows computers are being
> shipped increasingly with non-Microsoft office software packages,
> because MS office is too expensive. That will lead to greater
> interoperability as the alternative suites must be more compatible than
> Office in order to ramain on the radar, and that will only work against
> the aims of Office, which is to prevent people fron using any
alternatives.
MS is on wrong track. From WIN98SE the desktop PC runs reasonably well,
although home-users tend to make a mess of it, playing around the way
they do. MS should realize that the current version of windows is finished,
slim down their operation, and concentrate on improving the reliability.
This is a scenario for the next ten years. 3rd parties can write new
applications etc.
> Perhaps you are right Frank, the battle between Linux and Windows was
> settled a long time ago, about the time that Linus decided to release
> the kernel source to the world under the GPL.
>
> But don't worry Frank, by the time you see your first Linux PC, the
> consumer grade of Linux will have been made to look and act so much like
> Windows to ease the transition for the basic users, that you'll hardly
> notice the difference. You will pay less, however. You can use the
> savings to buy the more expensive software that will arise when the
> industry is competitive again ;-)
By the time Linux PC's can offer the same functionality as windows, it
will be as 'crappy' as windows is today.
Kevin Aylward
>
> > I don't see it happening. Its a chicken and egg situation. Vendors
wont
> > write for Linux until there are enough users. Without applications
users
> > wont chose Linux. People *port* applications to Linux from Unix,
that's
> > why it ok for technical stuff. The port is essentially trivial,
because
> > Linux is really just a another Unix. To port Window to Unix/Linux is
a
> > nightmare. It just aint worth the trouble.
> >
>
> In some cases, people *are* porting apps to Linux.
Compared to the number of apps running on Windows, a mere drop in the
ocean.
In other cases, people
> are writing their apps to be cross-platform, or close to it. And many
apps,
> especially more technical ones, are inherintly unix apps that were
ported to
> Windows - making them Linux compatible is not a big problem.
>
I agree that for engineering apps Linux will kill Unix. Its essentially
the same product, but runs on cheap PC's rather then expensive Sun
workstations.
> There are also many apps that are originally unix/linux programs that
are
> being ported to Windows. Ironically, that improves the situtation for
> Linux, because it makes the transition easier. When I move to Linux
as my
> main work system
Exactly my point. You have not moved. Why?
>(I still have too many Windows-specific programs that I
> need at the moment),
Oh, I see...
>I'm not going to have to re-learn anything for many of
> my basic apps (text editor, office suite, browser, compilers,
debuggers,
> command-line utilities, programming languages), because most of these
are
> cross-platform. In most cases, they started as unix/linux programs
and have
> been ported to Windows.
>
Ahmmm. So why go to Linux then.
> There is a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that. But if you
look at
> what's actually happening, rather than prophosising doom, you will see
that
> Linux is gaining steadily in spite of this.
I see 400 million Windows users happening. How many Linux users are
there, especially in the home.
> And those vendors that see this
> now will reap the benifits later when they are ahead of the
competition -
Er.. What *real* benefits would these be? What can be done in Linux that
is impossible to do in windows, that actually matters, for those 400
million users.
> look at what happened when Windows 3.x started becoming popular.
>
>
> > At the end of the day, your view is all speculation. The real world
has
> > 400million+ Windows users. They are not going to switch to Linux.
Its
> > that simple. The marketing battle has been one. Dr.Pepper will never
> > beat Coke, no matter how much better it tastes:-)
> >
>
> If Dr.Pepper were free and tasted better than Coke, how long would
Coke last
> out?
Linux is not free for Joe Blogg consumers. They will have to buy a 3rd
party package for support, or have the cost built into the computer
vendors costs etc. Only the nerds will manage on their own.
>Remember, the world once had X million DOS users, and they switched to
> Windows.
Jesus dude. Non sequester. Windows ran all the dos programs. It was an
upgrade to dos, not a new operating system. Windows 3 was simple GUI
front end to dos.
>It also had X million horse riders, and they switched to cars.
> People can in fact change their habits, if it makes sense for them to
do so.
The advantage of cars to horses are overwhelmingly apparent, this is
simple not so for Windows against Linux. Getting from A to B at 60 MPH
is reason enough why cars one out.
At the end of the day, there is not sufficient product differentiation
for Linux to beat Windows, imo. Its simple a "me to" product.
Kevin Aylward
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > When will you listen, corporations are not engineers. Sales are
based
> > on marketing attributes, not technical attributes or cost. Why do
> > people by Kellogg's cornflakes verses the store brand? Who makes
the
> > store brand?
> >
> > Look, its basic 101 marketing, once peoples opinions have been set,
> > you can not change them. As a general rule, *all* main brands stay
as
> > such. It is only non representative exceptions where this fails to
> > happen. It just the way it is. People simple won't change. 400
> > Million *will* *not* "upgrade" to Linux. Its that simple. Your
> > dreaming to suggest otherwise.
> >
> > You need to look at the broader, bigger picture, not what you think
> > might be more rational.
> >
> > Kevin Aylward ke...@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> > SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with
> > Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>
>
> Wow, you're really breaking into irrationality here Kevin. Maybe
> Super-Spice is too heavily involved with the Windows API and
> non-portable that you've got quite a motivation to remain attached to
> Windows. I think it's coloring your perceptions.
>
You've got this all backwards. When I started SuperSpice I had more
experience writing software under Unix then Windows. I made a conscious
decision to go with windows because I saw a much bigger market in
Windows. This has indeed been the case.
> Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows. There are a
few
> hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting into the
> picture in the
> next decade or so.
But the *large* majority of PC's are still shipped with Windows.
> Many of those will be in the 3rd world. Do you
> seriously think that they are going to spend large proportions of
their
> income on Windows and Office? No chance. They haven't anyway.
That's
> why they're using Windows and not Macs, because they pirated it! You
> should get out
> of England some day, and take a trip to Southeast Asia, or some other
> interesting place with good food (and drink, I know you like that
too).
>
Who cares about the 3rd world. They don't drive computig platforms.
> There you will see Windows all over the place. And it is pirated! In
> time, these people will see that their pirated Windows are becoming
> obsolete, as a lot more can be done with XP but there's one little
> problem, uh-oh, I can't afford to spend $500 on software upgrade and I
> can't pirate XP so well, as even if I do Microsoft can probe my
computer
> as soon as I put it on the net, and delete my illegal software. And
> yes, Windows and office cost the same amount of US $ in Thailand as in
> the US, I know). Nor can I afford to buy a new PC every 3-4 years
like
> rich Americans and Britains, so what am I to do?
>
> The choice of remaining with the old pirated Windows is a perfectly
good
> one, and many will choose it. But there's another choice as well. It
> will be taken by many.
But not enough, imo, to kill Windows dominance.
Kevin Aylward
> Frank Bemelman wrote:
> >>Your effort could be an important contribution to the effort of
> >>liberating the software industry from the Microsoft monopoly. Even
if
> >>you don't care so much for your own sake about this
> >>political/business/philosophical issue, if you asked your vendor to
> >>consider a Linux port, it might help those of us who want a Linux
> >
> >
> > I will not do so. It will make the windows version more expensive,
> > and I am not going to spend money to support other peoples' hobbies.
> > The windows-linux battle has been settled a long time ago.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Frank Bemelman
>
> You don't have to Frank, it's just a request.
>
> Do you really think that Linux development will *increase* the cost of
> Windows software?
>
> And as for the battle between Linux/Windows, it's only just beginning.
> The server market is looking like Linux will completely crush Windows,
> and even "enterprise" computing is switching to Linux.
But Linux is really replacing Unix not Windows. Windows was never in the
server market anyway.
>You may own
> stock in Microsoft, but your stock trades won't be getting processed
> anytime soon by Windows servers. They are usually done by proprietary
> UNIXes right now, because Windows isn't reliable and probably never
will be.
>
So what. Its not relevent to Windows continued dominance in other areas.
> But people are switching these mission critial apps to Linux all over
> the place.
>
See above. Linux is replacing Unix not Windows.
> Now we're even seeing substantial corporate desktop workstation
> implementations with Linux, as IT departments can't accept both having
> to increase their budgets and increase the proportions of those
budgets
> that are handed over to Microsoft.
Of course Linux might be a preferred choice for CAD, engineering etc. No
one really disputes this. Again, its Linux replacing Unix. And this
really means replacing the expensive Sun platforms with cheap PC's,
that's the *real* reason for the success of Linux. Not because Linux is
better then Windows. Linux is not a new OS. Its Unix on a PC, but with
cheaper hardware.
>Even Windows computers are being
> shipped increasingly with non-Microsoft office software packages,
> because MS office is too expensive. That will lead to greater
> interoperability as the alternative suites must be more compatible
than
> Office in order to ramain on the radar, and that will only work
against
> the aims of Office, which is to prevent people fron using any
alternatives.
>
> Perhaps you are right Frank, the battle between Linux and Windows was
> settled a long time ago, about the time that Linus decided to release
> the kernel source to the world under the GPL.
>
Dreaming.
David Brown
> >
> > In some cases, people *are* porting apps to Linux.
>
> Compared to the number of apps running on Windows, a mere drop in the
> ocean.
For the popular apps, used by many people, there are not many left on
Windows that don't have something equivilent for Linux at least partly
ready. There is a fair bit to go before some of these are ready for
everyone, but Linux apps are getting there.
There will always be more apps for Windows, but that's because the Windows
way of development needs more. Consider painting programs - on windows
there are hundreds, ranging from free, simple ones, through cheap and
chearful programs, through to major, expensive professional ones. On Linux,
there is the GIMP, plus a few specialist ones. The GIMP has features
compareable to top Windows packages, but it's free, and it is installed by
virtually every Linux distribution. So you don't *need* any other painting
program. Or suppose you are a programmer, and you would like a feature for
a painting program that automatically hides grey hairs in photos. You can't
find any cheap or free programs to do that, so you decide to do it yourself.
In the world of closed source, you must write the entire painting program
yourself - so you write a fairly simple one that has the grey-hair remover.
This means yet another specialist app - and users who want a program
suitable for general photo touch-ups and grey-hair removal need two apps.
In the open source world, you write the grey-hair remover as an add-on or
patch for your favourite existing paint program (probably the GIMP), and you
and everyone else get a single app that is better than before.
>
> In other cases, people
> > are writing their apps to be cross-platform, or close to it. And many
> apps,
> > especially more technical ones, are inherintly unix apps that were
> ported to
> > Windows - making them Linux compatible is not a big problem.
> >
>
> I agree that for engineering apps Linux will kill Unix. Its essentially
> the same product, but runs on cheap PC's rather then expensive Sun
> workstations.
There is probably little doubt there. Even the big Unix vendors are
beginning to offer Linux as an alternative - vendors are going to find it
easier to support a single Linux platform than multiple unix's.
>
> > There are also many apps that are originally unix/linux programs that
> are
> > being ported to Windows. Ironically, that improves the situtation for
> > Linux, because it makes the transition easier. When I move to Linux
> as my
> > main work system
>
> Exactly my point. You have not moved. Why?
>
> >(I still have too many Windows-specific programs that I
> > need at the moment),
>
> Oh, I see...
>
Yes, I suffer from the same problem many people suffer - if it wasn't a
problem, this thread would never have started. It's changing, however. I
can't drop my Windows machine yet, but I'm confident that it'll be the last
one I use. When I get another machine, I'll run them side-by-side, and I'll
be able to use Linux for the majority of my work. But I'll still need
Windows until tool vendors catch on, and/or Wine catches up. It takes time
to move platforms - and for heavier users it takes longer.
>
> >I'm not going to have to re-learn anything for many of
> > my basic apps (text editor, office suite, browser, compilers,
> debuggers,
> > command-line utilities, programming languages), because most of these
> are
> > cross-platform. In most cases, they started as unix/linux programs
> and have
> > been ported to Windows.
> >
>
> Ahmmm. So why go to Linux then.
Because they'll work better. The biggest difference is for servers - I have
been helping another guy here at the office set up a server for an
application he is writing, and it is just incredible how much simpler and
smoother everything is than when working with Windows. For many of the unix
programs that I use regularly on windows, they would run faster (and in some
cases, more stably) under Linux. As an example, I have several large
projects that are cross-compiled using gcc - it works, running under
Windows, but it would work around five times faster under Linux. Cygwin
does a pretty good job of providing the posix services missing from Windows,
but it costs in terms of performance. For other things, such as front-ends
to gdb, I can get a lot more choice under Linux - programs requiring X are
not great under Windows/cygwin (though it's possible - I've even had KDE
working, but given the speed, it's not really worth the effort). For
general use of the machine, Linux just makes a nicer environment to work
with, it's safer (w2k's half-way security gets so much in the way that I end
up running with administrator rights, thereby losing much of the effect),
and I can feel that the people behind the software I'm running are
interested in making the best possible system - not in getting the most
possible money out of and control over the user. If I want to upgrade my
home Linux system, I can do so, whereas I refuse point blank to get service
pack 3 for w2k if I need to agree to a EULA that lets microsoft install any
software it wants, automatically and without my knowledge and consent, even
if that breaks any software I currently have.
>
> > There is a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that. But if you
> look at
> > what's actually happening, rather than prophosising doom, you will see
> that
> > Linux is gaining steadily in spite of this.
>
> I see 400 million Windows users happening. How many Linux users are
> there, especially in the home.
>
> > And those vendors that see this
> > now will reap the benifits later when they are ahead of the
> competition -
>
> Er.. What *real* benefits would these be? What can be done in Linux that
> is impossible to do in windows, that actually matters, for those 400
> million users.
We were talking about vendors of EDA tools here (had you forgotten?). What
a tool vendor can do with a Linux version of a program is sell it to people
who would prefer to use Linux. Most users of EDA tools are pretty loyal to
their brand - they have invested a lot of learning in the tools, and have a
lot of designs that can't be easily transferred. If (for example) OrCad
wants to improve its market share over Protel, then offering a Linux version
would be a wise move.
But, since you ask, the benifits for home users of Linux are a safer system
(say goodbye to viruses), a more reliable system (far fewer crashes, no more
"aging" requiring re-installs, no more sudden bizare problems turning up), a
system that comes with all its parts included (no need for virus checkers,
firewalls, extra office programs, extra utilities for CD burning, extra
drivers on seperate CDs, etc.), one that you can freely update as much as
you want, and one that costs much less to buy and keep up-to-date.
Additionally, many people feel that Microsoft is quite simply an immoral,
untrustworthy and unethical company that represents much of the worst evils
commited in the name of capitalism, and choose to avoid supporting it
whenever possible.
>
> > look at what happened when Windows 3.x started becoming popular.
> >
> >
> > > At the end of the day, your view is all speculation. The real world
> has
> > > 400million+ Windows users. They are not going to switch to Linux.
> Its
> > > that simple. The marketing battle has been one. Dr.Pepper will never
> > > beat Coke, no matter how much better it tastes:-)
> > >
> >
> > If Dr.Pepper were free and tasted better than Coke, how long would
> Coke last
> > out?
>
> Linux is not free for Joe Blogg consumers. They will have to buy a 3rd
> party package for support, or have the cost built into the computer
> vendors costs etc. Only the nerds will manage on their own.
>
Quite simply incorrect. Few Joe Bloggs consumers would buy support, even if
they needed it. Most of the myths about Linux being hard to install or
configure are out-of-date - in general, it is much easier to install a
modern Linux distribution that to install Windows. And as pre-installed
Linux is getting more common, even that hurdle is disappearing. More and
more people are getting familiar with Linux, so that new users ask a friend,
collegue or family member for help if they need it. Those that are not so
confident will buy cheap Linux distributions (rather than free copies),
giving them a far more useful manual than MS ever made, along with a
reasonable support time (30 or 60 days, for example) to help them get going.
> >Remember, the world once had X million DOS users, and they switched to
> > Windows.
>
> Jesus dude. Non sequester. Windows ran all the dos programs. It was an
> upgrade to dos, not a new operating system. Windows 3 was simple GUI
> front end to dos.
Yes, Windows 3 was a simple gui front-end to dos, just like Win9x, etc. But
to users it was a revolution - and application vendors (to get back to the
topic) who were slow to change over lost out badly.
>
> >It also had X million horse riders, and they switched to cars.
> > People can in fact change their habits, if it makes sense for them to
> do so.
>
> The advantage of cars to horses are overwhelmingly apparent, this is
> simple not so for Windows against Linux. Getting from A to B at 60 MPH
> is reason enough why cars one out.
>
> At the end of the day, there is not sufficient product differentiation
> for Linux to beat Windows, imo. Its simple a "me to" product.
>
For home users, there is not a great deal of difference except the cost and
the lack of games. But the cost is pretty relevant for many, and those
vendors that dare invoke the wrath of Microsoft by selling PCs without
Windows can provide a much better deal. Like it or not, people are going to
see that when they buy a new PC, they can save a great deal with Linux
(especially once they realise that they can't just copy MS software from
somewhere else like in the good old days).
David Brown
"Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:Hgub9.2817> >
Wow, you're really breaking into irrationality here Kevin. Maybe
> > Super-Spice is too heavily involved with the Windows API and
> > non-portable that you've got quite a motivation to remain attached to
> > Windows. I think it's coloring your perceptions.
> >
>
> You've got this all backwards. When I started SuperSpice I had more
> experience writing software under Unix then Windows. I made a conscious
> decision to go with windows because I saw a much bigger market in
> Windows. This has indeed been the case.
It was indeed the case, but it's not going to stay that way. You have said
yourself that you understand Linux is getting more popular with technical
engineering types, even though you can't see it being popular with home
users or the majority of corporate users. Now, where is your market - the
home users and secretaries of the world, or the engineers?
>
> > Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows. There are a
> few
> > hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting into the
> > picture in the
> > next decade or so.
>
> But the *large* majority of PC's are still shipped with Windows.
But the proportion is getting less. Linux is right on target to take over
the small server world, but no one claims it has taken over the desktop or
workstation world. What we are saying is that it is on the increase - it is
gaining enough of a foothold, and growing fast enough, that it must be taken
seriously. Microsoft certainly does - why are you in denial about it?
Perhaps the growth will flaten out without Linux capturing more than 10-15%
of the desktop market, but perhaps not. The percentage within the technical
groups will be significantly higher.
>
> > Many of those will be in the 3rd world. Do you
> > seriously think that they are going to spend large proportions of
> their
> > income on Windows and Office? No chance. They haven't anyway.
> That's
> > why they're using Windows and not Macs, because they pirated it! You
> > should get out
> > of England some day, and take a trip to Southeast Asia, or some other
> > interesting place with good food (and drink, I know you like that
> too).
> >
>
> Who cares about the 3rd world. They don't drive computig platforms.
>
They are very much on the increase. At the rate the southeast Asian (most
of which is not 3rd world, but we'll skip over the bigotry) market is
growing, they are getting very significant. And they all run copies of
Windows, while the governments stall US complaints long enough to get
localised Linux distributions ready for Joe Bloggs, then they'll switch to
that.
Nico Coesel
Ofcourse, but Unix (Linux included) has a much lower TCO than Windows
(I know from experience while working with both for many years in
different environments). For that reason alone, EDA tools for Unix in
general will be cheaper to use than EDA tools for Windows. TCO is the
magic word. Buying hardware & software is the cheap & easy part.
Keeping a computer running is the part where things get expensive.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Nico Coesel
Mmm, ever been to Asia? They sell lots of new PC's over there.
Asia is _THE_ market which will be booming sky high in the coming
years. The bigger companies are already setting up sales offices to
jump in when the demand grows.
David Brown
> > Do you really think that Linux development will *increase* the cost of
> > Windows software?
> >
> > And as for the battle between Linux/Windows, it's only just beginning.
> > The server market is looking like Linux will completely crush Windows,
> > and even "enterprise" computing is switching to Linux.
>
> But Linux is really replacing Unix not Windows. Windows was never in the
> server market anyway.
Windows most certainly was and is in the server market, and it is
desperately trying to push further into that market. The server market
commands higher profit margins, which is attractive to any vendor. You can
certainly argue that Linux has captured a good deal of the market from
unix - but it is a market share that Windows would have had if Linux wasn't
there. Windows is aiming for the server market from the low-end upwards,
while unix is entrenched from the top-end downwards. The trouble is, Linux
is priced below the low-end and powered somewhere above the middle, leaving
Windows with nothing but brand recognition as a selling point.
>
> >You may own
> > stock in Microsoft, but your stock trades won't be getting processed
> > anytime soon by Windows servers. They are usually done by proprietary
> > UNIXes right now, because Windows isn't reliable and probably never
> will be.
> >
>
> So what. Its not relevent to Windows continued dominance in other areas.
>
> > But people are switching these mission critial apps to Linux all over
> > the place.
> >
>
> See above. Linux is replacing Unix not Windows.
See above - Linux is replacing a market that would otherwise have gone to
Windows.
>
> > Now we're even seeing substantial corporate desktop workstation
> > implementations with Linux, as IT departments can't accept both having
> > to increase their budgets and increase the proportions of those
> budgets
> > that are handed over to Microsoft.
>
> Of course Linux might be a preferred choice for CAD, engineering etc. No
> one really disputes this. Again, its Linux replacing Unix. And this
> really means replacing the expensive Sun platforms with cheap PC's,
> that's the *real* reason for the success of Linux. Not because Linux is
> better then Windows. Linux is not a new OS. Its Unix on a PC, but with
> cheaper hardware.
First, corporates are replacing many desktop systems - not just their
technical and engineering ones. They are replacing Windows. That's the
facts - dig around on a few computing news sites if you want reports. It's
happening slowly - the bigger the company, the slower such changeovers can
happen. But many big customers are looking for a way out of Microsoft
lock-in, new licencing schemes, and ever-increasing IT budgets.
Second, how can you write that Linux is becoming the preferred choice for
CAD and engineering and still claim that you should not be considering it
for your products, or that of other EDA tool vendors? What is SuperSpice if
not an engineering program - a collection of cooking recipes?
Third, Linux is a new OS based on a mature model. It really is the best of
both worlds - while Microsoft continually attempts to re-invent the wheel
with every new version of Windows ("This version is the most stable Windows
ever! It even sends automatic reports to us when it crashes!" - they
actually have the nerve to consider that a feature to boast about). The
principles behind unix are not perfect - but they are remarkably resilient.
Over the past 30 years, they have been adapted to every scale of system -
that's because it works well in practice. But Linux, both the kernel (Linux
proper) and all the programs that generally follow with a distribution, are
continually updated and expanded. A couple of years ago, they were well
behind Windows in many aspects - now there are few areas left for catch-up,
and there has been no slowdown in the progress.
Forth - you say "not because Linux is better than Windows". Windows is
better for games than Linux, and for many uses it has more available
applications than Linux, and many of these are easier to use than Linux
equivilents. There are a few pieces of appallingly cheapo hardware (such as
some internal modems and the odd printer) that are not yet supported on
other OSes. Other than that, in what way is Windows better than Linux?
Let me ask you another question - if the Windows near-monopoly is so
invincible, why is Microsoft fighting so desperately to protect it, despite
how much it has to anger everyone (individual users, volume customers,
vendors, governments, law courts) in doing so? Over the past couple of
years, it has gone to greater and greater extremes in its steps to force
people to buy its software whether they want it or not, since this is the
only way they can compete with free software, and to push big buyers into
ever more restrictive and costly contracts. It has also tried to force
developers into being unable to work for "the other side". What is it that
you know about Windows safe dominance of the world that Microsoft doesn't?
Nico Coesel
>
>>It also had X million horse riders, and they switched to cars.
>> People can in fact change their habits, if it makes sense for them to
>do so.
>
>The advantage of cars to horses are overwhelmingly apparent, this is
>simple not so for Windows against Linux. Getting from A to B at 60 MPH
>is reason enough why cars one out.
>
>At the end of the day, there is not sufficient product differentiation
>for Linux to beat Windows, imo. Its simple a "me to" product.
Linux has no advantage to the home user. That's true.
Linux has only advantages in offices (and so) because it is easier
(=costs less) to maintain. More complicated problems (like a computer
which doesn't start properly) take less time to fix with Linux than
with Windows.
Mike Engelhardt
> > because I saw a much bigger market in
> > Windows. This has indeed been the case.
>
> It was indeed the case, but it's not going to stay
Now I'm curious. I've spend a career writing simulators
here in Silicon Valley, CA. First on UNIX and now
Windows(in between I was the first person to publish source
patches to compile SPICE on Linux.) But I have never in
my life seen Linux used professionally for any kind of
engineering except for issues relating to software and/or
network engineering. I'm interested in information that
people have that contradicts my own personal observations
-- that is people using Linux for commercial engineering
that isn't about software and/or networks.
--Mike
Chris Carlen
> They are very much on the increase. At the rate the southeast Asian (most
> of which is not 3rd world, but we'll skip over the bigotry) market is
> growing, they are getting very significant. And they all run copies of
> Windows, while the governments stall US complaints long enough to get
> localised Linux distributions ready for Joe Bloggs, then they'll switch to
> that.
Wow, do you really think they are doing this intentionally to eventually
support Linux? I sure hope your right. But I know that Microsoft and
its cronies (the Bush administration) is trying to affect legislative
processes in other countries to stop pro-Linux and open source software
initiatives. Then there's always gunboat diplomacy, our final tactic
when we want to get our way.
I really want to see a world that looks like a big circle of Linux
surrounding a Windows US. Boy will that be funny when the US finally
wakes up (hopefully) and realizes what a monkey on its back Microsoft
has been.
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
cr...@earthlink.net
Suse 7.3 Linux 2.4.10
Chris Carlen
> Linux has no advantage to the home user. That's true. Linux has only
> advantages in offices (and so) because it is easier (=costs less) to
> maintain. More complicated problems (like a computer which doesn't
> start properly) take less time to fix with Linux than with Windows.
Huh? I saved considerable money by using a 486-66 to build a firewall
router for my home LAN when I got DSL. With Windows I'd have had to
throw the 486 into the dumpster and buy a new cheapo PC to run the
firewall. And I have serious security not some fake-ass joke of
Microsoft security, with Windows XP reporting to Microsoft all the time
what I'm doing, opening ports, doing god knows what. I really can't
believe that for how much Americans spout about freedom, that they are
willing to put up with the crap that XP does. What a bunch of phonies.
The home user can benefit very much from Linux, by saving $$$, having
superior computing performance, stability, and security, not to mention
privacy and something even more precious, *dignity*.
Good day!
--
John Woodgate
<ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <Z_tb9.2771$gH4.77877@newsfep2-gui>)
about 'Please help generate EDA tools for Linux', on Thu, 29 Aug 2002:
>The advantage of cars to horses are overwhelmingly apparent, this is
>simple not so for Windows against Linux.
When cars began, they ran at 2 to 4 mph and broke down very often
indeed. They had absolutely no obvious advantage over horses, except
that they produced no fertilizer. (;-)
Maybe Windows is analogous to the Model T?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Kevin Aylward
Er.. The question was actually rhetorical:-)
- I have
> been helping another guy here at the office set up a server for an
> application he is writing, and it is just incredible how much simpler
and
> smoother everything is than when working with Windows.
Again, preaching to the converted. Unix/Linux on a technical basis, is
obviously much better then Windows. No disagreement there. However,
Servers are not in the scope of the 400 million Windows users that drive
computing, and technicaly better is not relevant to my argument as to
why I don't anticipate Windows being killed off any time soon.
I certainly agree the EULA is a pain in the arse. SO, if Linux did start
*really* biting into Windows market, do you really believe that MS will
do nothing about it?
> >
> > > There is a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that. But if
you
> > look at
> > > what's actually happening, rather than prophosising doom, you will
see
> > that
> > > Linux is gaining steadily in spite of this.
> >
> > I see 400 million Windows users happening. How many Linux users are
> > there, especially in the home.
> >
> > > And those vendors that see this
> > > now will reap the benifits later when they are ahead of the
> > competition -
> >
> > Er.. What *real* benefits would these be? What can be done in Linux
that
> > is impossible to do in windows, that actually matters, for those 400
> > million users.
>
> We were talking about vendors of EDA tools here (had you forgotten?).
Actually, yes. I have no disagrement at all that running EDA on
Unix/Linux is far superior. I myself have done all my i.c. analogue
design work using Cadence on Unix. Running multi hour long runs on
Windows is generally suicide. However, non of this is relevant to the
argument of whether Windows will be killed by Linux, which is what I
percieved this debate to be about.
>What
> a tool vendor can do with a Linux version of a program is sell it to
people
> who would prefer to use Linux. Most users of EDA tools are pretty
loyal to
> their brand - they have invested a lot of learning in the tools, and
have a
> lot of designs that can't be easily transferred. If (for example)
OrCad
> wants to improve its market share over Protel, then offering a Linux
version
> would be a wise move.
>
> But, since you ask, the benifits for home users of Linux are a safer
system
> (say goodbye to viruses),
>a more reliable system (far fewer crashes, no more
> "aging" requiring re-installs, no more sudden bizare problems turning
up),
I agree it has blemishes, but not enough for Linux to kill Windows, imo.
>a
> system that comes with all its parts included (no need for virus
checkers,
> firewalls,
XP comes with a firewall as standard.
>extra office programs,
Word pad can do most of what home uses want. I have Office 97, hardly
use any of it at all.
>extra utilities for CD burning, extra
> drivers on seperate CDs, etc.), one that you can freely update as much
as
> you want, and one that costs much less to buy and keep up-to-date.
I did note that this last bit aint true. I upgraded from ME to XP, and
it required *no* input from me at all. It got all it new drivers itself,
and automatically installed all updates. CD burning is part of Windows
XP. Its all automatic. Put in a blank CD and it pops up an Explorer
window. Drag files to it and go.
When I was using ME, I got downloaded updates continuously. Now that I'm
using XP I get continuous updates as well. Ok, after a few years, there
will be a major MS OS upgrade that might kill those upgrades, but by
then, I'll probably need a new computer anyway.
>
> Additionally, many people feel that Microsoft is quite simply an
immoral,
> untrustworthy and unethical company that represents much of the worst
evils
> commited in the name of capitalism, and choose to avoid supporting it
> whenever possible.
>
So do I. But if they have you by the balls, you just have to live with
it, usually.
When I started Windows programming I used Borland. IMO, it was much
easier/better to use. I switched once I realised that all the jobs were
in MS VC. A realist makes choices on basis's other then technical
performance.
Overall, you keep using technical arguments. If this was a valid way to
get sales, commercials would be full of that sort of stuff.
Kevin Aylward
"Chris Carlen" <cr...@BOGUS.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D6EEEA3...@BOGUS.earthlink.net...
Again, non of this is relevant to the question "Will Linux kill off
Windows". You can spout off all the arguments why Linux is better until
you are blue in the face. Non of it matters. Its clout, market share,
etc that matters.
I see Linux replacing all Unix boxes, and Windows continuing as is for
the foreseeable future.
Kevin Aylward
news:akmd2a$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...
I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also yet
to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
Bas Arts
> > -- that is people using Linux for commercial engineering
> > that isn't about software and/or networks.
>
> I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also yet
> to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
That maybe holds for the big commercial vendors (Cadence, Synopsys, Mentor
etc.), but in-house EDA software already tends to shift to Linux. Eventually,
Unix EDA tools will be ported to Linux too.
--
greetz, |\_____---_____
Bas |/ (__|||__)
"""
Kevin Aylward
>
> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Hgub9.2817> >
> Wow, you're really breaking into irrationality here Kevin. Maybe
> > > Super-Spice is too heavily involved with the Windows API and
> > > non-portable that you've got quite a motivation to remain attached
to
> > > Windows. I think it's coloring your perceptions.
> > >
> >
> > You've got this all backwards. When I started SuperSpice I had more
> > experience writing software under Unix then Windows. I made a
conscious
> > decision to go with windows because I saw a much bigger market in
> > Windows. This has indeed been the case.
>
> It was indeed the case, but it's not going to stay that way.
IMO, it will.
>You have said
> yourself that you understand Linux is getting more popular with
technical
> engineering types, even though you can't see it being popular with
home
> users or the majority of corporate users. Now, where is your market -
the
> home users and secretaries of the world, or the engineers?
>
I said nerdy engineering types, and there is not many of them. The
majority of CAD, i.e. 1,000,000's of users is Orcad type stuff which has
been running on PCS for ever, not Unix. I don't see people changing. XP,
whilst still with faults, is much better then 95/98/ME etc and will
still therefore be the platform of default choice. That what all the
applications currently run on.
> >
> > > Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows. There
are a
> > few
> > > hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting into
the
> > > picture in the
> > > next decade or so.
> >
> > But the *large* majority of PC's are still shipped with Windows.
>
> But the proportion is getting less.
You mean 100% of Windows done to 99.9% of Windows.
>Linux is right on target to take over
> the small server world,
Indeed. It is replacing Unix not Windows. Window was never really in the
server market in the first place.
>but no one claims it has taken over the desktop or
> workstation world.
But that seems to be what you are claiming.
> What we are saying is that it is on the increase - it is
> gaining enough of a foothold, and growing fast enough, that it must be
taken
> seriously. Microsoft certainly does - why are you in denial about it?
I don't deny that Linux will replace Unix. Linux *is* Unix, but it runs
on much cheaper HW, i.e PC's rather then Suns. Again , Windows in
servers was simple a temporary aberration. It never was a Windows market
to lose.
> Perhaps the growth will flaten out without Linux capturing more than
10-15%
> of the desktop market, but perhaps not. The percentage within the
technical
> groups will be significantly higher.
>
Replace all Unix systems with Linux systems, and that's is what the
ratio will be.
Kevin Aylward
"Nico Coesel" <ni...@nctdevpuntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3d6e90b3...@news.cistron.nl...
If this was the case, then why do 1000's and 1000's of companies use
Orcad, Protel, Multysim (170,000 alone), PSpice, etc... running on
Windows. I agree that for applications such as i.c design, Unix tools
are dominant, but a handful of semiconductor companies is no match for
the huge number of companies involved in standard PCB based product
design. Essentially, none of then use Unix.
Kevin Aylward
As I noted in another post. Windows attempting the server market was a
temporary aberration of MS. It was just a bit of noise in the system.
> >
> > >You may own
> > > stock in Microsoft, but your stock trades won't be getting
processed
> > > anytime soon by Windows servers. They are usually done by
proprietary
> > > UNIXes right now, because Windows isn't reliable and probably
never
> > will be.
> > >
> >
> > So what. Its not relevent to Windows continued dominance in other
areas.
> >
> > > But people are switching these mission critial apps to Linux all
over
> > > the place.
> > >
> >
> > See above. Linux is replacing Unix not Windows.
>
> See above - Linux is replacing a market that would otherwise have gone
to
> Windows.
>
But not because of Window verses Unix in performance, it was because of
cheap PC's verses expensive Suns. Windows was the only alternative on a
cheap machine.
> >
> > > Now we're even seeing substantial corporate desktop workstation
> > > implementations with Linux, as IT departments can't accept both
having
> > > to increase their budgets and increase the proportions of those
> > budgets
> > > that are handed over to Microsoft.
> >
> > Of course Linux might be a preferred choice for CAD, engineering
etc. No
> > one really disputes this. Again, its Linux replacing Unix. And this
> > really means replacing the expensive Sun platforms with cheap PC's,
> > that's the *real* reason for the success of Linux. Not because Linux
is
> > better then Windows. Linux is not a new OS. Its Unix on a PC, but
with
> > cheaper hardware.
>
> First, corporates are replacing many desktop systems - not just their
> technical and engineering ones.
As noted in other posts, I have yet to see anyone using Linux for cad. I
have heard talk of it though.
>They are replacing Windows. That's the
> facts - dig around on a few computing news sites if you want reports.
Only a few... his is a bit like all those gays claiming that 10% of the
population is gay, when its really < 0.1% making a lot more noise about
it.
>It's
> happening slowly - the bigger the company, the slower such changeovers
can
> happen. But many big customers are looking for a way out of Microsoft
> lock-in, new licencing schemes, and ever-increasing IT budgets.
>
So slow, its at the observational limits.
> Second, how can you write that Linux is becoming the preferred choice
for
> CAD and engineering and still claim that you should not be considering
it
> for your products, or that of other EDA tool vendors? What is
SuperSpice if
> not an engineering program - a collection of cooking recipes?
>
I don't think that I said that, if I did then that is not accurate. I
don't know of anyone who uses Linux for CAD. Its *all* Unix for i.c
design work and Orcad/Protel/PSpice type stuff on Windows for board
level design.
I meant that Linux was a *technically* better platform for cad then
Windows. However, this does not mean that it is preferred in the sense
that because it is technically better then that will make it a first
choice. There is too much invested, by 100000's of companies in PCB
based products on Windows for them to simple switch to Linux, imo.
> Third, Linux is a new OS based on a mature model. It really is the
best of
> both worlds - while Microsoft continually attempts to re-invent the
wheel
> with every new version of Windows ("This version is the most stable
Windows
> ever!
The core of Windows remains the same. It has to. Its 1000's of API
function calls have the same name. Newer versions of Windows are really
only window dressing.
Well, I like the Windows user interface. Its much more integrated, imo.
However, "better" is simple not relevant. It is not the better product
that is successful. It is the first that is overwhelmingly the key.
Harvard, Coke, Hover, Kleenex, Kellogg's cornflakes, etc. exceptions to
this are quite rare.
>
> Let me ask you another question - if the Windows near-monopoly is so
> invincible,
Its not.
>why is Microsoft fighting so desperately to protect it,
This is obvious. They are not stupid.
> despite
> how much it has to anger everyone (individual users, volume customers,
> vendors, governments, law courts) in doing so?
No product is invincible if you do nothing at all to protect it. MS will
do whatever it takes to kill any threat to itself from Linux or anyone
else. Its the selfish gene. If these means changing their licences and
practices, they will do it.
>Over the past couple of
> years, it has gone to greater and greater extremes in its steps to
force
> people to buy its software whether they want it or not, since this is
the
> only way they can compete with free software, and to push big buyers
into
> ever more restrictive and costly contracts. It has also tried to
force
> developers into being unable to work for "the other side".
This is what any and all do if given the opportunity. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
If it goes to far, governments might even make specific laws against MS.
> What is it that
> you know about Windows safe dominance of the world that Microsoft
doesn't?
Like any businessman I know that MS will take what ever action is
necessary to survive. I never suggested that Windows will remain
dominant if MS does *nothing* towards any threat. It is inherently
*assumed* that if Linux, for example, gained a significant dent in the 5
billion profits of MS, then MS will take appropriate action. It is
obviously not safe if it ignore something that is knifing it in the
back.
Kevin Aylward
"Bas Arts" <Bas.Arts_no_@_spam_philips.com> wrote in message
news:w9g65xs...@natlab.research.philips.com...
> "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> writes:
> > > -- that is people using Linux for commercial engineering
> > > that isn't about software and/or networks.
> >
> > I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also
yet
> > to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
>
> That maybe holds for the big commercial vendors (Cadence, Synopsys,
Mentor
> etc.), but in-house EDA software already tends to shift to Linux.
Could you explain what "tends to shift to Linux" means. I see 100000's
of companies using Orcad/Protel/ElectronicWorkbench(170,000
alone)/PSPice all running on Windows. I have not checked much recently,
but I was not aware that the 50+ vendors have Linux ports of their
Windows apps.
Eventually,
> Unix EDA tools will be ported to Linux too.
>
Yeah, #define _H_LINUX should do it:-)
David Brown
>
> > > Ahmmm. So why go to Linux then.
> >
> > Because they'll work better. The biggest difference is for servers
>
> Er.. The question was actually rhetorical:-)
>
I thought it was a perfectly valid question, and deserved a useful answer.
> - I have
> > been helping another guy here at the office set up a server for an
> > application he is writing, and it is just incredible how much simpler
> and
> > smoother everything is than when working with Windows.
>
> Again, preaching to the converted. Unix/Linux on a technical basis, is
> obviously much better then Windows. No disagreement there. However,
> Servers are not in the scope of the 400 million Windows users that drive
> computing, and technicaly better is not relevant to my argument as to
> why I don't anticipate Windows being killed off any time soon.
>
> > and I can feel that the people behind the software I'm running are
> > interested in making the best possible system - not in getting the
> most
> > possible money out of and control over the user. If I want to upgrade
> my
> > home Linux system, I can do so, whereas I refuse point blank to get
> service
> > pack 3 for w2k if I need to agree to a EULA that lets microsoft
> install any
> > software it wants, automatically and without my knowledge and consent,
> even
> > if that breaks any software I currently have.
> >
>
> I certainly agree the EULA is a pain in the arse. SO, if Linux did start
> *really* biting into Windows market, do you really believe that MS will
> do nothing about it?
>
MS's EULAs have always been a pain in the arse - now they are getting far
worse. Do you really trust MS enough to allow them free access to your
machine? What about when they start making more clauses - there are already
clauses in the developement tools for wince banning you from using gpl'ed
software in connection wth the tools. If MS manages to come out ahead from
their latest court battles, you can be sure they will go even further.
Perhaps they will ban you from running non-certified software on your
machine "in the interests of security". In their latest EULAs they have
claimed the right to make such changes to the EULA, and update your Windows
to enforce that - without ever even bothering to tell you. Where will that
leave you, with all the non-MS softare that every engineer has? Where will
it leave your customers - unable to run your program until you pay through
the nose for certification and then have to ask everyone to upgrade?
The fact is, a major incentive behind some of the recent changes to MS's
EULAs is exactly because Linux is biting into the Windows market. And the
more it does, the more clauses get added, making it worse not better. You
can be pretty confident that Windows EULAs, for both desktops and
workstations, are going to have clauses effectively banning communication
with Samba in an attempt to block Linux from local networks (when they
recently released a few scraps of new information, claimed to be
"documentation for the apis", they included more information on SMB - with a
licence designed to make it illegal to read the documentation and then work
on the Samba project).
> > >
> > > > There is a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that. But if
> you
> > > look at
> > > > what's actually happening, rather than prophosising doom, you will
> see
> > > that
> > > > Linux is gaining steadily in spite of this.
> > >
> > > I see 400 million Windows users happening. How many Linux users are
> > > there, especially in the home.
> > >
> > > > And those vendors that see this
> > > > now will reap the benifits later when they are ahead of the
> > > competition -
> > >
> > > Er.. What *real* benefits would these be? What can be done in Linux
> that
> > > is impossible to do in windows, that actually matters, for those 400
> > > million users.
> >
> > We were talking about vendors of EDA tools here (had you forgotten?).
>
> Actually, yes. I have no disagrement at all that running EDA on
> Unix/Linux is far superior. I myself have done all my i.c. analogue
> design work using Cadence on Unix. Running multi hour long runs on
> Windows is generally suicide. However, non of this is relevant to the
> argument of whether Windows will be killed by Linux, which is what I
> percieved this debate to be about.
We are having two debates at once here, as far as I can see - will Linux
take over a substantial part of the desktop market from Windows (I don't
know it will necessarily kill it completly), and should EDA tool vendors
(like yourself) make Linux versions of the tools. We are on opposite sides
on the first question, but as far as I can see you have made very strong
case for the second point.
>
> >What
> > a tool vendor can do with a Linux version of a program is sell it to
> people
> > who would prefer to use Linux. Most users of EDA tools are pretty
> loyal to
> > their brand - they have invested a lot of learning in the tools, and
> have a
> > lot of designs that can't be easily transferred. If (for example)
> OrCad
> > wants to improve its market share over Protel, then offering a Linux
> version
> > would be a wise move.
> >
> > But, since you ask, the benifits for home users of Linux are a safer
> system
> > (say goodbye to viruses),
> >a more reliable system (far fewer crashes, no more
> > "aging" requiring re-installs, no more sudden bizare problems turning
> up),
>
> I agree it has blemishes, but not enough for Linux to kill Windows, imo.
>
> >a
> > system that comes with all its parts included (no need for virus
> checkers,
> > firewalls,
>
> XP comes with a firewall as standard.
Which is considered better than nothing, but not by much (although that is
only what I've heard - I have never had the "pleasure" of using XP my self).
>
> >extra office programs,
>
> Word pad can do most of what home uses want. I have Office 97, hardly
> use any of it at all.
You are virtually alone in thinking that (even though Wordpad is probably
sufficient for a great many people, they are trained my the MS marketting
machine to believe that they need Office).
>
> >extra utilities for CD burning, extra
> > drivers on seperate CDs, etc.), one that you can freely update as much
> as
> > you want, and one that costs much less to buy and keep up-to-date.
>
> I did note that this last bit aint true. I upgraded from ME to XP, and
> it required *no* input from me at all. It got all it new drivers itself,
> and automatically installed all updates. CD burning is part of Windows
> XP. Its all automatic. Put in a blank CD and it pops up an Explorer
> window. Drag files to it and go.
>
When I install Windows, I tend to do it stand-alone rather than letting it
collect everything via the 'net, and I'll take your word for XP being better
at this than w2k. So I take your point - you can let Windows download the
drivers that should have been on the windows installation CD. But while you
get steadily more small utilities with newer versions of Windows, you still
need to buy extra programs for a great deal of common things (for example,
you can burn data CDs with plain XP, but if you want to make decent
collections of mp3 files from your own music CDs, you need other programs.
That is, until MS in its wisdom decides that you would be better off using
their windows-specific format and remotely cripples your mp3 programs, as
you agreed to in the EULA).
> When I was using ME, I got downloaded updates continuously. Now that I'm
> using XP I get continuous updates as well. Ok, after a few years, there
> will be a major MS OS upgrade that might kill those upgrades, but by
> then, I'll probably need a new computer anyway.
>
It takes very little time for MS to stop providing upgrades to commonly used
programs once new versions are available. People are frequently quite happy
with older systems - it is only very recently that the last suppliers
stopped selling NT4, and most will happily provide w2k instead of XP. MS
can't be expected to continue updating all their old systems - that would be
entirely unreasonable. But they drop update support long before users have
switched to something newer.
Anyway, there are other programs to consider - updating Windows to a new
version means buying new versions of all your essential utility programs
(like your real CD mastering program, your virus checker (which also costs
to keep the signatures up-to-date), and the various utilities designed to
continually watch over Windows and try to fix it before it falls over its
own feet).
> >
>
> > Additionally, many people feel that Microsoft is quite simply an
> immoral,
> > untrustworthy and unethical company that represents much of the worst
> evils
> > commited in the name of capitalism, and choose to avoid supporting it
> > whenever possible.
> >
>
> So do I. But if they have you by the balls, you just have to live with
> it, usually.
>
You must live with it to some extent - but when there is an openning to get
out, go for it. You have to take a plunge to do so, but you'll be glad in
the long run.
> When I started Windows programming I used Borland. IMO, it was much
> easier/better to use. I switched once I realised that all the jobs were
> in MS VC. A realist makes choices on basis's other then technical
> performance.
>
When I started DOS programming, I used Borland tools because they were
better and easier to use. When I move to Windows, I had a brief foray with
VB3 (shudder!) until Delphi came out, and I have stuck to Borland tools ever
since. There is no particular advantage in using VC unless you are dealing
with things like device drivers. Now, I tend to use Python and Tkinter or
wxWindows - it's faster to work with, and it's cross-platform.
> Overall, you keep using technical arguments. If this was a valid way to
> get sales, commercials would be full of that sort of stuff.
>
Users are getting more technically competent - it is making a difference.
But I agree fully that the reasons people use Windows have nothing to do
with the technical abilities of systems (otherwise we'd all be using Macs or
OS/2, and Linux would never have taken off like it has). But there are
other reasons for choosing Linux - the cost, and the freedom from the
increasingly oppressive Microsoft. These are big reasons, and more and more
people are learning that. The majority still think, as you do, that MS has
them by the balls and they have to live with it even though they hate it -
much like people objecting to DVDs costing twice the price of video tapes
despite being cheaper to produce. But in every area, there are people and
groups who realise that they don't have to live with MS, and are choosing
something else.
David Brown
"Mike Engelhardt" <pm...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:akmd2a$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...
I'm basically a programmer (mostly embedded systems) rather than any other
kind of engineer, so that rules me out. But the electronics engineers here
use Windows - the programs they use are not available on anything else. But
people are changing. Those that work extensively with Windows-only programs
are going to be slow to change. But those who work with various programs,
only some of which are Windows-specific, are going to change sooner. I need
to use Protel for my work - but it's only a small part of the work. Given
the chance, I'd use Linux for most of my work and run things like Protel on
a windows box beside it. And if I were looking for a new EDA tool, then I'd
be looking for something that is available for both systems. Also, I
believe that a number of high-end EDA tool vendors are making Linux versions
of their software as an alternative to the unix versions. This must be
because people are using it, or are planning to (in this case, with Linux as
an alternative to unix).
David Brown
There is very strong government support for Linux in a number of southeast
Asian countries (with China at the top). Do you really think everyone in
these countries are planning to pay for Windows+Office on every machine they
make? It's quite simply impossible - they can't afford it. Would you pay
for Windows + Office if it cost you six months salery? There are only three
options - use an illegal copy (the current solution for many), accept
donated software and special deals (this goes on in many countries - MS
offers very cheap software to governments and schools), or use free
alternatives. Which do you think makes most sense? And whatever good or
bad you may think about the various forms of government in that corner of
the world, they are mostly sensible.
There is also increasing support in Europe - governments here (with the
possible exception of Britain) resent the control the US and US companies
have here, and see open source software as a way out.
Bas Arts
> donated software and special deals (this goes on in many countries - MS
> offers very cheap software to governments and schools), or use free
> alternatives. Which do you think makes most sense? And whatever good or
This is sort of drug-related. If you are getting used to M$ in one way or
another (free, cheap, illegal etc.) you get common to it. And why would you
want to change if you are used to something that won't cost you much and does
the job for you? (I expect 95% of Windows users only uses Word and IE)
Kevin Aylward
Fortunately, in the UK, there is an Unfair Contracts Law. Many of these
provisions, imo, are legally invalid. This law protects consumers from
clauses
such as these. This law applies to the situation when contract terms are
generally not negotiable, i.e its a pre ordained take it or leave it
situation.
What I do find a bit odd is that more people are not simple taking MS to
small
claim courts. They cant really use delaying tactics there, they have to
turn up.
If millions individually sued them they would probably have to change.
> The fact is, a major incentive behind some of the recent changes to
MS's
> EULAs is exactly because Linux is biting into the Windows market. And
the
> more it does, the more clauses get added, making it worse not better.
You
> can be pretty confident that Windows EULAs, for both desktops and
> workstations, are going to have clauses effectively banning
communication
> with Samba in an attempt to block Linux from local networks (when they
> recently released a few scraps of new information, claimed to be
> "documentation for the apis", they included more information on SMB -
with a
> licence designed to make it illegal to read the documentation and then
work
> on the Samba project).
>
But the more they try to restrict, the more government will be forced to
bring
in laws to stop them. As I noted, imo, banning communication with Samba,
would
not be enforceable in the UK. It would be an unfair business practice
with no
justification other then to continue a monopoly. They could then
probable be
sued if they tried to prevent it.
> > Actually, yes. I have no disagrement at all that running EDA on
> > Unix/Linux is far superior. I myself have done all my i.c. analogue
> > design work using Cadence on Unix. Running multi hour long runs on
> > Windows is generally suicide. However, non of this is relevant to
the
> > argument of whether Windows will be killed by Linux, which is what I
> > percieved this debate to be about.
>
> We are having two debates at once here, as far as I can see - will
Linux
> take over a substantial part of the desktop market from Windows (I
don't
> know it will necessarily kill it completly),
I simple don't see 400 million users switching. It too late for that.
>and should EDA tool vendors
> (like yourself) make Linux versions of the tools. We are on opposite
sides
> on the first question, but as far as I can see you have made very
strong
> case for the second point.
>
Its about market share *now* or in the immediate year or so. Companies
don't
plan for 5 years down the road, no matter how wise that might be. The
proof is
in the pudding. Bill Gates has billions. His company has done what it
was
designed to do. Make him, personally, wads of cash. Directors/managers
of
companies are in it for themselves. A potential of 1 million users 5
years from
now is probably not sufficient motivation. It might never happen.
"Should" is a loaded term. Companies don't care about anything but the
bottom
line. How much profit can I make, now. If people will buy what we are
already
producing, and it ismaking profit, there is no incentive to rock the
boat.
Maybe Linux could take away the 1M+ already using Windows for EDA (e.g.
electronicworkbench claim 170,000 users), but I don't *believe* so, and
am not
about to take the risk.
I have, for two weeks now, upgraded to XP from ME. Its not perfect, but
much,
much better then ME. Since *most* cad uses (e.g. ewb) are/were using
95/98/ME
the improvement in performance to XP is, imo, quite enough to not want
the
bother to change to Linux. Most simple do not require the stability of
Unix/Linux.
Sir Charles W. Shults III
in concert (electron configuration and also domain alignment) and there are no
domains in molten steel, it is not able to be picked up with a magnet. It's
Curie temperature is way, way down there- about where it is red hot.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
David Brown
> >You have said
> > yourself that you understand Linux is getting more popular with
> technical
> > engineering types, even though you can't see it being popular with
> home
> > users or the majority of corporate users. Now, where is your market -
> the
> > home users and secretaries of the world, or the engineers?
> >
>
> I said nerdy engineering types, and there is not many of them. The
> majority of CAD, i.e. 1,000,000's of users is Orcad type stuff which has
> been running on PCS for ever, not Unix. I don't see people changing. XP,
> whilst still with faults, is much better then 95/98/ME etc and will
> still therefore be the platform of default choice. That what all the
> applications currently run on.
Only a fool (and I do mean that) would consider 9x/ME for professional use.
NT4/w2k and now XP ("all the advantages of W2K with all the disadvantages of
WinME") are the systems professionals use - if they use the 9x line, their
IT department should be fired.
In the CAD world, there are high-end systems that invariably have unix
versions as well as (possibly) windows versions. Vendors are making Linux
versions of these, since (as you have said), it's easy, so they have nothing
to lose. There are low-end systems, like Eagle, that have Linux versions as
well as Windows versions. And there is a very large chunk in the middle
using tools like Orcad and Protel, that are Windows only. I believe that
Linux will encroach this market from both sides - and the tool vendors that
make the jump will gain market share for themselves and encourage the trend.
Obviously, you don't think that's the case, and at the moment I can't see
how either of us is going to persuade the other.
>
> > >
> > > > Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows. There
> are a
> > > few
> > > > hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting into
> the
> > > > picture in the
> > > > next decade or so.
> > >
> > > But the *large* majority of PC's are still shipped with Windows.
> >
> > But the proportion is getting less.
>
> You mean 100% of Windows done to 99.9% of Windows.
Where do you get your statistics - MSN? Have you not heard of MS's war
against "naked" PC's ("naked", in their book, meaning not shipped with
Windows)? They see it as a serious problem. That's because it is a
noticeable percentage and, more importantly, it is an increasing percentage.
There have always been a chunk of the PC sales that were sold without any
OS - "nerds", as you would probably call them, who put together machines
themselves from parts. And people looking for professional machines often
do so without the OS (for example, they don't want the toy OS that comes
with the machine, but would rather install w2k themselves). The situation
now, however, is different - "naked" PCs (or PCs with Linux pre-installed)
are being sold to the great unwashed.
>
> >Linux is right on target to take over
> > the small server world,
>
> Indeed. It is replacing Unix not Windows. Window was never really in the
> server market in the first place.
I don't know where you get this bizare notion that Windows was never in the
server market. It is very much in the server market, and has a hefty
proportion of the small server sector. It is trying desperately to force
its way deeper into the server market. Linux is without doubt taking a
large part of the unix market, but it is also taking part of the Windows
server market. But more to the point - if Linux were to disappear, then the
gap would be filled by Windows, not unix.
>
> >but no one claims it has taken over the desktop or
> > workstation world.
>
> But that seems to be what you are claiming.
Nope. Some people claim that. I suspect it might happen, but it is by no
means definite. I am saying that the proportions of Linux users on the
desktops is noticeable, and it is increasing, and will certainly increase to
the point where ignoring that market would be foolish.
>
> > What we are saying is that it is on the increase - it is
> > gaining enough of a foothold, and growing fast enough, that it must be
> taken
> > seriously. Microsoft certainly does - why are you in denial about it?
>
> I don't deny that Linux will replace Unix. Linux *is* Unix, but it runs
> on much cheaper HW, i.e PC's rather then Suns. Again , Windows in
> servers was simple a temporary aberration. It never was a Windows market
> to lose.
If that were the case, why do Microsoft consider Linux to be their number 1
enemy? They realised this years ago, and have been working against Linux
both on the desktop and the server ever since. One of their main weapons is
persuading developers that Linux doesn't really exist as a market - and they
seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.
David Brown
"Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:gtFb9.160>
> > Ofcourse, but Unix (Linux included) has a much lower TCO than Windows
> > (I know from experience while working with both for many years in
> > different environments). For that reason alone, EDA tools for Unix in
> > general will be cheaper to use than EDA tools for Windows.
>
> If this was the case, then why do 1000's and 1000's of companies use
> Orcad, Protel, Multysim (170,000 alone), PSpice, etc... running on
> Windows. I agree that for applications such as i.c design, Unix tools
> are dominant, but a handful of semiconductor companies is no match for
> the huge number of companies involved in standard PCB based product
> design. Essentially, none of then use Unix.
>
Before Linux started to take off for desktops, unix was an expensive option.
Windows was capable of running EDA programs, and was cheaper to buy and
cheaper to run (unix systems require far less effort to run, but required
more highly trained staff and high maintenaince and support fees, making it
only cost effective for big expensive systems). So vendors wrote programs
to run on Windows. Now, Linux is capable of running EDA programs on the
same hardware, and its cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. If a company
could choose Orcad for Windows or Orcad for Linux, then Orcad for Linux
would have a lower TCO and be more effective on the same hardware. But as
long as the choice is Orcad for Windows or Cadence for Linux/unix, the costs
are very much different. That's why none of these mid-range users use Linux
for EDA - they have no realistic choice.
David Brown
"Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dvHb9.23003$Rx4.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Well, that kind of sums up the discussion quite nicely.
David Brown
> As I noted in another post. Windows attempting the server market was a
> temporary aberration of MS. It was just a bit of noise in the system.
>
I give up. Keep your head in the sand if you want, and keep reading the
Daily Sport to find out what's happening in the world.
>
> > Second, how can you write that Linux is becoming the preferred choice
> for
> > CAD and engineering and still claim that you should not be considering
> it
> > for your products, or that of other EDA tool vendors? What is
> SuperSpice if
> > not an engineering program - a collection of cooking recipes?
> >
>
> I don't think that I said that, if I did then that is not accurate. I
> don't know of anyone who uses Linux for CAD. Its *all* Unix for i.c
> design work and Orcad/Protel/PSpice type stuff on Windows for board
> level design.
>
> I meant that Linux was a *technically* better platform for cad then
> Windows. However, this does not mean that it is preferred in the sense
> that because it is technically better then that will make it a first
> choice. There is too much invested, by 100000's of companies in PCB
> based products on Windows for them to simple switch to Linux, imo.
>
People (most professionals, anyway) do not want completly new tools to run
on Linux. What many of them want is Linux versions of the same tools.
Sure, it would be great if gEda became practical for serious work. But the
same tools on Linux would be far more useful. People upgrade their EDA
tools - a change of platform on the upgrade would not be any more investment
than keeping the same platform.
>
> > Third, Linux is a new OS based on a mature model. It really is the
> best of
> > both worlds - while Microsoft continually attempts to re-invent the
> wheel
> > with every new version of Windows ("This version is the most stable
> Windows
> > ever!
>
> The core of Windows remains the same. It has to. Its 1000's of API
> function calls have the same name. Newer versions of Windows are really
> only window dressing.
Bollocks. That is just so far out that it's hardly even funny. A hefty
proportion of the APIs are kept the same - anything else would be daft. But
what happens underneath these changes wildly between versions, especially
between the two major forks (Win3.1..Win9x...WinME was basically 16-bit
under the hood, while NT..W2K..XP has always been 32-bit). There are three
levels you can look at Windows - the pretty face on top (which changes with
the weather), the apis in the middle (which are reasonably constant in
theory, though they sometimes change in practice), and the guts underneath
(which has changed enormously).
I agree that as a business, MS will do what it can to protect its interests.
But what they are doing is not taking steps to ensure that a negligble threa
t stays negligble - they are fighting tooth and claw to protect themselves
from what they see as a serious growing menace. They do not share your
confidence in success - that's why they are working so hard at it.
Kevin Aylward
Indeed.
Kevin Aylward
> >
> > >You have said
> > > yourself that you understand Linux is getting more popular with
> > technical
> > > engineering types, even though you can't see it being popular with
> > home
> > > users or the majority of corporate users. Now, where is your
market -
> > the
> > > home users and secretaries of the world, or the engineers?
> > >
> >
> > I said nerdy engineering types, and there is not many of them. The
> > majority of CAD, i.e. 1,000,000's of users is Orcad type stuff which
has
> > been running on PCS for ever, not Unix. I don't see people changing.
XP,
> > whilst still with faults, is much better then 95/98/ME etc and will
> > still therefore be the platform of default choice. That what all the
> > applications currently run on.
>
> Only a fool (and I do mean that) would consider 9x/ME for professional
use.
Ahmmm...
A wise man knows he dont need to use the best tools, only tools that
will do the job.
> NT4/w2k and now XP ("all the advantages of W2K with all the
disadvantages of
> WinME") are the systems professionals use - if they use the 9x line,
their
> IT department should be fired.
>
Ahmmmm.
> In the CAD world, there are high-end systems that invariably have unix
> versions as well as (possibly) windows versions. Vendors are making
Linux
> versions of these, since (as you have said), it's easy, so they have
nothing
> to lose.
That's right, there simple hedging their bets. I doubt if they have a
business plan that relies on a take up of Linux though.
>There are low-end systems, like Eagle, that have Linux versions as
> well as Windows versions. And there is a very large chunk in the
middle
> using tools like Orcad and Protel, that are Windows only. I believe
that
> Linux will encroach this market from both sides - and the tool vendors
that
> make the jump will gain market share for themselves and encourage the
trend.
> Obviously, you don't think that's the case, and at the moment I can't
see
> how either of us is going to persuade the other.
>
Its the effort involved, i.e. the return on investment. Its not out of
the question. If the main big vendors port to Linux and allow file
transfer of the data bases its possible. But I would say that if *all*
agreed to ignore Linux, they would *all* be better off. It would save
them all of the development costs and the costs of supporting two
platforms. However, its a classic case of the "Prisoners Dilemma". If
one defaults, i.e. ports to Linux, he will be at an advantage wrt the
others by being a sole source.
I see a fundamentally aspect here is that when you buy a new computer,
the OS cost is all in the wash. It is still perceived as free. I dont
accept that companies drive sales, it the mass market that does. What
ever market is bigger wins out, the rest tags along. EDA is simple two
small a market to have much impact, imo.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Anyway, who cares if 400 million dupes stay with Windows.
There
> > are a
> > > > few
> > > > > hundred million brand new computer users that will be getting
into
> > the
> > > > > picture in the
> > > > > next decade or so.
> > > >
> > > > But the *large* majority of PC's are still shipped with Windows.
> > >
> > > But the proportion is getting less.
> >
> > You mean 100% of Windows done to 99.9% of Windows.
>
> Where do you get your statistics - MSN?
Easy. I invent them.
>Have you not heard of MS's war
> against "naked" PC's ("naked", in their book, meaning not shipped with
> Windows)? They see it as a serious problem.
I agree, its a potential serious problem. If MS does *nothing* then any
competitor could kill them off. My argument is inherently based on the
notion that *all* will defend their position. It is *always* a fight for
survival.
I think that it is difficult to predict the future. Customers that try
desperately to get the cheapest are not necessarily the best customers.
Although, this is usually my policy:-) e.g. I eliminated the rogueware
Stingray class library because they wanted $1,500 for an update to a
product with features that were 95% useless to me. I now use the
Codejock library for $199. I also now use the Astrum installer at $35
instead of upgrading for $500 from the freebee InstallShield that I was
using.
>
> >
> > > What we are saying is that it is on the increase - it is
> > > gaining enough of a foothold, and growing fast enough, that it
must be
> > taken
> > > seriously. Microsoft certainly does - why are you in denial about
it?
> >
> > I don't deny that Linux will replace Unix. Linux *is* Unix, but it
runs
> > on much cheaper HW, i.e PC's rather then Suns. Again , Windows in
> > servers was simple a temporary aberration. It never was a Windows
market
> > to lose.
>
> If that were the case, why do Microsoft consider Linux to be their
number 1
> enemy? They realised this years ago, and have been working against
Linux
> both on the desktop and the server ever since.
I meant a *real* market for *Windows* servers:-) MS were delusional and
convinced other equally delusional people to buy into something they
could never realistically deliver, well not reliable anyway.
As I noted, XP is much better, but the few niggles I have had already
with it keeps me firmly convinced that Windows will never be suitable
for critical tasks. It would need a *complete* rewrite from the ground
up. It is however, suitable for the *majority* of tasks, and that
includes general purpose CAD use such as already at the 1000's of
companies.
>One of their main weapons is
> persuading developers that Linux doesn't really exist as a market -
and they
> seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.
Because there isn't a market *today*, except for specialist
applications. Today is today, and as such, 400 million are using
windows. If I am going to write an app, then that's who I want to target
right now. e.g. even 10% of ewb's 170,000 uses would work for me:-)
Kevin Aylward
Not really.
That is just so far out that it's hardly even funny. A hefty
> proportion of the APIs are kept the same - anything else would be
daft. But
> what happens underneath these changes wildly between versions,
especially
> between the two major forks (Win3.1..Win9x...WinME was basically
16-bit
> under the hood, while NT..W2K..XP has always been 32-bit). There are
three
> levels you can look at Windows - the pretty face on top (which changes
with
> the weather), the apis in the middle (which are reasonably constant in
> theory, though they sometimes change in practice), and the guts
underneath
> (which has changed enormously).
>
It was implied that the two strains Win3.1..Win9x...WinME and
NT..W2K..XP were separate. This is obvious and not really worth
mentioning.
The basic core of ME is still 95/Dos, why else would it have exactly the
same faults. Just try writing to a:\ drive and try to do something else
in OS < XP. It has the same bloody error messages even, sometimes...
> > > What is it that
> > > you know about Windows safe dominance of the world that Microsoft
> > doesn't?
> >
> > Like any businessman I know that MS will take what ever action is
> > necessary to survive. I never suggested that Windows will remain
> > dominant if MS does *nothing* towards any threat. It is inherently
> > *assumed* that if Linux, for example, gained a significant dent in
the 5
> > billion profits of MS, then MS will take appropriate action. It is
> > obviously not safe if it ignore something that is knifing it in the
> > back.
> >
>
> I agree that as a business, MS will do what it can to protect its
interests.
> But what they are doing is not taking steps to ensure that a negligble
threa
> t stays negligble - they are fighting tooth and claw to protect
themselves
> from what they see as a serious growing menace. They do not share
your
> confidence in success - that's why they are working so hard at it.
My confidence in their success *assumes* that they will fight tooth and
claw. Look, I would like them to fail, just as I would like to believe
in an after life, but with $20 Billion in the bank, MS can do what they
want.
Geraldo Sazias
<snip>
I have another prediction: M$ will change the current SMB stacks to the new
SMB-Plus stacks automatically (using the new EULA and software installed
through service packs) which have been copyrighted to death and cannot be
implemented as Open Source thereby barring any communications with Linux
machines.
Mark my words!
Geraldo Sazias
Businesses have two options: they can either continue with the Windows
franchise, thereby losing huge sums of money, their dignity and control over
their IT spending, or they can switch to Linux. Most companies have frozen
IT spending and the eternal 'upgrade' cycle which is forced upon them by
Microsoft (thereby seriously hurting the U.S. economy) beause they want time
to think. That's the situation we're in today.
Companies have completely stopped upgrading to XP and 2000 but they know
that they will have to upgrade sometime in the future and they're seriously
contemplating switching to Linux on a massive scale because it will save
them bundles of money. I suspect the groundswell will start sometime next
year, if not before the end of this year. Most companies are still using
Win98/NT and they have to decide whether to upgrade to XP/.NET or go with
Linux soon.
I'm amazed how people are stuck in this cycle of denial that there's
something huge going on in the IT world. You're denying it probably because
you've made large investments in your Windows software (which was a
perfectly right decision back then) and it's probably a major rewrite to
move it over to Linux (to much links with proprietary Windows stuff such as
MFC, OLE, GDI?), or you're not out of touch with IT users, who are sick and
tired of Microsofts dominance, flagrant monopolistic behavior and oppressive
licensing practices.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if the U.S. government stepped in to help
Microsoft as they are one of the biggest exporters in America ($30+ billion
a year). Look for more laws which will squeeze the Open Source community
next year, as well as all sorts of related DRM (digital rights management)
legislation. The U.S. will probably the last Windows bastion as they know
they have the most to lose if Microsoft fails. Americans know this and in
most polls, you'll see that most Americans thing pretty highly of Microsoft,
unlike the rest of the world.
Geraldo Sazias
I think it's more about economics than resentment. Europe exports billions
worth of cars and other manufactured goods to the U.S. yet most of that
money has to be sent back because of the MS software we buy. European
leaders would like to keep those dollars in their pockets. And I think the
British will come around once they start adding things up.
It's funny, but it's not until recently that I've noticed (by the volatility
in the U.S. stock market) how big the cloud of the software industry on the
entire U.S. economy is. It's HUGE. The enormous gains in equity wealth were
largely driven by the Nasdaq and therefore the IT industry. If Microsoft
loses out, than the U.S. economy as a whole will lose out, in a *big* way.
It's therefore not unrealistic to think that the U.S. will take steps to
protect it's SW dominance by putting up legislation to block Open Source and
Linux.
Geraldo Sazias
Because companies will have to upgrade *sometime*, they can't stick with
their current M$ software forever, that's why. Because Microsoft, with it's
business practices, practically forces them to upgrade every three years or
so, by withholding support, bugfixes, new app support etc. etc. Therefore
it's very much a possibillity that companies will switch to Linux to get out
of this 'eternal upgrade cycle' caroussel. With Linux, they can stick to the
current version as long as they like, without having to upgrade. That's
why!!
David Brown
> I wouldn't at all be surprised if the U.S. government stepped in to help
> Microsoft as they are one of the biggest exporters in America ($30+
billion
> a year).
Why should they do that? It is not as if MS pays any tax - the US
government stands to save huge amounts by dropping MS software themselves.
David Brown
> > Only a fool (and I do mean that) would consider 9x/ME for professional
> use.
>
> Ahmmm...
>
> A wise man knows he dont need to use the best tools, only tools that
> will do the job.
>
A wise man knows that you don't use a toy for work. You use a tool that
will do the job. The only possible reason in a professional setting for
using ME instead of w2k (or 9x instead of NT4 before that) would be the
lower cost of the original licence. The far lower rate of crashes and other
problems that the more stable kernel has would more than pay for that
difference in a very short time.
Bas Arts
> > another (free, cheap, illegal etc.) you get common to it. And why would
> you
> > want to change if you are used to something that won't cost you much and
> does
> > the job for you? (I expect 95% of Windows users only uses Word and IE)
> >
>
> Because companies will have to upgrade *sometime*, they can't stick with
Exactly. However, I'm talking about the millions of home users in South-East
Asia here.
They can use illegal software.
David Brown
"Bas Arts" <Bas.Arts_no_@_spam_philips.com> wrote in message
news:w9g8z2o...@natlab.research.philips.com...
They can, but just like the rest of us, they'd prefer to use free legal
software than free illegal software, assuming they do a similar job. Home
users in southeast Asia are no different from home users in the US or
Europe, except they have a lower average income. Home users in the West
would do exactly the same (in fact, a substantial proportion do - many have
legal installations of Windows, but illegal copies of other programs like MS
Office) in the same position.
Christopher R. Carlen
>
> I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also yet
> to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
What kind of CAD? Does schematic entry and PCB layout count? If so you
can put me on for count #1.
--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crc...@sandia.gov
Christopher R. Carlen
> Actually, yes. I have no disagrement at all that running EDA on
> Unix/Linux is far superior. I myself have done all my i.c. analogue
> design work using Cadence on Unix. Running multi hour long runs on
> argument of whether Windows will be killed by Linux, which is what I
> percieved this debate to be about.
It has gotten off on that tangent but perhaps more to the point of the
OP is the issue of whether technical computing will eventually move a
large proportion of its user base back from Windows to the UNIX side,
but this time on Linux. Since your product is "technical computing" it
would be this question that should most interest you, not whether Linux
will "defeat" Windows or other fanatical wishes. What really matters
here is whether we will see over the next 5-10 years a migration of a
substantial to large proportion, by that I mean 25% to 75%, of
technical/scientific/engineering computer workstations to Linux.
Technical professionals, who should be more interested in performance
and technical superiority of their computing platform, as opposed to the
convenience of it's use, and how pretty it looks, should thus find Linux
very attractive, and in some cases essential, and start demanding from
their vendors Linux versions of the programs they use.
Like you said, "Running multi hour long runs on Windows is generally
suicide." Don't you think that with the spiralling complexity of modern
engineering and scientific computations, that this ultimately means that
Windows simply can't do the job? Even if it is doing the job now for
simpler problems, or say the average problems, isn't it doing so
marginally rather than optimally? And if so, why are we hanging our
heads low and bowing to Microsoft, saying in effect "Windows has won the
desktop forever, so there's nothing I can do, blah blah blah" Yes, you
can do something! You can migrate. Lots of people do it. It's painful
in the beginning, and then you never look back.
> I did note that this last bit aint true. I upgraded from ME to XP, and
> it required *no* input from me at all. It got all it new drivers itself,
> and automatically installed all updates. CD burning is part of Windows
> XP. Its all automatic. Put in a blank CD and it pops up an Explorer
> window. Drag files to it and go.
It's certainly an improvement to not have to insert a bunch of driver
disks and re-boot 20 times to install a Windows system anymore, like I
had to do the other night with W98 which I use to run blasted
development tools for AVR and other EE stuff that only runs on Windows, :-(
The drivers for most hardware, and most commodity programs like .pdf
readers, CD burners, all the networking stuff needed to build your own
LAN or internet service provider, free .ps to .pdf document converter,
multiple choices of desktop environments, graphics manipulation programs
like Gimp (90% of the functionality of Photoshop), complete Office
suites, and all the language compilers you can name, etc. should all be
included in the OS as it comes from the box in this day and age, don't
you think ;-)
Windows *does* come with all these programs out of the box, doesn't it?
I mean especially considering that you had to *pay* for it and all?
And since Linux has all these things built in, and Windows is
mainstream, Windows must come with all this and even more, I bet, huh?
> XP comes with a firewall as standard.
But do you trust it? Do you know about this:
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
??? I can't see how any human being who values living in a free society
can tolerate what Microsoft is doing in Windows XP.
However, I actually don't like automatic updating features in OSes.
They break things without your asking. I would reasonably trust my
Linux distributors however, to run such a service, but Microsoft? You
gotta be kidding. Nor would I let AOL on my computer.
> When I was using ME, I got downloaded updates continuously. Now that I'm
> using XP I get continuous updates as well. Ok, after a few years, there
> will be a major MS OS upgrade that might kill those upgrades, but by
> then, I'll probably need a new computer anyway.
Well you might not need a new computer because of the software you want
to run, but you *will* need a new computer to run Microsoft's next major
upgrade! :-D
>>Additionally, many people feel that Microsoft is quite simply an
> immoral,
>>untrustworthy and unethical company that represents much of the worst
> evils
>>commited in the name of capitalism, and choose to avoid supporting it
>>whenever possible.
>
> So do I. But if they have you by the balls, you just have to live with
> it, usually.
>
No Kevin, until it becomes illegal to do differently, which might just
happen if everyone acquiesces and says "But if they have you by the
balls, you just have to live with it, usually." you have a choice.
> When I started Windows programming I used Borland. IMO, it was much
> easier/better to use. I switched once I realised that all the jobs were
> in MS VC. A realist makes choices on basis's other then technical
> performance.
But I do understand how difficult it can be to reconcile the need to put
food on the table with one's principles. There has to be compromizes.
Each one of us must decide where to draw the line for ourselves. We
should go around telling other people where their line ought to be.
But we do have a choice.
Geraldo Sazias
Because they're a net exporter (software hardly uses any imported raw
materials) and therefore a source of employment and wealth, both direct and
indirect. Also, there's the huge U.S. ISV software industry to consider
(virus checkers, CD ROM burning, games, CAE software, etc etc.) which will
stand to lose if Open Source catches on.
The Technical Manager
The British government and civil service are largely computer illiterate anyway
and only venture into things they understand like Microsoft software. Very few
government departments and virtually no schools seem to use Linux.
Kevin Aylward
"Christopher R. Carlen" <crc...@sandia.gov> wrote in message
news:3D6FD1EE...@sandia.gov...
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also
yet
> > to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
>
> What kind of CAD? Does schematic entry and PCB layout count? If so
you
> can put me on for count #1.
>
I'll make it one then. You can have the single copy of SuperSpice for
$13,874,476.
Frank Bemelman
news:3D6FD149...@sandia.gov...
[snip]
> Technical professionals, who should be more interested in performance
> and technical superiority of their computing platform, as opposed to the
> convenience of it's use, and how pretty it looks, should thus find Linux
> very attractive, and in some cases essential, and start demanding from
> their vendors Linux versions of the programs they use.
In the end, *conveniece* of use is the only thing that matters. I prefer
a car that brings me from A to B, versus one that has a beautiful 12
cylinder
engine, but no wheels.
> Like you said, "Running multi hour long runs on Windows is generally
> suicide." Don't you think that with the spiralling complexity of modern
> engineering and scientific computations, that this ultimately means that
> Windows simply can't do the job? Even if it is doing the job now for
I don't think that is what Kevin meant. I often work 9 hours in Protel,
and sometimes hit the save button after some ingenious global editting,
not waiting for the auto-save to kick in. At the end of the day, my PC
often 'hangs' in the shut down procedure (4 out of 5 times). Twice a
week it 'hangs', but just one application. I normally have Outlook running
all the time, Borland Paradox (our database system), internet explorer
and one or two other goodies. I experienced that windows PC's with 64MB
often are much more unstable (I have 128MB). It is not that bad. If I
have an application frozen up, I reboot the entire PC, to prevent more
trouble.
> simpler problems, or say the average problems, isn't it doing so
> marginally rather than optimally? And if so, why are we hanging our
> heads low and bowing to Microsoft, saying in effect "Windows has won the
> desktop forever, so there's nothing I can do, blah blah blah" Yes, you
> can do something! You can migrate. Lots of people do it. It's painful
> in the beginning, and then you never look back.
I raise my middle finger to MS. I have some newer MS-software purchased
for with new PC's, but installed older versions since I don't like that
registration stuff the newer software requires. I suppose it is not
illegal to copy an older legal version, and leave the new software nicely
shrinkwrapped. The end result is that I have a good working system,
all runs very well. Why should I change that? BTW, other employees run
the average software, MS-office etc, and they never have problems. I may
have some, but that is unavoidable given my needs. It's certainly not
driving me nuts, on the contrary.
>
> > I did note that this last bit aint true. I upgraded from ME to XP, and
> > it required *no* input from me at all. It got all it new drivers itself,
> > and automatically installed all updates. CD burning is part of Windows
> > XP. Its all automatic. Put in a blank CD and it pops up an Explorer
> > window. Drag files to it and go.
>
> It's certainly an improvement to not have to insert a bunch of driver
> disks and re-boot 20 times to install a Windows system anymore, like I
> had to do the other night with W98 which I use to run blasted
> development tools for AVR and other EE stuff that only runs on Windows,
:-(
You must have a lousy PC composed of leftovers and other rubbish. If you
copy the \win98 directory from your CD-rom to your harddrive, you can
install everything, with only one reboot. Don't blame windows if it doesn't
have a driver for that taiwanese no-brand $15 soundcard, and for which
linux doesn't have a driver at all. Get a decent PC, and for god sake
don't build one yourself using parts that belong on the scrapheap.
[snip]
>
> > XP comes with a firewall as standard.
>
> But do you trust it? Do you know about this:
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
>
> ??? I can't see how any human being who values living in a free society
> can tolerate what Microsoft is doing in Windows XP.
At least we know who wrote the software, and who ought to be shot and hanged
;)
BTW, at home, I use a simple hardware firewall that only has a few ports
opened. I have 2 PC's here at home, and I don't want to run software
firewalls
on both, nor do I like to use an old PC running 24 hrs/day as a firewall,
waste of energy really.
[snip]
--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)
Frank Bemelman
news:TWOb9.2526$Q%.77710@newsfep2-gui...
>
>
> "Christopher R. Carlen" <crc...@sandia.gov> wrote in message
> news:3D6FD1EE...@sandia.gov...
> > Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also
> yet
> > > to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
> >
> > What kind of CAD? Does schematic entry and PCB layout count? If so
> you
> > can put me on for count #1.
> >
>
> I'll make it one then. You can have the single copy of SuperSpice for
> $13,874,476.
13 million ??? I guess the name of your new boat will be 'SuperSpice' ;)
Kevin Aylward
news:gLKb9.78$yt.1...@castor.casema.net...
The IT world is not relevent to the CAD world
>You're denying it probably because
> you've made large investments in your Windows software
No idea what you talking about here. I am simple looking at the facts,
as they are today. e.g EWB with 170,000 users for starters. What might
be in 5 years time don't hold much interest for me.
>(which was a
> perfectly right decision back then) and it's probably a major rewrite
to
> move it over to Linux (to much links with proprietary Windows stuff
such as
> MFC, OLE, GDI?), or you're not out of touch with IT users, who are
sick and
> tired of Microsofts dominance, flagrant monopolistic behavior and
oppressive
> licensing practices.
>
I'm still not sure about all this IT thing, e.g. IBM principle sell to
the bank type community. They are $80B a year, not a Unix, Linux or
windows box to be seen. A typical big bank might spend $1B a year in IT.
Kevin Aylward
No. *most* design do not require multi hour runs. Bu and large its 10
minutes here and there, lots of times. Certainly no the board level
ones. And the one that should can be cheated on.
>en if it is doing the job now for
> simpler problems, or say the average problems, isn't it doing so
> marginally rather than optimally? And if so, why are we hanging our
> heads low and bowing to Microsoft, saying in effect "Windows has won
the
> desktop forever, so there's nothing I can do, blah blah blah" Yes,
you
> can do something! You can migrate. Lots of people do it. It's
painful
> in the beginning, and then you never look back.
>
But I hate the Unix/Linux interface. It has always been a joy to leave
work running cadence anlog artist on Unix to get back home to using
windows. I think its GUI interface is much, much better, despite its
crashes. Its simple much better integrated, imo.
Furthermore writing GUI software using Visual C++ is piss easy., and its
cheap. $100 bucks for something that other vendor would charge qo time
as much for. My class libraries cost more then the compiler.
I agree that MS has some very serious problems. I would much prefer the
politicians to get of their arses and regulate MS to death by law. They
have too much power.
> However, I actually don't like automatic updating features in OSes.
> They break things without your asking. I would reasonably trust my
> Linux distributors however, to run such a service, but Microsoft? You
> gotta be kidding. Nor would I let AOL on my computer.
>
The automatic update don't seem to work when all scripting is off. I
always keep mine off. I wont use site that have java on unless I really
must. When I have Java off, I keep getting a prompt to go to the site to
update, and click ok. It keeps doing this some time later. Only if I go
and turn Java back on does it actually work.
steve
<ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree. I have always used Cadence for i.c design work. I have also yet
>to see a single Linux workstation being used for cad.
You're missing it, Kevin. If you haven't seen Linux used for serious
IC cad, you're looking in the wrong places. Major industry movement
underway...
Written a little over a year ago: "... 20 months ago Nvidia had 10
Linux boxes, 150 Suns and 100 NT boxes. Last month, Nvidia had 640
Linux boxes, 270 Suns and only 70 NT boxes. 'We get 2- to 3x
performance of our Linux boxes over our Unix workstations, and Linux
boxes are much cheaper, too,' Chris said on the phone. 'We use Suns
only for the big jobs because of the current 2-Gig limit in Red Hat.'"
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010402S0043
Cadence is porting -- IC5.0 will be released for Linux, in 2003.
http://www.cadence.com/company/pr/061002_CICDAC2002.html
Mentor is also porting, but they don't seem to have a coordinated
Linux release strategy, which will hurt them. IC Station is going to
linux, at least...
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000823S0043
Synopsys seems to have a bunch of stuff on Linux also.
http://www.chipcenter.com/asic/products_100-199/prod139.html
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20001009S0011
At work, various groups are putting in little linux farms, sort of
testing things. Our simulator runs on linux, quite well, and is
getting a lot of active use on linux
If I were Sun, I'd be very worried.
--Steve
Michael A. Terrell
>
> You must have a lousy PC composed of leftovers and other rubbish. If you
> copy the \win98 directory from your CD-rom to your harddrive, you can
> install everything, with only one reboot. Don't blame windows if it doesn't
> have a driver for that taiwanese no-brand $15 soundcard, and for which
> linux doesn't have a driver at all. Get a decent PC, and for god sake
> don't build one yourself using parts that belong on the scrapheap.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank Bemelman
> (remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)
That's funny! I have a lot less trouble from my home built systems
than ANY pre built system that I've owned. I have scrapped hundreds of
PCs with well known brand names that were built with some of the worst
crap I've ever seen. On top of that, the only reliable purchased
computer I have had is this one. A cheap 800 MHz E-Machine that is used
for internet access. Everyone tells me that E-Machine is junk, but it
works like I want it to.
Its part of my home network, along with a number of home built
systems that are reliable, and built out of whatever I had on hand at
the time. It replaced a Compaq 7360 that died when it was only seven
months old. It would reset itself, or shut down without warning. A
couple days later it reset itself three times during bootup and died. Of
course they had a warranty, but I was in the middle of a project and
they wanted me to drop it off at the local Radio Shack for service and
wait three to four weeks. They also told me they would reformat the
hard drive, and for me to back up the files before taking it in. They
would not answer my E-mails, other than the one form letter wanting to
know if it was plugged in. So, I pulled the hard drive out, put it in
one of my "Frankenputers" and kept working. Then I put Compaq on my
list of "Buy from after hell freezes over list". They are with good
company, along with H-P, Gateway, Dell, and Unisys.
One my systems truly is a "Fankenputer" It started as an XT clone with
a 5 meg hard drive about ten years ago and has mutated into a Pentium
150 used as a file server. It has about 80 gig of storage. It has been
though five motherboards, three cases, over a dozen hard drives, four
CD-ROM drives, several sound cards, modems, and network cards. It now
has 10 drive bays, runs Win 95B, and still sees quite a bit of use. I
plan to replace the motherboard when i get back to work, and will build
another system with it for my dad and try to get him to use it for
E-mail. (He is in his 70's)
This machine is running ME, a 733 Mhz Celeron and has 192 meg of
RAM. I also have Win 98 SE on another machine (From the dead Compaq).
I plan to expand my network to two other buildings on my property
because it will make it easier on me than having to lug my old laptop
around as I build my website and catalog all the things I need to.
I have never had much trouble building my own systems, and have
repaired quite a few for others. I guess that I've been luck and never
run across the crap you're talking about. Of course, the crappy
Gateways and Dells they had at my last job always needed new drivers and
dropped like flys. Corporate decision to only buy packaged systems bit
everyone in the ass, except those in management who got new machines
every time you turned around.
--
An old fart since August 5th, 2002!
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Check out my web site and tell me what you think.
I'm up to 160 pages, and still working on it.