Betting on Unix

Betting on Unix

Post by v.. » Tue, 04 Feb 1997 04:00:00



With my last 1 year experience with NT, i am completely pissed off.

IMHO, NT is a badly designed bull shit.

Now i am more than ever convinced on the future of Unix.

I predict   INTEL would be the hardware standard.
And Linux/FreeBsd would be the software standard.

Now my question is:
If that is the way the world goes, What are all the companies who would
be benefited by the raise of Linux/FreeBsd as software standard.

thanks,
-vs senthilkumar

       Let's not predict the future by looking into rear view mirror.

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Roy Hendrickzo » Tue, 04 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> With my last 1 year experience with NT, i am completely pissed off.

> IMHO, NT is a badly designed bull shit.

Man I have win 95/ linux /NT 4.blow

linux has been up 24 hours a day for a long time

the M$ boxes need rebooting every few hours.

ALSO NT BLEW-UP my whole file system!!!!

and to think i actually paid for it..

I was robbed

Quote:

> Now i am more than ever convinced on the future of Unix.

> I predict   INTEL would be the hardware standard.
> And Linux/FreeBsd would be the software standard.

> Now my question is:
> If that is the way the world goes, What are all the companies who would
> be benefited by the raise of Linux/FreeBsd as software standard.

> thanks,
> -vs senthilkumar

>        Let's not predict the future by looking into rear view mirror.


 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Nick Say » Tue, 04 Feb 1997 04:00:00


Those predictions are too focused. I think more broad predictions
are called for.

It is not difficult to predict that PCI is going to be the bus of
choice.

I see the PPC CHiRP platform being the next industry platform of choice.
Look at the past: The success of a platform has in large part been
directly proportional to the number of manufacturers that have made the
hardware (yes, Apple is the one glaring exception to this). A countless
number of vendors make x86 machines, a perhaps not so countless, but
non-trivial number of manufacturers make sparc machines. By contrast,
one manufacturer makes Alpha machines, one manufacturer makes PA-risc
machines.

Many manufacturers are going to make CHiRP machines, and each of them
is going to be compatable with any CHiRP OS. Buy an Apple and run
Solaris on it. Buy a Sun and run NT on it. Buy a Motorola and run MacOS
on it. Buy an IBM and run NetBSD on it. Buy a copy of AIX-PPC and burn it
in effigy.

CHiRP has the promise to displant the x86 platform from its throne.

As for OS, there was an article in one of the magazines that opined that
vis-a-vis NT, "The honeymoon is over." I have heard many a nightmarish
tale about NT4.0 being unable to run on otherwise perfectly good
hardware, and huge mountains of software that runs under win95 but
refuses to under NT4. I may be a unix bigot, but if NT is the answer,
it must be a stupid question.

What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about Microsoft
desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and energy if he
likes, but unix will die without applications. If WABI or Wine can
run Office-95, then that's one way. If not, then Sun or someone else
needs to make an office productivity suite for Unix. It is in the
application arena that an OS lives or dies. If applications are
as plentiful and priced equally ($300 for Word and $1500 for
Framemaker?!), then at long last the OS wars will be fought on
even footing.

But Unix' achiles heel is that its compatability is only at source
level. Each CPU requires its own compiler, and each OS requires its
own libraries. This, truly, is POSIX's next task - Application
independence at the shared library level. If I have an x86 ELF
binary, it should not matter what OS it was compiled on, I should
be able to run it without modification or without fetching the
libraries from somewhere. Unix is heading in this direction,
but the quicker it gets there, the quicker it will be seen as an
equal platform. And the quicker the applications will be ported
to it.

--


+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' |
URL: http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/   |      -- David Hawkins

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Doug Sant » Wed, 05 Feb 1997 04:00:00



>Those predictions are too focused. I think more broad predictions
>are called for.

>It is not difficult to predict that PCI is going to be the bus of
>choice.

Maybe.

Quote:>I see the PPC CHiRP platform being the next industry platform of choice.
>Look at the past: The success of a platform has in large part been
>directly proportional to the number of manufacturers that have made the
>hardware (yes, Apple is the one glaring exception to this). A countless
>number of vendors make x86 machines, a perhaps not so countless, but
>non-trivial number of manufacturers make sparc machines. By contrast,
>one manufacturer makes Alpha machines, one manufacturer makes PA-risc
>machines.

HP has teamed up with intel with its PA-RISC arch. in hand.  It will be
interesting to see what they do with it.

Quote:>As for OS, there was an article in one of the magazines that opined that
>vis-a-vis NT, "The honeymoon is over." I have heard many a nightmarish
>tale about NT4.0 being unable to run on otherwise perfectly good
>hardware, and huge mountains of software that runs under win95 but
>refuses to under NT4. I may be a unix bigot, but if NT is the answer,
>it must be a stupid question.

>What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about Microsoft
>desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and energy if he
>likes, but unix will die without applications. If WABI or Wine can
>run Office-95, then that's one way. If not, then Sun or someone else
>needs to make an office productivity suite for Unix. It is in the
>application arena that an OS lives or dies. If applications are

Here I think you are dead wrong.  Unix doesn't want to be on your
secretary's desk, nor in every den in the world.  It is for serious
programming projects/research.   It doesn't want, not is it well
suited for, day to day office typing.

Quote:>as plentiful and priced equally ($300 for Word and $1500 for
>Framemaker?!), then at long last the OS wars will be fought on
>even footing.

W95 and Unix were conceived for different applications from the get go
and both are happy where they are.  They aren't meant to compete with
each other.

Quote:>But Unix' achiles heel is that its compatability is only at source
>level. Each CPU requires its own compiler, and each OS requires its

As with NT et al.

Quote:>own libraries. This, truly, is POSIX's next task - Application
>independence at the shared library level. If I have an x86 ELF
>binary, it should not matter what OS it was compiled on, I should

No way.

Quote:>be able to run it without modification or without fetching the
>libraries from somewhere. Unix is heading in this direction,
>but the quicker it gets there, the quicker it will be seen as an
>equal platform. And the quicker the applications will be ported
>to it.

I don't know what you are saying here.  Equal platform?  To what?

DJS

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Jonas Bofja » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> I see the PPC CHiRP platform being the next industry platform of choice.

It may be. But we don't know what surprises Intel has up in their sleeves.
AMD and Cyrix proved to be constantly behind Intel, but chasing them to
lower their prices. And why not the Alpha? If Digital would dump the price
on an Alpha, I think they would take over the market before Motorola has
made their next PPC. Digital already has big apps, like NT and an
x86-emulation that works!

Quote:> run Office-95, then that's one way. If not, then Sun or someone else
> needs to make an office productivity suite for Unix. It is in the

The market is opening. We have WordPerfect, StarOffice and AppliXware,
but that's just the beginning of it...

Quote:> But Unix' achiles heel is that its compatability is only at source
> level. Each CPU requires its own compiler, and each OS requires its

This is nothing unique for Unices. But several platform-independent
solutions will show up when computers have the necessary performance to run
it. Corel Office Java is already here.


 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Martin J. Man » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Here I think you are dead wrong.  Unix doesn't want to be on your
> secretary's desk, nor in every den in the world.  It is for serious
> programming projects/research.   It doesn't want, not is it well
> suited for, day to day office typing.

Ah, history can be so amusing sometimes!  Day to day office typing was, in
fact, the very first real world application of Unix according to the
accounts I've read, and was rather important in getting a little bit of
funding for hardware from management (for example, in an article in the
famous "Unix issue" of the BLTJ, but it's been retold more than a few
times over the years).
 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by David Masterso » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> Here I think you are dead wrong.  Unix doesn't want to be on your
> secretary's desk, nor in every den in the world.  It is for serious
> programming projects/research.  It doesn't want, not is it well suited for,
> day to day office typing.

How quickly they forget...

Even AT&T didn't learn (or learned too late) that UNIX could have been an
excellent environment for the secretary's desk (and originally was) and could
have worked in the home market.  However, AT&T failed to build a "single-user"
UNIX in the early 1980's (the UNIX-PC was still multi-user oriented) and so
ceded the market to Microsoft.  AT&T had the expertise to battle Microsoft on
OS development, but it never realized the value of the golden-egg it had
sitting in its nest!

Ahh well...

==================================================================
David Masterson                         KLA Instruments
408-456-6836                            P.O. Box 49055 M/S F1-9440

==================================================================
      I only speak for myself -- it keeps me out of trouble

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Sara Roune » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> As for OS, there was an article in one of the magazines that opined that
> vis-a-vis NT, "The honeymoon is over." I have heard many a nightmarish
> tale about NT4.0 being unable to run on otherwise perfectly good
> hardware, and huge mountains of software that runs under win95 but
> refuses to under NT4. I may be a unix bigot, but if NT is the answer,
> it must be a stupid question.

While I don't agree with everything in your post, I have to agree with
you here.  IMHO, NT4 was a mistake. Probably because they rushed it.
IME, NT3.51 was a much better [i.e. stable] product.  Articles in
trade mags I have read show that an overwhelming majority of IS
managers are still running NT3.51, and are wary of NT4 after hearing
of others' reports of NT4 instability.

MS should have released the shell preview (makes NT3.51 look like
Win95) as an add-on to NT3.51, then waited for the feature set in NT5
to become available before making the new release.

Water under the bridge now, though.

Quote:

> What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about Microsoft
> desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and energy if he
> likes, but unix will die without applications. If WABI or Wine can
> run Office-95, then that's one way. If not, then Sun or someone else
> needs to make an office productivity suite for Unix. It is in the
> application arena that an OS lives or dies. If applications are
> as plentiful and priced equally ($300 for Word and $1500 for
> Framemaker?!), then at long last the OS wars will be fought on
> even footing.

Companies like Applix are selling comparable products.  Sure, all I
ever used MS Office for was writing documentation using Word and doing
spreadsheet analysis using Excel.  Some database work with Access, but
I'm much more in favor of Oracle or PG95 for my database needs.

ApplixWare from Applix/Redhat suits my needs, and I find it easier to
use.  It looks and feels a lot like MS OFfice, so it was easy to learn
(I never even cracked open the manual.)  Screen shots on
http://www.redhat.com.  Not to mention it's faster on the same
hardware than MS Office (P-100, 16MB ram.)  After I beat TIE Fighter
one more time under Win95, I'll reformat my Win95 partition and mke it
a data area.

Quote:> But Unix' achiles heel is that its compatability is only at source
> level. Each CPU requires its own compiler, and each OS requires its
> own libraries. This, truly, is POSIX's next task - Application
> independence at the shared library level. If I have an x86 ELF
> binary, it should not matter what OS it was compiled on, I should
> be able to run it without modification or without fetching the
> libraries from somewhere. Unix is heading in this direction,
> but the quicker it gets there, the quicker it will be seen as an
> equal platform. And the quicker the applications will be ported
> to it.

IMO, the Java virtual machine will go a long way here.  It goes beyond
UNIX-to-UNIX.  As I understand the issues, a Java binary will run on
any system that supports the JVM.  I think Corel
(http://www.corel.com) has a beta out of the Corel office for Java.

And Linux (for one) supports running Java binaries as though they were
native binaries.  Now THAT'S a powerful feature.

--
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be
yours too."

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by bill davids » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00


| What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about Microsoft
| desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and energy if he
| likes, but unix will die without applications.

UNIX doesn't have applications. You look for one product from one
vendor to use UNIX, you have a large choice with MS. You don't
(sanely) buy an o/s and then look for apps in the business world,
you find the app and then buy the o/s, and then buy the hardware.
You look for the platform which gives you the apps, and stay with
it. Its name is MicroSoft, unfortunately.

I like UNIX variants, but when I want to write something of any size
I go to Word, because it's a better tool than anything affordable on
UNIX, and because people want you to use it. The only two formats I
have seen widely used for electronic submission are troff (then) and
Word (now). You can find academic journals which take TeX, and
magazines that know your WordPerfect will read into Word, where they
want it, but they are not the mass market.

I still write stuff in troff using my own version of almost-emacs,
but I don't expect to use anything but the hardcopy, and if I had a
good revision control for Word, I'd be using that more (maybe in
Office 97).

| But Unix' achiles heel is that its compatability is only at source
| level.

Write everything in JAVA ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.
--

"As a software development model, Anarchy does not scale well."
                -Dave Welch

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Kaleb S. KEITHLE » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00




> | What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about
> | Microsoft desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and
> | energy if he likes, but unix will die without applications.

> UNIX doesn't have applications.

Unix doesn't have applications??? What are you talking about?
Do you mean Linux doesn't have any applications?

The Open Systems Software Directory lists nearly 10,000 applications.
Sun's Catalyst catalog lists over 12,000 applications.

There's plenty of applications for Unix.

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Marco S Hyma » Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> Tell me a cheap and good word processing application for unix?

1) emacs + groff (preview with the -X option if using X).
2) emacs + [La]TeX

Take your choice.  The cost is an hour or three to generate and install, 0
dollars.  At that price you can use both.

// marc

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by V.S. Senthilkum » Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:00:00



: >

: >
: > | What would make Unix' future? Scott MacNeily can whine about
: > | Microsoft desktops wasting monumental amounts of admin time and
: > | energy if he likes, but unix will die without applications.
: >
: > UNIX doesn't have applications.

: Unix doesn't have applications??? What are you talking about?
: Do you mean Linux doesn't have any applications?

: The Open Systems Software Directory lists nearly 10,000 applications.
: Sun's Catalyst catalog lists over 12,000 applications.

: There's plenty of applications for Unix.

Tell me a cheap and good word processing application for unix?

-vs senthilkumar

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by gmcga.. » Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:00:00




Quote:>: There's plenty of applications for Unix.
>Tell me a cheap and good word processing application for unix?

I do believe you have confused the meaning of word processor and
desktop publisher.  But so has MS-Word...

Regards,
Greg

--
Gregory McGarry
Signal Processing Research Centre
School of Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Zach Heili » Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:00:00



> By contrast,
> one manufacturer makes Alpha machines, one manufacturer makes PA-risc
> machines.

I think I have seen more than just Digital making Alpha motherboards.
Some company (don't recall the name) was selling motherboards that
could take either the Pentium 133 or the Alpha on a daughter card.
Maybe they were just selling Digital motherboards, but I doubt it.

--

Support bacteria -- it's the only         | is unwelcome.  I avoid dealing
form of culture some people have!         | with companies that email ads.

 
 
 

Betting on Unix

Post by Harold Steve » Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Tell me a cheap and good word processing application for unix?

/usr/bin/vi                        :)

                                        Regards, Weird
                                        (Harold Stevens)

 
 
 

1. Betting on Unix

: Can you call up your local office temp center and ask for someone
: proficient in Latex for a few hours without being suspected of
: some kind of perversion?  Has enlightenment really reached the masses
: in Finland?  You can't do that in the US...

i hate to add to this thread, but that's the most moronic reason i've
ever heard.  i'm not a latex user, but even i know how to pronounce
it.

kevin
--

                                       year of the ox already?!  i'm still
                                       writing year of the rat on my checks...

2. Please explain pppd syslog line.

3. Modem sharing bet NT4 and UNIX

4. Linux 2.4.2ac1

5. Betting on Unix

6. cal : Segmentation fault

7. diff bet linux & unix

8. How to Limit One login per Userid?

9. Wow, I bet this is kinda embarrassing....

10. Measuring time bet. instructions on IRIS

11. *100% GUARANTEED WIN BETTING* g^3>

12. (OT) Wanna bet Microsoft is the Main Member of the UCITA in the different States

13. System V Release 3 Internals Question (help settle a bet)