Why Linux ?

Why Linux ?

Post by Phi » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00




>Sure it seems like a lot of fun to join you guys with the Linux adventure.
>The question is: Will I still affort the butter to spread on my bread if I jump in?

        Hehehe, Linux and Win95 can coexist if you use LILO or some other type of
boot manager.  If you dont have any spare time I wouldnt sugest playing with Linux.
It takes a lot of playing around with if you wanna get it configured decently.  I
hafta admit the out-of-the-box redhat distribution is pretty decent, though.  Anyway,
why not install Linux and play with it in your spare time.  I wouldnt take anybody
else's word on the subject of an OS.

                                                        -Phil

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by David M. Co » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



>    I've just discovered Linux's existance a couple of days ago and
>since, I've surfed from Web page to Web page to see what Linux was all
>about.
>I've reached some pretty good pages where all the technicalities of
>Linux
>were spread all over. Looks good.

So why not give it a try.  It will only cost you a little time and give
you a much more accurate picture of the OS (after a reasonable effort)
than a months worth of comp.os.linux.advocasy.

I would do some more research first, though.  A couple of days is not
enough.  Hang out on comp.os.linux.development.apps and development.system
for a while.   And look at a few more web pages

http://www.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Operating_Systems/Unix/
http://www.troll.no/
http://sunsite.unc.edu/linux/#ldp
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml

Quote:>"How will I convince my customers to migrate to Linux so they may run my
>softwares?"

Why would you want to do that?  Why should your users care what OS you use
to develop your software?  Think cross-platform.

Dave Cook

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Nir Soff » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00


: Hi guys,

:       This may sound quite ridiculous but may I say that I'm VERY serious
: about the following.

:       I write programs for a living. They range from utilities to technical
: stuff (chips emulator, etc.). I currently work on Windows 95 since, to
: my
: opinion, it is certainly the "OS" on which I feel a certain guarantee
: that
: my potential customers may have access on their business or home
: computer.

It depends who you are targetting your applications to, I don't think
that generally, unless you're a hacker of some sorts, Linux is good for
the home users, however, Linux is PERFECT for Servers, especially for the
little businesses that can't afford a REAL OS. Windows '95, as much as I
hate it, has it's merits, as you say, the merit that is most recognized
is that everyone has it. Question is , who's 'everyone'? If you write
applications for the office user or the home user who uses Win'95 for say
- games and word proccessing / spreadsheets, I wouldn't go into Linux,
I'd think that would be a very bad idea, since, well, not a lot of
'laypeople' use Linux at home, even if it is superior in every aspect to
Winblows '95.

:       I've just discovered Linux's existance a couple of days ago and
: since, I've surfed from Web page to Web page to see what Linux was all
: about.
: I've reached some pretty good pages where all the technicalities of
: Linux
: were spread all over. Looks good.

Well, It's a Unix clone, it HAS to be good. :). The fact that it's free
and comes with the source code for all to enjoy is even better.

:       I must say, though, that none could tell me exactly what I'm looking
: for:

: "On what basis should I consider leaving Win95's world for Linux. Will
: my
: apps be any easier to write? Will they run faster? Will Xwindow make my
: life
: any easier on my day to day work - on let say, office applications like
: Word processing and Spreadsheets? Are XWindow apps running anyway
: smoother
: or faster than Win95 or Win NT apps ?"

Well, again, depends what you're writing :). And you will also have to
get used to the Unix enviroment if you're not already used to it.
Xwindows shouldn't make your life easier when it comes to programming,
there are no visual languages such as delphi or visual basic, so
basically writing office applications on X is a pain in the ass, which is
why there aren't much of them, sadly.

: But all in all:
:  
: "How will I convince my customers to migrate to Linux so they may run my
: softwares?" Customers don't generally care about the puristic aspect of
: TRUE or NOT TRUE Operating Systems and Win95 looks multitasking enough
: to them. What is the commercial scope of a Linux application? Does
: anyone
: knows approximately how many users/compagnies actually uses Linux OS ?

Companies? As servers? A LOT. As office computers for say -
secrateries, DTP, Spread sheets, and accounting ? I'd have to say that
not much. BUT, programs you develop in Linux, since it's a Unix clone,
should generally work on most Unix systems. (With a few minor
modifications), a lot of companies use Unix systems, home users and
private users ? I think not.

: Sure it seems like a lot of fun to join you guys with the Linux
: adventure.
: The question is: Will I still affort the butter to spread on my bread
: if I jump in ?

There was a question such as this a while ago - Linux is a very
interesting OS, it is very fun to hack code on and very comfortable. If
you are developing, say, server code or networking code, I'd say Unixes
are the way to go and not NT . Generally you could have Win'95 and Linux
going side by side on seprate partitions and a boot manager, why don't
you give it a try ?

: Sincerely and Regards to all of you,

:       Denis Cleroux,
:       Trois-Rivieres (Quebec)
:       Canada

Regards,

Nir.
--

"Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat"
                -- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Ken L » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



writes:
|> On what basis should I consider leaving Win95's world for Linux.

I am also a professional software developer.  The main reason I use
Linux is that it uses a standard UNIX API.  This allows me to easily
port my software to UNIX workstations, including GUI code using the
X Window System and OSF/Motif.  Most of my customers use UNIX workstations.

--
Ken Lee, X Window System Consulting, http://www.rahul.net/kenton/index.shtml

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Bruce E. Sturge » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> =

r.qc.ca>
> writes:
> |> On what basis should I consider leaving Win95's world for Linux.

I cannot answer that one for you, but I can answer it for me.

I like Linux.  It's free.  It follows a standard.  It's available on
multiple platforms.  When there is an OS level bug it either gets fixed
and posted immediately, or I can download the source myself and fix it. =

It uses the hands down best C/C++ compiler (GNU).  But the main reason
why I like Linux is that NO ONE OWNS IT!

----------------
Bruce E. Sturgen

http://www.execpc.com/~bsturgen

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many
for appointment by the corrupt few.
George Bernard Shaw

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Chris Tyle » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> But all in all:
> =
> "How will I convince my customers to migrate to Linux so they may run m=
y
> softwares?" Customers don't generally care about the puristic aspect of=
> TRUE or NOT TRUE Operating Systems and Win95 looks multitasking enough
> to them. What is the commercial scope of a Linux application? Does
> anyone
> knows approximately how many users/compagnies actually uses Linux OS ?
> =
> Sure it seems like a lot of fun to join you guys with the Linux
> adventure.
> The question is: Will I still affort the butter to spread on my bread
> if I jump in ?

That depends on your market.

Linux is not currently well suited to:
(1) Casual home and business users using office productivity software
(such as spreadsheets, word processors, etc)-- Linux can work in this
environment, but it's not strong.

Linux is well suited to:
(1) Servers, particularly Internet/Intranet servers, but also general
fax/file/printer serving for business (using NFS, Samba, efax/qfax,
etc)-- communications is a strong spot;

(2) Vertical-market applications (the traditional Intel Unix
environments) where the system is sold and supported by a VAR;

(3) Academic and technical markets, where Win/DOS compatability is not a
large issue, but porting flexibility, performance, interoperability and
the availability of good languages (everything from C++ to tcl/tk to
Fortran) and tools (Mathematica, graphing software, SPICE, etc) is
important; and

(4) Netheads.

Linux is moving towards viability as a business OS... the efforts of
Caldera (and WGS, etc) are important in this area.

The current installed user base for Linux is almost impossible to
determine, since each copy isn't "licensed" from a central source. Linux
may be downloaded over the 'net, and any Linux CD that doesn't include
bundled commercial components may be installed on as many machines as
you'd like. However, an estimate in the 1-2 million user range would
seem reasonable; I personally suspect that we're in the higher end of
that range if you count everyone who has a Linux partition (even if they
user another OS as their primary).

I live in front of a Linux box (with a big screen :-)... it buys the
butter for *my* bread, serving certain vertical markets and providing
technical internet consulting. It would be hard to make a case for
writing mass-market consumer apps for Linux, though!

"Try it, you'll like it. :-) "

-- =


Global Proximity Corporation            (519) 421-3541 / fax (519) 421-2107
Internet and Computer Consulting

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Jorge Padro » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> stuff deleted

> Linux is not currently well suited to:
> (1) Casual home and business users using office productivity software
> (such as spreadsheets, word processors, etc)-- Linux can work in this
> environment, but it's not strong.

> Linux is well suited to:
> (1) Servers, particularly Internet/Intranet servers, but also general
> fax/file/printer serving for business (using NFS, Samba, efax/qfax,
> etc)-- communications is a strong spot;

> (2) Vertical-market applications (the traditional Intel Unix
> environments) where the system is sold and supported by a VAR;

> (3) Academic and technical markets, where Win/DOS compatability is not a
> large issue, but porting flexibility, performance, interoperability and
> the availability of good languages (everything from C++ to tcl/tk to
> Fortran) and tools (Mathematica, graphing software, SPICE, etc) is
> important; and

> (4) Netheads.

I'm Information Systems Director for an economic development agency --
we use the typical mainstream software: Windows NT and Novell servers,
Windows NT and Win95 workstations, MS Office, Lotus Notes, Corel Draw,
etc.

However, for a year and a half now I have been evaluating Linux (Red Hat
distribution) and I'm *pretty* impressed with it (and UNIX in general).
I have taken most Microsoft Windows NT certification classes and I feel
that Linux is as much (if not more) powerfull than all other operating
systems I use everyday -- and it's free!.

For the first time, I'm setting up a Linux (samba) server at work --
IMHO, little by little Linux is gaining territory.  I like it very
much!.

As a side note, I just ordered a copy of Red Hat Linux 4.0 and the
ApplixWare suite of applications for Linux -- who knows, if I like it I
may start setting up Linux workstations at work too.

Regards,

Jorge Padron
The Beacon Council
Miami, Florida -- USA

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Christopher B. Brow » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>    This may sound quite ridiculous but may I say that I'm VERY serious
>about the following.

You can readily start a flame war, but I wouldn't judge this to be a
"troll."

Quote:>    I write programs for a living. They range from utilities to technical
>stuff (chips emulator, etc.). I currently work on Windows 95 since, to
>my opinion, it is certainly the "OS" on which I feel a certain guarantee
>that my potential customers may have access on their business or home
>computer.

This could be restated as "W95 is the operating environment that Microsoft
has pushed on more people than have been pushed into any other operating
environment."

Which is a different slant on it.  But both certainly have similar
implications.

Quote:>    I've just discovered Linux's existance a couple of days ago and
>since, I've surfed from Web page to Web page to see what Linux was all
>about.  I've reached some pretty good pages where all the technicalities of
>Linux were spread all over. Looks good.

Glad to hear it.

Quote:>I must say, though, that none could tell me exactly what I'm looking for:

>"On what basis should I consider leaving Win95's world for Linux. Will
>my apps be any easier to write? Will they run faster? Will Xwindow make my
>life any easier on my day to day work - on let say, office applications
>like Word processing and Spreadsheets? Are XWindow apps running anyway
>smoother or faster than Win95 or Win NT apps ?"

If all you're after is "office applications," then X won't really get you
anything fundamentally better.  

Linux is certainly a lot more *stable* than either Win95 or WinNT; the
concept of needing to reboot the system due to a program crash is completely
foreign to Linux.  Whereas my PC did a spontaneous reboot today at work at
an inopportune moment.  Why?  Because I hit backspace once too many when
running Telnet.

Quote:>But all in all:

>"How will I convince my customers to migrate to Linux so they may run my
>softwares?" Customers don't generally care about the puristic aspect of
>TRUE or NOT TRUE Operating Systems and Win95 looks multitasking enough
>to them. What is the commercial scope of a Linux application? Does
>anyone knows approximately how many users/compagnies actually uses Linux OS?

>Sure it seems like a lot of fun to join you guys with the Linux
>adventure.  The question is: Will I still affort the butter to spread on my
>bread if I jump in ?

If the issue is of running "productivity" applications better, Linux would
only provide relatively minor improvements there.  Particularly in terms of
improving reliability.

But while there *is* a nice set of "office" applications that seem to be at
least as good as those in the MS arena, that is not the strength that will
get Linux through the door.

What Linux particularly offers is the opportunity to run, rather
efficiently, a variety of "server" applications on a box.  File server.  Web
server.  News server.  Mail server.  Proxy/firewall server.  Time server.
Even database server.

Windows 95 *certainly* isn't directed towards that.

Windows NT is supposedly directed towards those sorts of things, but seems
really to be targeting replacement of Novell file servers.  It just doesn't
have the utilities (or the utility) to fully run the full gamut of Internet
and "Intranet" services.

Providing "Internet/Intranet" services is where Linux *really* shines.
You're going to have a hard time selling Linux as a desktop application
server.  But if you want to build a server to provide someone's LAN with
"Intranet" services, Linux is a *really potent* package in that area.  For
$1.99 for the "Cheap*Bytes" RedHat 4.0 CD-ROM, you can get up and running a
system that is:
a) A file server,
b) A web server,
c) A mail server,
all on one box.  With much more likelihood of it being compatible with your
hardware than the major competitor, Windows NT.

The customers aren't that likely to want desktop Linux applications.
(However much I might like that idea; I really despise the Microsoft office
suite.)  They are more likely to buy a file server that does things they
didn't expect it could.
--

Web: http://www.conline.com/~cbbrowne  SAP Basis Consultant, UNIX Guy
Windows NT - How to make a 100 MIPS Linux workstation perform like an 8 MHz 286

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Sergey Y Chemishkia » Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> I like Linux.  It's free.  It follows a standard.  It's available on
> multiple platforms.  When there is an OS level bug it either gets fixed
> and posted immediately, or I can download the source myself and fix it.
> It uses the hands down best C/C++ compiler (GNU).  But the main reason
> why I like Linux is that NO ONE OWNS IT!

Sorry, but usually if something is realy good it is not free.. It just
can't be free in our world. And if something is free, well it will either
become commercial pretty soon, or it is just a pile of junk (not Linux
certainly). So guys get ready, someone will just grub all the stuff..
If not M$ then someone else, there are many sharks out there.

Anyway what keept Linux from being grubbed till the moment is that it is
not OS for average user. But as it looks that you canmake money with it
now, so bye-bye free Linux :(

Sergey

====================================================================
Sergey Chemishkian
Aerospace and Mechanical Eng., University of Arizona

"Smile more, gentlemen!
 Serious face doesn't imply intellect:
 the most stupid things in the world are done with this very face..."

 Baron M.

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Jame » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00




: >  I've just discovered Linux's existance a couple of days ago and
: >since, I've surfed from Web page to Web page to see what Linux was all
: >about.
: >I've reached some pretty good pages where all the technicalities of
: >Linux
: >were spread all over. Looks good.

W95 is not really multitasking! Try to format a floppy AND do something else.
So for things where you need the CPU's undivided attention eg
un-handshaked serial comms at 19200 then DOS and WIN95 are much better than
linux; conversely linux is much better for multitasking stuff
eg I log (nibble) data through the printer port at 40 Kb/s, log it to disk
and display (quasi) realtime graphs on an X display, AND can still access
the machine to read the logged files and monitor progress etc.
It just depends ...
I would not recommend trying to change to linux! Play with linux, and its
advantages and dis-advantages will become clear, and you will interpret
them in terms of your needs.
James

--

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Henrik Storn » Sun, 13 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Anyway what keept Linux from being grubbed till the moment is that it is
>not OS for average user. But as it looks that you canmake money with it
>now, so bye-bye free Linux :(

You really should read the COPYING file included with every Linux kernel source.
Unless someone is willing to track down everyone who has contributed to the Linux
kernel - and convince them that they should sell their contribution - Linux
will remain free, in the sense of the GPL.

--
Henrik Storner                     | "Life is like a 10 speed bicycle.

http://eolicom.olicom.dk/~storner/ |                        C. Schultz

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by Steve Hathawa » Tue, 15 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> >Anyway what keept Linux from being grubbed till the moment is that it is
> >not OS for average user. But as it looks that you canmake money with it
> >now, so bye-bye free Linux :(

> You really should read the COPYING file included with every Linux kernel
source.
> Unless someone is willing to track down everyone who has contributed to the
Linux
> kernel - and convince them that they should sell their contribution - Linux
> will remain free, in the sense of the GPL.

--
There are ways to make money with Linux without violating GPL.  Namely offer
your consulting services and integration services for a fee.  GPL licensing
requires that the software and sources be freely available to anyone.
 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by A Shelt » Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:00:00




>> I like Linux.  It's free.  It follows a standard.  It's available on
>> multiple platforms.  When there is an OS level bug it either gets fixed
>> and posted immediately, or I can download the source myself and fix it.
>> It uses the hands down best C/C++ compiler (GNU).  But the main reason
>> why I like Linux is that NO ONE OWNS IT!

Linux is well and truly owned... The people who wrote the code
have the copyright on the code. Most of them allow distribution
of their material under the GNU public license (GPL).

Quote:>Sorry, but usually if something is realy good it is not free.. It just
>can't be free in our world. And if something is free, well it will either
>become commercial pretty soon, or it is just a pile of junk (not Linux
>certainly). So guys get ready, someone will just grub all the stuff..
>If not M$ then someone else, there are many sharks out there.

That is precisely what the provisions of the GPL are meant to
avoid..

--
  Unix is user friendly, but unix users aren't typical

  GCS(2.1)-d+H+sw+v-C++UL+>L+++E-N++WV--R++tv-b+D++e+fr*y?

 
 
 

Why Linux ?

Post by David Vanec » Wed, 23 Oct 1996 04:00:00



 ...

: >Sorry, but usually if something is realy good it is not free.. It just
: >can't be free in our world. And if something is free, well it will either
: >become commercial pretty soon, or it is just a pile of junk (not Linux
: >certainly). So guys get ready, someone will just grub all the stuff..
: >If not M$ then someone else, there are many sharks out there.

: That is precisely what the provisions of the GPL are meant to
: avoid..

Righto! Consider one of the choicest software properties, the GNU
C/C++ compiler. Essentially unstealable. And it's been* around
for *years*. There's free/share/GPL ware that have been available
for *decades* (e.g. Matlab and someother engineering stuff, maybe
Nastran) and although commercial sware vendors sell them, and enhance them,
modify, etc etc, the underlying stuff is just an FTP away.

D.V.

 
 
 

1. Why linux sucks and why linux is best

Ordinary people, that doesn't use hours on learing operating
systems, use windows and they are happy with it. Office is
better than star office etc. I think windows98 and NT is better
for 1) ordinary use with office, photoshop, games etc. I think
Linux is better for companies that need more secure on their
servers. Theese comanies only hire some geeks to setup and
run their servers properly. I think many "Linux people" not
only uses Linux as a operating system but also as a religion.

It doesn't matter for ordinary people that the security isn't on top
because without many windowsprogs many doesn't
need a PC. OK Linux is good, i have tried it several times,
but it's best for servers and it isn't good for personal useage.

Why doesn't Linux support USB and plug and play?

2. ln,mv, i_nlinks incorrect

3. Why UNIX? (And, after all, why Linux?)

4. Modem Sharing

5. Why Linux, Why not 386BSD ?

6. linux networking

7. Why me, why linux ?

8. Help!! Linux on K6-2 -problem!!!

9. Why Linux is Not for You: The Lengthy Rebuttal of a Linux User

10. Yet another Linux geek...Here is why Linux sucks..........

11. Why Linux should remain Linux

12. Why Linux is a winner. (Was: Why Linux will Lose to Windows)

13. Non-technical reasons why Linux is superior