Very Computer

Gee.  I wonder why that oil company passed up W2k for
the supercomputer project?

Could it be it's not a real operating system?

Charlie

No, they passed it up, because Charlie's articulate statesman-like advocacy
convinced them not to.

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

On 14 Dec 2000 05:23:47 GMT,

If I'm their senior marketing spokesman, haven't you
wondered why it's still growing at 40% per year?

It's because Linux is an operating system and Windows
isn't.  And Linux is free.

Thanks for helping me point that out.

Charlie

Because you're not a marketing spokesperson (heaven help anyone misguided
enough to hire you for that purpose!) and because the user base is quite
small, and because the "free"-ness of Linux is about much more than
price.

Linux's success is largely due to the fact that it's a grass-roots movement.
It's easy to learn Linux. Just go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and get one
of many books, or just use the free LDP docs. The "free as in speech" is
probably more important than "free as in beer", because it has helped Linux
attract a lot of very good developers.

The "free as in beer" helps, but not that much. Below a certain price, it
doesn't make that much difference to most home users. For example, BeOS
costs less than a Redhat box set, but they haven't attracted as many
developers as Linux. BTW, the "cheap" argument doesn't really hold water
for Linux anyway (not for most home users). Most home users need to invest
a lot of effort into setting things up, spend money on books, and many also
buy boxes and spend money on replacement hardware.

The person who really does get a good deal out of Linux is the person who makes
use of the development tools, many of which are quite good, indeed better than
what is available on "traditional UNIX" systems. (again, this is probably one
of the reasons why Linux attracted a lot of developers.)

In a development environment where the ratio of programmers to machines is
approximately 1, "free beer" is not as much of an issue, because programmer
time is very expensive compared to software licenses.

On the other hand, if the machines are servers (possibly several machines
to one admin), "free beer" could be a significant factor.

Quote:>It's because Linux is an operating system and Windows
>isn't.  And Linux is free.

Win 3.1 isn't an OS. Win 98 is in gray territory and somewhat hobbled
by DOS compatibility. NT and Win2k are definitely operating systems.

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

On 14 Dec 2000 13:55:35 GMT,

Thought about that back in 97.
Today, however, this notion is gone.

Linux has been around almost 10 years now.

It was considered fad from say 94 thru 97-98.  

Another good thing about Linux is it's FREE for EVERYONE.
Let me emphasis this word, "EVERYONE".  

It's tuff to get fired from a free software development
job.  Further, it's even tougher to fire the marketing help.

Quote:>Linux's success is largely due to the fact that it's a grass-roots movement.
>It's easy to learn Linux. Just go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and get one
>of many books, or just use the free LDP docs. The "free as in speech" is
>probably more important than "free as in beer", because it has helped Linux
>attract a lot of very good developers.

Well,
That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market.

Quote:>The "free as in beer" helps, but not that much. Below a certain price, it
>doesn't make that much difference to most home users. For example, BeOS
>costs less than a Redhat box set, but they haven't attracted as many
>developers as Linux. BTW, the "cheap" argument doesn't really hold water
>for Linux anyway (not for most home users). Most home users need to invest
>a lot of effort into setting things up, spend money on books, and many also
>buy boxes and spend money on replacement hardware.

Humm.  I think your totally exaggerating this setup time.
Appearently you've never heard of Linuxconf or Webmin.

With Webmin you can set up your entire box in just 30 minutes,
that's web servers, ftpd, sshd, telnetd, samba {WINS} server,
users, chron, anything you want.

But stock installs for workstation use is generally no effort at all.

Quote:>The person who really does get a good deal out of Linux is the person who makes
>use of the development tools, many of which are quite good, indeed better than
>what is available on "traditional UNIX" systems. (again, this is probably one
>of the reasons why Linux attracted a lot of developers.)

Yes.

Quote:>In a development environment where the ratio of programmers to machines is
>approximately 1, "free beer" is not as much of an issue, because programmer
>time is very expensive compared to software licenses.

True, BUT!  You have to pay those GD licenses whilst your paying
the developers anyway.  And those developers have little trouble
developing in Linux.  It's actually quicker to develop using Linux
tools than Windows.  Take a look at the record from 91 the start
of Linux.  In less than 10 years this system is performing better
and has more features than Windows itself and it's 20 year development
record.

Quote:>On the other hand, if the machines are servers (possibly several machines
>to one admin), "free beer" could be a significant factor.

Server cost is significant but the cost of compilers for developers
is also significant.  Some of the BEST commercially available
development tools are 6K a pop for a once seat license.

If you have 30+ people working with you like I do,
that's $180,000 a year for compilers alone.  This doesn't
count the PVCS licenses, PC anywhere stuff, other compilers
like VB at $2200 a throw, and so on.  Before all is said
and done with licenses you are looking at $500,000 a year
for licenses for a small development shop.  

And for me, it's $6,000 a year in recertifications not
counting getting the software to do it.

Windows sucks anyway you cut it.

Quote:>>It's because Linux is an operating system and Windows
>>isn't.  And Linux is free.

Yes, I said that before you told me I was wrong and
a bad spokesman.

Quote:>Win 3.1 isn't an OS. Win 98 is in gray territory and somewhat hobbled
>by DOS compatibility. NT and Win2k are definitely operating systems.

>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com

NT and W2k are not operating systems as operating systems
have the capability to allow packages to fail without
taking the entire system down {BLUE SCREEN}.  

This is why Microsoft doesn't make an operating system,
it makes a rather large application which emulates
an operating system to a degree.

Charlie

That's a straw man. I didn't say it was a "fad". I certainly hope it's
not a fad, because my plans for next year involve full time development
on Linux.

Quote:>Another good thing about Linux is it's FREE for EVERYONE.
>Let me emphasis this word, "EVERYONE".  

? Your point ?

Quote:>It's tuff to get fired from a free software development
>job.  Further, it's even tougher to fire the marketing help.

? Why ? Do you mean that one can't get "fired" from writing a free
project ? Well that may be true, but I don't see what your point is.

Quote:>>Linux's success is largely due to the fact that it's a grass-roots movement.
>>It's easy to learn Linux. Just go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and get one
>>of many books, or just use the free LDP docs. The "free as in speech" is
>>probably more important than "free as in beer", because it has helped Linux
>>attract a lot of very good developers.

>Well,
>That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet

The "free download" is irrelevant. The only people who can afford the
band width to download it can also afford to buy an OS.

Quote:>and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market.

I don't know (or care) how it compares to Win 2k (because I don't use
and don't plan to use W2k). However, it's pretty silly to call it the
"most reliable" OS. Commercial UNIX and mainframe OSs whip its butt. It
is quite reliable, but certainly not the "most reliable".

Quote:>>The "free as in beer" helps, but not that much. Below a certain price, it
>>doesn't make that much difference to most home users. For example, BeOS
>>costs less than a Redhat box set, but they haven't attracted as many
>>developers as Linux. BTW, the "cheap" argument doesn't really hold water
>>for Linux anyway (not for most home users). Most home users need to invest
>>a lot of effort into setting things up, spend money on books, and many also
>>buy boxes and spend money on replacement hardware.

>Humm.  I think your totally exaggerating this setup time.
>Appearently you've never heard of Linuxconf or Webmin.

I helped make a distribution based on RH6, so yes I do know about these
things (though I admit to not using them very often -- I find they get
in the way for the most part).

However, the real problems a home user tends to have are often caused
by hardware compatibility problems, since a lot of users are misguided
enough to buy Windows-preloaded machines. If they purchased preload
machines, the time overhead would drop somewhat, though it is still an
issue. My experience has been that a lot of the GUI stuff isn't complete
enough to stand on its own. For example, I can set up dial-up with kppp,
but to set up my Linux as an IP masquerading gateway,  I needed to
read some HOWTOs.

Quote:>With Webmin you can set up your entire box in just 30 minutes,
>that's web servers, ftpd, sshd, telnetd, samba {WINS} server,
>users, chron, anything you want.

All the servers should run OOTB. If you're just trying to set up a
server, it's actually very easy, and even a beginner should be able to
get a functional server with a default install.

The main problem they'll have to face is securing their box. (pretty
simple -- *if* you know how)

Quote:>But stock installs for workstation use is generally no effort at all.

How about configuring poorly supported soundcards, modems, printers,
scanners and monitors ?  This is the sort of thing that gives new users
a lot of trouble.

Quote:>True, BUT!  You have to pay those GD licenses whilst your paying
>the developers anyway.  

Yes, but the number of developers is not a fixed constant. It can be
increased, or even bumped up temporarily (by hiring a consultant)

Quote:> And those developers have little trouble
>developing in Linux.  

Whether or not the development tools are worth the money depends on
whether or not they save developer time.

Quote:> It's actually quicker to develop using Linux
>tools than Windows.  

That would depend on what you are trying to develop. Actually, the main
advantage of Linux is that it's easier to port UNIX applications there.

Quote:> Take a look at the record from 91 the start
>of Linux.  In less than 10 years this system is performing better
>and has more features than Windows itself and it's 20 year development
>record.

It doesn't have "more features", it has different, and somewhat orthogonal
features.

Quote:>Server cost is significant but the cost of compilers for developers
>is also significant.  Some of the BEST commercially available
>development tools are 6K a pop for a once seat license.

No they are not.
If you just want a C++ compiler, try out Borland C++ builder (cost: $0-).
You are confusing "compilers" with "application
development frameworks". The things include a lot of functionality
not available in any of the Linux development tools.

I suppsoe if one went out of the way to be wasteful, it would be possible
to make a nontrivial expense of development tools, but barring that,
developers are much more expensive. Even the figure you offer is only
about 8% or so of a typical developers cost (nb: this is higher than the
salary because it includes benefits etc). So if the developers are
9% more productive, you're winning.

Quote:>NT and W2k are not operating systems as operating systems
>have the capability to allow packages to fail without
>taking the entire system down {BLUE SCREEN}.  

I don't understand this comment. Are you trying to tell us that Win2k
doesn't have protected memory ?

--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com

I gotta ask. What, if NT & Win2k are actually applications, is the actual OS
that they are running on?

<big old snip>

Quote:

> NT and W2k are not operating systems as operating systems
> have the capability to allow packages to fail without
> taking the entire system down {BLUE SCREEN}.

> This is why Microsoft doesn't make an operating system,
> it makes a rather large application which emulates
> an operating system to a degree.

> Charlie

There is a little point for discussion here.

The Windows programs (32 bit) on NT run in a "Win32 subsystem" and
Windows 16 bit apps run within the Win32 subsystem in a windows 16 bit
subsystem.

The Native OS constructs of NT are not available to Windows
applications. The access must be emulated by the Win32 subsystem.

Windows NT low-level internals most closely resemble VMS, not Windows,
and the original concept was for NT to be a portable OS/2.

So in answer to the question "What is the OS that they are running on?"
The answer is uncertain, but we know the answer is not Windows.

--
http://www.mohawksoft.com

No OS.  just a very big, extensible, unstable semi-embedded application.

--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642

H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
   challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
   between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
   Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole

J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
   The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
   also known as old hags who've hit the wall....

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.

B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
   method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
   direction that she doesn't like.

C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.

D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (C) above.

E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
   her behavior improves.

F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   *ery while concurrently committing *ery with Tammy Hahn.

G:  Knackos...you're a retard.