Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by John M. Mia » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Or why Linux has not done it already.

Linux could be the key to destroying the monopoly that M$ has on desktop
operating systems.  However

1. Grandma can put a disk in her computer and install Windoze '95 by answering
questions on a screen.

2. The computer already comes with Windoze '95

3. All the applications granny wants run only on Windoze '95

4. They come with the computer too.

5. They don't run on Linux.

6. Win '95 can be managed somewhat easily.

Clearly it is in the software development community's long-term interest do
get the world on an open desktop.  All you have to do is look at the
Netscape/M$ "war'".  M$ is going to wipe Netscape's tail. There is no way for
Netscape to win if M$ is giving away its product.  

The liars (To use Bill's phrase) at M$ clain that this compete claim that they
promote competition by giving the consumer a better value.  Remember the
database situation a few years ago.  Desktop databases such as dBase cost
about $400 then M$ buys Foxpro and puts out Access for less than $100.  They
even gave it away on new machines.

Now that the competition has been blown away what's the price for Access?  So
much for customers getting value from M$.

AND THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two years ago M$ was not the least bit interested in the Internet.  Now they
are trying to put Netscape out of business.  If M$ thinks that your product or
my product is interesting they can wreck any of us at will.

So what can be done?

1. Linux needs to be packaged so that you put a disk in the drive and after
answering a few questions you are running in a graphical environment.  If the
user has to enter the refresh rate for their monitor then all is lost.  People
need to pay much greater attention to this.

2. We need development tools that work on both Win '95 and X.  Developers need
to be able to write applications where the same source can run on both
systems - Including custom controls.  For such a tool the Win '95 requirements
have to be paramount.   Major vendors are simply not going to just jump to
Linux. Get them hooked and then let them move over.

3. We need a marketing plan.  Dell and Gateway need to be offering Linux as an
option.  Image if your PC came preloaded with

1. A Linux version that had easy-to-use tools to manage the system.
2. A great word processor, spreadsheet, and database
3. A fantastic game that did not run on Win'95
4. Instant Internet
5. Win '95 and M$ that you can use if you really want to.

I've got more details ideas but this is were we need to get if we are going to
slay the monster.  Our survival as independent software developers depends
upon it.

John

World-Wide-Web: The CB Radio of the 90's

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Rajat Dat » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00



>Path: ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!netnews.worldnet.a

>Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
>Subject: Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 01:06:38 GMT
>Organization: John Miano Software
>Lines: 69

>NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.st-louis-005.mo.dial-access.att.net
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #0

>Or why Linux has not done it already.

>Linux could be the key to destroying the monopoly that M$ has on desktop
>operating systems.  However

 ... lots of stuff deleted ...

- Show quoted text -

Quote:>So what can be done?

>1. Linux needs to be packaged so that you put a disk in the drive and after
>answering a few questions you are running in a graphical environment.  If the
>user has to enter the refresh rate for their monitor then all is lost.  People
>need to pay much greater attention to this.

>2. We need development tools that work on both Win '95 and X.  Developers need
>to be able to write applications where the same source can run on both
>systems - Including custom controls.  For such a tool the Win '95 requirements
>have to be paramount.   Major vendors are simply not going to just jump to
>Linux. Get them hooked and then let them move over.

>3. We need a marketing plan.  Dell and Gateway need to be offering Linux as an
>option.  Image if your PC came preloaded with

>1. A Linux version that had easy-to-use tools to manage the system.
>2. A great word processor, spreadsheet, and database
>3. A fantastic game that did not run on Win'95
>4. Instant Internet
>5. Win '95 and M$ that you can use if you really want to.

>I've got more details ideas but this is were we need to get if we are going to
>slay the monster.  Our survival as independent software developers depends
>upon it.

Where have I heard this before?  Oh yeah, for OS/2.  It didn't work, and it
won't work for Linux.  You can't beat Microsoft by playing Microsoft's game.
They have the market, and you probably can't build such a great word-processor
that it'll entice people away from the ones they use on Windows already.

You have to change the paradigm.

Linux will succeed where OS/2 will fail because while IBM needs to grab
substantial marketshare in order to justify OS/2, the Linux community doesn't.
Linux will succeed by continuing to exist.  It might not take over the world,
but why the hell would anyone want to?  Who cares?  Linux will succeed by
continuing to exist by continuing to be interesting to those of us who enjoy
using computers.  If Linux fails to remain interesting (by failing to keep up
with new technologies like voice, by failing to remain as stable as it is,
etc.), it will die.  In a sense, we have a easier job than the OS/2 advocates.
We just need to continue to have fun.  Just do interesting things.  Let the
rest of the world either join us, or not.  Who cares?

rajat

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Byron A Je » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>Or why Linux has not done it already.

>Linux could be the key to destroying the monopoly that M$ has on desktop
>operating systems.  However

Maybe because destroying Microsoft really isn't on the agenda.

Quote:

>1. Grandma can put a disk in her computer and install Windoze '95 by answering
>questions on a screen.

>2. The computer already comes with Windoze '95

>3. All the applications granny wants run only on Windoze '95

>4. They come with the computer too.

>5. They don't run on Linux.

>6. Win '95 can be managed somewhat easily.

I see you missed the real point. Even if all those things were not true
Grandma wouldn't change to Linux. There are no technical issues in this
discussion. It's all about attitude, marketing, bullshit, and the social
mentality of non technically oriented humans.

Despite all the issues above the real reason that folks use micrsoft is
because everybody else uses microsoft. There's a sense of security knowing
that you neighbor, your relatives, your coworkers, your children, and
everyone you know uses the same computer setup you do. You can share war
stories, read magazines on the subject, know that you can get advise from
50 million sources.

In other words you're just like everybody else.

I'm not saying that it's a good behavior pattern (witness the behavi*
activities of lemmings) however it's reality.

So anyway it's an interesting discussion and I'll "duke it out" on the points
below. But fundamentally the war is over and it'll take a revolution like
never before to get it to change.

If someone could develop an EMP weapon that destroys all Microsoft software
on the planet so we can start over, then maybe. Short of that "Game Over Man!"

Anyway on to your points...

Quote:

>Clearly it is in the software development community's long-term interest do
>get the world on an open desktop.

Yes. Yes it is.

Quote:> All you have to do is look at the
>Netscape/M$ "war'".  M$ is going to wipe Netscape's tail. There is no way for
>Netscape to win if M$ is giving away its product.  

Well did you read Netscapes letter to the DOJ? Microsoft isn't just giving
away product. They seem to be making clandestine deals in the ISV channels
giving discounts for installing MSIE with the restriction that nothing
else internet based can be on the computers. Discounts for Win95 and
other software.

Definitly playing dirty if its true.

Quote:

>The liars (To use Bill's phrase) at M$ clain that this compete claim that they
>promote competition by giving the consumer a better value.  Remember the
>database situation a few years ago.  Desktop databases such as dBase cost
>about $400 then M$ buys Foxpro and puts out Access for less than $100.  They
>even gave it away on new machines.

Yup. Note that software's costs are all up front. Once you have it it doesn't
cost you anything extra to distribute it. So giving it away cost MS nothing
but the sales. But you have to buy OS's and you have to buy new machines.
And when you get a MS OS on the machine the ISV is paying MS. So they get
money.

I can't tell you how many times I laugh at the "get $800 in free software".

Quote:

>Now that the competition has been blown away what's the price for Access?  So
>much for customers getting value from M$.

What is the price for access? I only see it bundled with the Office stuff...

Quote:

>AND THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope. Microsoft has no real way to destroy the free software industry in toto.
Anyone that wants to run free software can. MS can't stop it, they can only
market around it.

The issue arises only when you're talking about selling software....

Quote:

>Two years ago M$ was not the least bit interested in the Internet.  Now they
>are trying to put Netscape out of business.  If M$ thinks that your product or
>my product is interesting they can wreck any of us at will.

Again it's an issue of money. If Netscape wasn't trying to make money, then
MS couldn't do a damn thing about it.

For example explain how Microsoft could destroy the Linux or FreeBSD community?
And don't be fooled into thinking there isn't money in either or both. But
since the financial angle isn't based to the sale of software, but on the
sale of services around the software (CDROM making, installation help,
consulting, publishing, etc.) they can't really do any more damage than what's
already done.

OTOH the Linux/FreeBSD communities could potentialy do a lot of damage to
Microsoft's world. But it requires the one thing that no one has succeeded
in doing: changing the mass perception about PC's and PC sofware. Change the
mindshare. And no technical innovation short of the absolutely astounding
is going to do that. Oh and BTW backwards compatibility to the old empire
is an absolute must.

Quote:

>So what can be done?

Good question. Let's examine it.

Quote:

>1. Linux needs to be packaged so that you put a disk in the drive and after
>answering a few questions you are running in a graphical environment.  If the
>user has to enter the refresh rate for their monitor then all is lost.  People
>need to pay much greater attention to this.

This is a straw man. First of all the only way to do this is the Windows way
of making everything VGA. All Windows installations are done at 640x480 at
16 colors. A no brainer.

The problem is that typically one is a computer novice for only a short time.
Most computer users very quickly want more/better performance. The price to
pay is that you have to know something about your setup.

Consider the two typical senarios in the Windows world:

1) The Windows desktop remains at 640x480x4 forever. Extremely coomon.
2) A driver is added. But to do that you have to know something about the
   video card/monitor combo. Happens a lot less of the time.

The real solution is to have a programmit way of getting information from
video cards. But the video/monitor manufacturers have no interest in doing it.

Quote:>2. We need development tools that work on both Win '95 and X.  Developers need
>to be able to write applications where the same source can run on both
>systems - Including custom controls.  For such a tool the Win '95 requirements
>have to be paramount.   Major vendors are simply not going to just jump to
>Linux. Get them hooked and then let them move over.

In other words the OS/2 syndrome. Doesn't work. If there's a Win '95 copy of
an application out there, there's no incentive to switch.

Quote:>3. We need a marketing plan.  Dell and Gateway need to be offering Linux as an
>option.  Image if your PC came preloaded with

>1. A Linux version that had easy-to-use tools to manage the system.
>2. A great word processor, spreadsheet, and database
>3. A fantastic game that did not run on Win'95
>4. Instant Internet
>5. Win '95 and M$ that you can use if you really want to.

Then the user would use Win95 because mother, brother, sister, and neighbor
do.

Quote:

>I've got more details ideas but this is were we need to get if we are going to
>slay the monster.  Our survival as independent software developers depends
>upon it.

>John

Sorry to be a damper. And your heart is in the right place, along with some
of your ideas.

The key tool that's missing is this:

Anything that will displace/replace MS/Windows must run windows software.
All windows software without execption. And do it better, faster, cheaper.
and offer something that Windows cannot do that valuable.

I think I'd rather climb Mt. Everest.

BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Joe Smi » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00



  ...big snip...

Quote:> Nope. Microsoft has no real way to destroy the free software
> industry in toto.  Anyone that wants to run free software can. MS
> can't stop it, they can only market around it.

I'm not so sure that's true.  These are seriously crafty creeps you're
talking about.  Look at what they're doing to Netscape.  By the time
the Justice department gets around to slapping MS' wrists again, there
won't be anyone at Netscape left to collect.

What if MS showed up at Intel's door with a draft of an agreement with
Motorola and threatened to jump ship if the next Intel chip didn't run
Windows 50% faster than the 'competition'?  What if Windows '98
detected a Linux or FreeBSD DNS host and trashed it's own harddisk
'due to a bug in Linux' (similar to the 'bug' MS claimed was in
Samba)?  Could you imagine what full page ads in the major media
claiming that Linux was 'evil', 'written by hackers, full of trap
doors to gain * access to your network' would do?  If the 100
million lemmings running Windows were even slightly suspicious that
Linux was harmful, the only place you could run it would be at home,
in your ba*t, in the dark, on previous generation hardware.  Oops.
I'm already doing that ;-)

By some accounts, Linux is already gaining a poor reputation due to
the number of Linux installations which have not kept secure and
surreptitiously become cracker bases.

None of this is very likely, but it seems seriously naive to think
that MS couldn't or wouldn't think up lots of ways to do major damage
to anyone they felt threatened by.  They are _not_ interested in
co-existing (or even competing, apparently) with anyone.

<Joe
--
 Joe Smith

 Department of Physiology
 Philadelphia, PA 19104

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Byron A Je » Mon, 26 Aug 1996 04:00:00



-

-


-
-  ...big snip...
-
-> Nope. Microsoft has no real way to destroy the free software
-> industry in toto.  Anyone that wants to run free software can. MS
-> can't stop it, they can only market around it.
-
-I'm not so sure that's true.  These are seriously crafty creeps you're
-talking about.  Look at what they're doing to Netscape.  By the time
-the Justice department gets around to slapping MS' wrists again, there
-won't be anyone at Netscape left to collect.

Remember that my premise is that MS can't kill Linux because money isn't
the underlaying motive for its existence.

-
-What if MS showed up at Intel's door with a draft of an agreement with
-Motorola and threatened to jump ship if the next Intel chip didn't run
-Windows 50% faster than the 'competition'?  

Now exactly how is the CPU going to detect that? BTW I don't have Intel
CPU's on any of my three machines that run Linux. They're all AMD's
(386,486,and 5x86)

-What if Windows '98
-detected a Linux or FreeBSD DNS host and trashed it's own harddisk
-'due to a bug in Linux' (similar to the 'bug' MS claimed was in
-Samba)?

Once again it wouldn't bother the converted at all - they won't have
Win98 on their boxes.

- Could you imagine what full page ads in the major media
-claiming that Linux was 'evil', 'written by hackers, full of trap
-doors to gain * access to your network' would do?  

It would have little effect on the status quo. Linux isn't making
major inroads in Corporate America. Nobody's switching wholesale,
and it wouldn't affect the core base of Linux users who know better.

-If the 100
-million lemmings running Windows were even slightly suspicious that
-Linux was harmful, the only place you could run it would be at home,
-in your ba*t, in the dark, on previous generation hardware.  Oops.
-I'm already doing that ;-)

There's no convincing them anyway. I stopped trying to convert them
about 2 years ago.

But until microsoft literally owns the internet and can actually prevent
Linux development, I think we're pretty safe...

-
-By some accounts, Linux is already gaining a poor reputation due to
-the number of Linux installations which have not kept secure and
-surreptitiously become cracker bases.

So I guess a Windows '95 or NT box on the net is the stronghold of
security?

At the university I work at (Clark Atlanta) had break-ins into the
Sun boxes on campus, while the Linux boxes were untouched.

-
-None of this is very likely, but it seems seriously naive to think
-that MS couldn't or wouldn't think up lots of ways to do major damage
-to anyone they felt threatened by.  They are _not_ interested in
-co-existing (or even competing, apparently) with anyone.

No they're not. And they can with buy or squash anyone who's trying to
make money in their markets.

But since the Linux profit motive isn't money, they're going to have
a harder time putting the foot to us.

BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Tim Smi » Mon, 26 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Despite all the issues above the real reason that folks use micrsoft is
>because everybody else uses microsoft. There's a sense of security knowing
>that you neighbor, your relatives, your coworkers, your children, and
>everyone you know uses the same computer setup you do. You can share war
>stories, read magazines on the subject, know that you can get advise from
>50 million sources.

Then there are the applications.  I've got the following operating systems
installed on my home computer:

1. Windows 95.
2. Linux.
3. OS/2.
4. NT 4.0 beta.
5. FreeBSD.
6. I may have DOS 6.2x and WfW 3.11, but I don't remember!

Windows 95 gets the most runtime, because it is more likely to have
the applications that I need.  Some examples:

Word processing.  Yes, I know about TeX.  If I were writing things with
a lot of math, I'd be using TeX.  However, I'm doing ordinary writing,
and the various features of Word 7 win out.  I could get WordPerfect
for Linux, but WordPerfect is not comparable to Word 7 (or 6 or 5).
(Note that I'm not claiming Word 7 is *good*.  It, like the previous
version, has problems that annoy the hell out of me.  However, everything
else is worse.).

Chess software (non-networded).  I play tournament chess.  Fritz4 is a
lot more useful than GNUchess as a tool for serious chess study.

Chess software (networked).  The current best interface for ICC is
BlitzIn 1.0.  It's only for Windows.

In the above areas, there is simply nothing comparable in the Linux world,
so my computer spends most of its time in Windows 95.  In several other
areas, Windows 95 performs sufficiently well to not make it worth
rebooting to Linux even if the Linux software is slightly better.
Here are examples:

Internet access.  I do all of my usenet group reading using trn on my ISP's
machines, accessed via telnet.  Windows 95 telnet handles this OK.  The
Windows 95 ftp also works OK.  I do most of my email from my ISP's machines.
If I want to transfer something to my machine, Microsoft Exchange works
fine, although in general I don't like email systems that try to be too
fancy.  Netscape Navigator seems more stable on Windows than on Linux
(this is not Linux's fault--it is Netscape's fault, but that is irrelevant
here).

Misc. programming.  When I need to hack out some program to compute somthing
or solve some problem, Linux works well, but so does Windows 95.  Windows 95
supports NT console applications, so I don't have to bother with all the
GUI stuff if I'm just trying to do some numerical computation.  The compiler
I use, Watcom C/C++, is comparable to gcc for speed of the compiled code.  It
has an ANSI library, so I can write pretty much the same code I'd write
on Linux.  Linux is more stable, so if it were a long calculation, I'd
boot Linux and do it there.

That pretty much covers everything I do at home other than when I bring
home work from the office.  Of the four things I do (word processing,
chess, internet, and misc. programming), Windows 95 is a clear winner
on two, and on two it is close enough.  Hence, Windows 95 gets most of
the run time.

Linux wins hands down when I need a server at home.  My Mac is a much
more stable platform for CD-ROM burning than Windows 95 is, in my
experience, and so when I want to burn a CD-ROM of PC stuff, I ftp it
over to my Mac, and burn it from there.  I've found no good free ftp
servers for either the Mac or Windows 95, so when it is time to make a
CD, I get my files together on the PC, boot Linux, and then ftp them
to the Mac.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Tim Smi » Mon, 26 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Yup. Note that software's costs are all up front. Once you have it it doesn't
>cost you anything extra to distribute it. So giving it away cost MS nothing

You forgot support costs.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Byron A Je » Tue, 27 Aug 1996 04:00:00




->Despite all the issues above the real reason that folks use micrsoft is
->because everybody else uses microsoft. There's a sense of security knowing
->that you neighbor, your relatives, your coworkers, your children, and
->everyone you know uses the same computer setup you do. You can share war
->stories, read magazines on the subject, know that you can get advise from
->50 million sources.
-
-Then there are the applications.  I've got the following operating systems
-installed on my home computer:
-
-1. Windows 95.
-2. Linux.
-3. OS/2.
-4. NT 4.0 beta.
-5. FreeBSD.
-6. I may have DOS 6.2x and WfW 3.11, but I don't remember!

I'm gald to see you have an open mind.

Now before I comment I just want to point out I missed the Windows
revolution. My PC transistioned directly from DRDOS 6.0 to Linux.
As such I really don't have a Windows frame of reference except for
extremely occasional usage of it on other folks machines.

I state this because you are absolutely correct about applications.
However the cost of having to run Windows to get an application is too high
for me. And again there is the issue of money. I can honestly say I
haven't paid for a piece of software in almost 4 years.

I'm hoping this is going to change because some killer apps for Linux
are on the horizon.

So I'll propose alternatives.

-
-Windows 95 gets the most runtime, because it is more likely to have
-the applications that I need.  Some examples:
-
-Word processing.  Yes, I know about TeX.  If I were writing things with
-a lot of math, I'd be using TeX.  However, I'm doing ordinary writing,
-and the various features of Word 7 win out.  I could get WordPerfect
-for Linux, but WordPerfect is not comparable to Word 7 (or 6 or 5).
-(Note that I'm not claiming Word 7 is *good*.  It, like the previous
-version, has problems that annoy the hell out of me.  However, everything
-else is worse.).

OK. Take a stab at ApplixWare or StarOffice for Linux. Please understand
that no application is going to be Word except Word. The question is
if the application can do the jobs that you need done.

My three favs for document production (no particular order):

1) QuikScript - A cool program that does document formatting like nroff or
TeX. However it's written entirely in postscript. So no matter where I am
I can whip up a few commands and drop it to the printer (or ghostscript).

2) EZ - part of the AUIS suite from CMU. While it isn't powerful enough
for real heavy duty jobs, it's easy to use to easy to teach.

3) LyX - cool new WYSIWYG front end to LaTeX. While it still accepts
*commands and produces Latex, LyX puts a real good WP-like wrapper
over the old standard.

-
-Chess software (non-networded).  I play tournament chess.  Fritz4 is a
-lot more useful than GNUchess as a tool for serious chess study.

Typical problem with free software - very few pieces are world class because
there's no profit motive behind it and there isn't enough of a market to
justify writing and selling one. With over 100 million installation it
is worth the effort to write an excellent chess program. With 5-10 million
(optimistic) installations, a good one (or fair) is all you get.

This is the economy of scale (EOS) argument. There are only a few
breakthoughs to it. Linux amazingly enough is one of them.

-
-Chess software (networked).  The current best interface for ICC is
-BlitzIn 1.0.  It's only for Windows.

EOS again. Now let me ask you a question: could you generate / design
a chess program that approaches the two you listed above? That's the kind
of impetus that's needed to get something comparable built.

-
-In the above areas, there is simply nothing comparable in the Linux world,
-so my computer spends most of its time in Windows 95.  In several other
-areas, Windows 95 performs sufficiently well to not make it worth
-rebooting to Linux even if the Linux software is slightly better.

Interestingly enough I see it exactly the opposite, Linux performs so
well on the dozen or so machines I have it on, I never boot to windows.
In fact none of those machines have windows on it...

-Here are examples:
-
-Internet access.  I do all of my usenet group reading using trn on my ISP's
-machines, accessed via telnet.  Windows 95 telnet handles this OK.

Really? I can never get Win '95 telnet to properly set the terminal type.
I'd think that it's my ignorance of Win '95 but all the hard core users
I know don't have a solution either.

- The
-Windows 95 ftp also works OK.  I do most of my email from my ISP's machines.
-If I want to transfer something to my machine, Microsoft Exchange works
-fine, although in general I don't like email systems that try to be too
-fancy.  Netscape Navigator seems more stable on Windows than on Linux
-(this is not Linux's fault--it is Netscape's fault, but that is irrelevant
-here).

You point is made. Win 95 does the same tasks so why reboot. Perfectly
valid.

Now let me pitch a couple of pebbles...

- Everyone in my family has become netsurfers. Like a phone our machine
is in constant use. I finally resolved the problem by attaching a terminal
to my Linux box. Now I can get on when I want.

- Remote access to my home box?

-
-Misc. programming.  When I need to hack out some program to compute somthing
-or solve some problem, Linux works well, but so does Windows 95.  Windows 95
-supports NT console applications, so I don't have to bother with all the
-GUI stuff if I'm just trying to do some numerical computation.  The compiler
-I use, Watcom C/C++, is comparable to gcc for speed of the compiled code.  It
-has an ANSI library, so I can write pretty much the same code I'd write
-on Linux.  Linux is more stable, so if it were a long calculation, I'd
-boot Linux and do it there.

So the two are what and what in your estimation.

Question: How much did Watcom set you back.

Linux failing: I haven't found a way to cross compile up Windows applications.
I've tested the DJGPP compiler for DOS. Works well under Linux.

-
-That pretty much covers everything I do at home other than when I bring
-home work from the office.  Of the four things I do (word processing,
-chess, internet, and misc. programming), Windows 95 is a clear winner
-on two, and on two it is close enough.  Hence, Windows 95 gets most of
-the run time.

Good analysis. I am interested in the total cost though....

-
-Linux wins hands down when I need a server at home.  My Mac is a much
-more stable platform for CD-ROM burning than Windows 95 is, in my
-experience, and so when I want to burn a CD-ROM of PC stuff, I ftp it
-over to my Mac, and burn it from there.  I've found no good free ftp
-servers for either the Mac or Windows 95, so when it is time to make a
-CD, I get my files together on the PC, boot Linux, and then ftp them
-to the Mac.
-
---Tim Smith

Tim,

How can we improve the situation? Do you think any of the WP apps for Linux
can do the job?

The ideal solution is to have the applications and OS independant of one
another. But it's slow going in that department.

Good talking to you,

BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Kazinat » Tue, 27 Aug 1996 04:00:00




>Linux will succeed where OS/2 will fail because while IBM needs to grab
>substantial marketshare in order to justify OS/2, the Linux community doesn't.
>Linux will succeed by continuing to exist.  It might not take over the world,
>but why the hell would anyone want to?  Who cares?  Linux will succeed by

I like that.

``Linux: just say `Who cares?' and go with the Penguin''.

Quote:>continuing to exist by continuing to be interesting to those of us who enjoy
>using computers.  If Linux fails to remain interesting (by failing to keep up
>with new technologies like voice, by failing to remain as stable as it is,
>etc.), it will die.  In a sense, we have a easier job than the OS/2 advocates.
>We just need to continue to have fun.  Just do interesting things.  Let the
>rest of the world either join us, or not.  Who cares?

Plus Linux has shown us just how far freeware can push the envelope, and
continue to do so. Linux will survive until we reach the critical point where
free software will equal or excel commercial software in all areas. Commercial
mass-market software will cease to exist. I have already dispensed with it
completely! I'm a totally closed door to Microsoft, and pretty much everyone
else. This is a problem because they have no way to reach people like me
without fundamentally changing the nature of their business. Their hitherto
successful strategy of slashing the throat of the competition isn't going to
put then any closer to the desktops of users like me.
--
 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by drsor » Tue, 27 Aug 1996 04:00:00



: 1. Linux needs to be packaged so that you put a disk in the drive and after
: answering a few questions you are running in a graphical environment.  If the
: user has to enter the refresh rate for their monitor then all is lost.  People
: need to pay much greater attention to this.

        This is called the "Caldera Network Desktop".  I found it quite
funny the first time I installed it on a computer.. "Hey, where's the
root disk.. I only have this one install disk.."  Pop the disk in, pop
the CD in the drive, reboot, login (as install or something) the install
program asks a few *simple* questions, you setup the commercial X server
included with simple questions (I think it even comes with Superprobe to
find out your monitor settings), etc, etc.  Besides a little problem with
an IDE CD-Rom being set wrong (think it was set as slave on a SCSI only
system with no IDE hard drives.. :) everything went smoothly.. been up
for 45 days or so since we installed the 2.0 kernel and upgraded some
other stuff on it.  
        Anyway.. Caldera seems to be making great attempts to make
everything easier to use when it comes to Linux.. (so is Red Hat! :)

: 3. We need a marketing plan.  Dell and Gateway need to be offering Linux as an
: option.  Image if your PC came preloaded with

: 1. A Linux version that had easy-to-use tools to manage the system.

        CND.

: 2. A great word processor, spreadsheet, and database

        Caldera Office CD? (dunno the exact name of it)  You know, the
one that will come with WABI, NeXs, Wordperfect 6.0, etc, etc.  Heck,
Dell and Gateway preload "$500 worth of FREE software!" onto their
systems and jack up the price by $500.. so I'm sure you could get lots of
Linux commercial software for $500.  (or at least a good suite.. CND and
Applixware together.. etc.)

: 3. A fantastic game that did not run on Win'95

        Abuse?  (well.. dunno about that.. ;)  How about the Paradise
Netrek client?  ;)

: 4. Instant Internet

        That goes without saying.. Linux is king when it comes to home
Internet connectivity.. routing a subnet from your isp to your local
ethernet, running an irc server, ftp server, http server, etc, etc..
Point-click-drool-voila-internet! is just waiting for someone to write it
I believe.. ;)  How hard could it be actually.. simple menu with "What
port is your modem on, what is your username, what is your password, what
is your ISP's telephone number"  That's all it really needs to setup a
PPP connection using PAP.  Everything else like your IP and the remote
IP, etc. can be garnered from the initial link.  So it just needs to
write out a simple shell script to start pppd and a file with your
username and password in it, etc.

: 5. Win '95 and M$ that you can use if you really want to.

        With 2 gig EIDE drives falling to the prices they are it would be
easy to give Win 95 1 gig and Linux 1 gig of the drive and use Lilo to
boot between them.  Or they could use one of the numerous boot managing
programs that allow you to choose which OS you want to boot.. (I'm still
using OS/2's boot manager for some ungodly reason even though I deleted
OS/2 months ago.. ;)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blinky lights are the essence of modern technology."

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Mikko Rauha » Wed, 28 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Plus Linux has shown us just how far freeware can push the envelope, and
>continue to do so. Linux will survive until we reach the critical point where
>free software will equal or excel commercial software in all areas. Commercial
>mass-market software will cease to exist. I have already dispensed with it

Well, extrapolated, this seems the way that the market is headed (which is
of course a Good Thing). The big difference, I think, is the fact that
a good piece of free software (in the GNU sense) really cannot die, since
there are always people to propel in onwards. This is of course made
possible by distributing the source code. On the other hand, companies
generally draw only upon their own resources for developing the programs.

The only 'threat' (and a serious one it is) that the industry simply gets
stuck on one proprietary platform, permanently. We can all guess what this
is...

        - Mjr, sivari



I speak for me, myself and I only

 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Terry Kyriacopoulo » Wed, 28 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:> What if Windows '98
> detected a Linux or FreeBSD DNS host and trashed it's own harddisk
> 'due to a bug in Linux' (similar to the 'bug' MS claimed was in
> Samba)?  Could you imagine what full page ads in the major media
> claiming that Linux was 'evil', 'written by hackers, full of trap
> doors to gain * access to your network' would do?  If the 100
> million lemmings running Windows were even slightly suspicious that
> Linux was harmful, the only place you could run it would be at home,
> in your ba*t, in the dark, on previous generation hardware.  Oops.
> I'm already doing that ;-)

Don't you think this is a little unrealistic?  You expect M$ to get away
with trashing their own customers' disks? (!)  That would be the scandal
of the decade.  It wouldn't be hard to prove in a *criminal* court.  I
don't think Mr. Gates wants to go to jail.
 
 
 

Prerequisites for destroying the M$ Monopoly

Post by Joe Smi » Wed, 28 Aug 1996 04:00:00





> > What if Windows '98
> > detected a Linux or FreeBSD DNS host and trashed it's own harddisk

> Don't you think this is a little unrealistic?  You expect M$ to get away
> with trashing their own customers' disks? (!)  That would be the scandal
> of the decade.  It wouldn't be hard to prove in a *criminal* court.  I
> don't think Mr. Gates wants to go to jail.

It seems they've already succeeded in paying vendors not to sell their
competitors products, building in specific incompatibilities with
competitors they couldn't squeeze off the shelves and smearing the
competition in the press.  What makes you think they would hesitate to
do it to something like Linux that isn't even an identifiable entity
(as far as the Justice Department is concerned)?

Yes, surely 'trashing their own customers disks' is unrealistic.  How
about locking up Windows or even putting up a scary dialog box.  How
much would it take to scare the suits into banning Linux from the
company nets?  Even University nets are overwhlemingly MS-populated
and must respect the needs of the majority of their users.  How could
you prove it was intentional?

I'm not trying to be an alarmist MS basher.  I'm only saying it's
foolish to think that just because Free Software is outside the system
that MS can't touch us.  The current plan is to simply marginalize
Unix (and Linux along with it) to the point that it is irrelevant, but
the tactics could become more aggressive if Linux should pop up on the
corporate radar.  What do you think MS would do if DEC should bless
Linux as an alternative to NT in DEC's major-media ads?

I think the best we can do is try to educate people about what's at
stake -- that the current climate of * by one vendor is
unhealthy for everyone.  Neither bashing MS nor ignoring them is wise.

<Joe
--
 Joe Smith

 Department of Physiology
 Philadelphia, PA 19104

 
 
 

1. KDE 2.1.1 prerequisites?

I just downloaded and installed the new KDE release. It all
went fairly smoothly, except for the "kdeadmin" tarball. I
never could get it to compile on my Red Hat 6.2 system. It
complains as follows:

String.cc: In method `StringList::operator String() const':
String.cc:365: ambiguous overload for `String != const char[2]'
String.cc:365: candidates are: operator !=(char *, char *) <builtin>
/usr/include/g++-2/std/bastring.h:508:                 operator !=<char,
string_char_traits<char>, alloc>(const
basic_string<char,string_char_traits<char>,__default_alloc_template<true,0>
String.cc:365: ambiguous overload for `String != const char[2]'
String.cc:365: candidates are: operator !=(char *, char *) <builtin>
/usr/include/g++-2/std/bastring.h:508:                 operator !=<char,
string_char_traits<char>, alloc>(const
basic_string<char,string_char_traits<char>,__default_alloc_template<true,0>
make[3]: *** [String.lo] Error 1

I note that the "kdoc" tarball needs a later version of Perl, which
in turn requires glibc2.2, which I don't have. Could this be the
problem here? I see nothing on the KDE site saying you have to have
2.2, perhaps I missed it? Or is this problem coming from somewhere
else...

2. Help running Openwindows on remote Xserver

3. Makefile, targets and generated prerequisites?

4. low-level, but crucial

5. Makefiles targets and "generated" prerequisites

6. X apps won't use color app-defaults files

7. Prerequisites for a good Programmer?

8. DHCP writing ntp.conf and yp.conf

9. Response: Makefile, targets and generated prerequisites?

10. MAKE : Working through prerequisite lists in commands

11. GLIBC, a catch-22 prerequisite

12. MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar

13. kconfig: Generate prerequisites