Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Stoney Edward » Wed, 29 Jan 1997 04:00:00



Hello all.

The way I see it, Linux doesn't need to worry about competing with
Microsoft for a user base.  IMHO, Linux (and UNIX for that matter) will
always have an acceptably large user base.  The adavantage that Linux
already has is, its price.  Who can resist a fully functional UNIX OS for
absolutely no cost whatsoever (minus hardware of course)?

Its other adavantages are clear to anyone who has used it.

Because WinNT/Win95/Win3.x are geared to meet the expectations of general
users, they cannot have the same flexibility that a UNIX variant has.

There will always be a need for an OS that is COMPLETELY configurable.
Microsoft is not really seemingly interested in this sort of customer...
they are more interested in serving general users' needs, which are the
majority of computer users.  Really... if Microsoft is such a threat, then
why are there still TONS of UNIX users out there today?  I personally
think that UNIX variants will long outlive the Windows OS's.

The only way that Microsoft could create an OS that is as configurable and
flexible as UNIX is to basically, re-invent UNIX, which would be quite
an unwise investment on their part (XENIX didn't do so hot, I've been
told)

Even if Microsoft was run on EVERY SINGLE DESKTOP COMPUTER OUT THERE, they
still don't have an OS that can run on the higher-ended equipment, such as
Sun SPARCStations, SGI's, HP UX's, etc.

Am I correct here, or am I getting senile in my ripe old age of 26? :)

Just something I was curious to get feedback on.
--

"The problem with Microsoft is... they have no taste." --Steve Jobs
          NOTE:  Please route all flames to /dev/toilet.

 
 
 

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Jacobus Erasm » Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:00:00


: The way I see it, Linux doesn't need to worry about competing with
: Microsoft for a user base.  IMHO, Linux (and UNIX for that matter) will
: always have an acceptably large user base.  The advantage that Linux
: already has is, its price.  Who can resist a fully functional UNIX OS for
: absolutely no cost whatsoever (minus hardware of course)?

In some way's your are correct. What I do want to use LINUX for is for my less
knowledgeable users. This sound a bit stupid but think about it. All basic tasks
are the same in DOS and LINUX the commands differ. Installations and some other
stuff I need to do on Win 95, Win 3.1n Win 3.11 and DOS machines anyway. Only
difference I have to walk to all 400 computers to do that. On Linux I can do it
centrally and distribute using some of my nicer tools. Including of course
upgrades. So I need to be able to say Look LINUX will work compared to Windows.

: Its other advantages are clear to anyone who has used it.

True

: Because WinNT/Win95/Win3.x are geared to meet the expectations of general :
users, they cannot have the same flexibility that a UNIX variant has.

True. But Linux can meet the general expectations of general users. Pretty
complex but possible.

: There will always be a need for an OS that is COMPLETELY configurable.  :
Microsoft is not really seemingly interested in this sort of customer...  :
they are more interested in serving general users' needs, which are the :
majority of computer users.  Really... if Microsoft is such a threat, then :
why are there still TONS of UNIX users out there today?  I personally : think
that UNIX variants will long outlive the Windows OS's.

: The only way that Microsoft could create an OS that is as configurable and :
flexible as UNIX is to basically, re-invent UNIX, which would be quite : an
unwise investment on their part (XENIX didn't do so hot, I've been : told)

My personal opinion the reason Microsoft didn't make in the UNIX market is that they can't produced technically superior products. Visually there programs are very good but technically you make up your own mind.

With Linux and Unix in general your have this major engine but nobody bother to go and look at color and the kind of seats to use. The suspension is a bit rough to.

: Even if Microsoft was run on EVERY SINGLE DESKTOP COMPUTER OUT THERE, they :
still don't have an OS that can run on the higher-ended equipment, such as :
Sun SPARC Stations, SGI's, HP UX's, etc.

Don't agree. Desktop computers are becoming very powerful with enough functionality in Win NT it is possible. (Not very likely) to replace powerful computers with DESKTOP COMPUTERS.

 
 
 

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Stoney Edward » Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:00:00


: True. But Linux can meet the general expectations of general users. Pretty
: complex but possible.

The problem here, however, is that for most users, this would involve
bringing in a third party (most likely, a UNIX expert).  Most general
users don't have the money, or the time, to invest in having their own
SysAdmin.  Perhaps, if there were a distribution of Linux that was an
absolute NO-BRAINER... then, your statement would be much more feasible.

: With Linux and Unix in general your have this major engine but nobody
: bother to go and look at color and the kind of seats to use. The
: suspension is a bit rough to.

Linux will only be as warm, fuzzy and cushy as the user makes it.

: Don't agree. Desktop computers are becoming very powerful with enough
: functionality in Win NT it is possible. (Not very likely) to replace
: powerful computers with DESKTOP COMPUTERS.

Nope.  Not by a longshot.

SUN's and SGI's have great OS's but the true power is in the
hardware, not the software.  The SGI REX chip (if that particular chip is
still in use) is the perfect example.  INTEL based hardware has NOTHING
close to it.  Most high-end workstations use a proprietary custom chip
set, whereas most desktop computers use generic Motorola or Intel based
chips.

And as far as OpenGL, and such... much faster on high-end WS's than on
Desktop models.
--

"The problem with Microsoft is... they have no taste." --Steve Jobs
          NOTE:  Please route all flames to /dev/toilet.

 
 
 

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Rajat Dat » Fri, 31 Jan 1997 04:00:00




>: True. But Linux can meet the general expectations of general users. Pretty
>: complex but possible.

>The problem here, however, is that for most users, this would involve
>bringing in a third party (most likely, a UNIX expert).  Most general
>users don't have the money, or the time, to invest in having their own
>SysAdmin.  Perhaps, if there were a distribution of Linux that was an
>absolute NO-BRAINER... then, your statement would be much more feasible.

Compete?  Of course.  That which doesn't compete successfully will die.

But compete on what terms?  You seem to be have accepted the definition
that success in competing for OSs is only to be judged by numbers of end
users accepting and using the system.  Why is that the only criteria?

In my opinion Microsoft with Windows and NT, IBM with OS/2, etc. etc.
compete in numbers of users because that's the way they make their
business case.  Well, ultimately it's profits that count.  Linux, since
it doesn't have to live to a business case, competes by a completely
different criteria.  Instead of having to provide support for relatively
unsophisticated computer users, it can compete by the experience and fun
it can offer those who care to learn more about computers.

I hasten to add that I mean no disrespect to unsophisticated computer
users.  The vast number of people out there who need to use the computer
to accomplish their goals do not need to, and should not need to, become
sophisticated computer users.  Instead, the Microsofts and IBMs of the
world need to offer them sophisticated tools that are intuitive for them
to use.  Linux simply doesn't need to play in that arena.  Being computer
literate does not imply any particular goodness about a person.

The day Linux ceases to be interesting and fun to the computer-literate
(geeks, if you will), it will die.  For the time-being and for the
foreseeable future, I see lots of fun projects ahead.  I tip my hat to
Microsoft, IBM, Sun, and all the rest for the support they provide to the
business community.  But in my home, when I'm having fun and doing the
programming I enjoy most in life, I use Linux.  Linux wins, pure and simple.

rajat

 
 
 

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Jacobus Erasm » Sat, 01 Feb 1997 04:00:00


: : True. But Linux can meet the general expectations of general users. Pretty
: : complex but possible.

: The problem here, however, is that for most users, this would involve
: bringing in a third party (most likely, a UNIX expert).  Most general
: users don't have the money, or the time, to invest in having their own
: SysAdmin.  Perhaps, if there were a distribution of Linux that was an
: absolute NO-BRAINER... then, your statement would be much more feasible.

Totally agree. Check out Caldera's stuff. (No brainer.)

: : With Linux and Unix in general your have this major engine but nobody
: : bother to go and look at color and the kind of seats to use. The
: : suspension is a bit rough to.

: Linux will only be as warm, fuzzy and cushy as the user makes it.
i
Good point !

: : Don't agree. Desktop computers are becoming very powerful with enough
: : functionality in Win NT it is possible. (Not very likely) to replace
: : powerful computers with DESKTOP COMPUTERS.

: Nope.  Not by a longs hot.

: SUN's and SGI's have great OS's but the true power is in the
: hardware, not the software.  The SGI REX chip (if that particular chip is
: still in use) is the perfect example.  INTEL based hardware has NOTHING
: close to it.  Most high-end workstations use a proprietary custom chip
: set, whereas most desktop computers use generic Motorola or Intel based
: chips.

I'd like to believe this (Mainly because I like big computers.) Unfortunately most IT people don't see the advantage of using HIGH END workstations for more general applications. They are used for specific applications. (OK this is only in my experience. Most of the HIGH end workstations I had to deal with were basically DATABASE engines and Network Management machines, Web servers and such in this case PC's can do the work just as well. The computational intensive apps I've seen running can be done just a
s well using a distributed system over a high speed PC network. Maybe if we start combining the high end workstation power and can utilize it seamlessly with our PC's workstation will become more popular.)

BTW. PC becoming more powerful is great it forces the Workstation prices down !

: And as far as OpenGL, and such... much faster on high-end WS's than on
: Desktop models.

Although with the right PC hardware who knows !

CU

 
 
 

Linux doesn't really NEED to compete...

Post by Stoney Edward » Sat, 01 Feb 1997 04:00:00


: Totally agree. Check out Caldera's stuff. (No brainer.)

Well, okay... you got me there. :)

: applications. (OK this is only in my experience. Most of the HIGH end
: workstations I had to deal with were basically DATABASE engines and
: Network Management machines, Web servers and such in this case PC's can
: do the work just as well. The computational intensive apps I've seen
: running can be done just as well using a distributed system over a high  
: speed PC network. Maybe if we start combining the high end workstation

I guess our opinions differ due to our experiences in different trades.
But I do think that you have a good point, now that I can see where you
are coming from.

I am a graphics designer, and a musician, so we kind of have different
'computational priorities,' if you will. :)

: BTW. PC becoming more powerful is great it forces the Workstation prices
: down !

Now you're talkin'!  I wouldn't mind having an SGI on my desktop. :)

: : And as far as OpenGL, and such... much faster on high-end WS's than on
: : Desktop models.

: Although with the right PC hardware who knows !

Well, there is a new PC-based rendering library coming out that is
supposed to put OpenGL to shame, but I can't remember what it is called.
--

"The problem with Microsoft is... they have no taste." --Steve Jobs
          NOTE:  Please route all flames to /dev/toilet.