Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>Despite the obvious power, flexibility, control of Linux and the best efforts
>of Slackware, Redhat and others I simply fail to see how Linux can be a
>mainstream consumer OS of choice. In preference to Windows 95 or Mac OS.

>Don't get me wrong. I've used Linux before and like it very much. But the
>effort and knowledge required to install it will put off some 90% of users.

>E.g. I recently bought a Pentium II 400 with a 3Dfx card. I installed
>Slackware 3.5 (problematic to say the least) and lo and behold couldn't get X
>to start. So having scouted around the Net for possible solutions I found a
>suitable X server called FBDev. But it required a kernel upgrade. OK so
>immediately I have to learn to do an unfamiliar and slightly intimidating
>job.

        Lack of vendor support won't help you, regardless of OS.

[deletia]

        Although, on a brighter note, Creative seems to be moving
        in our direction with both officially supported audio and
        video drivers. (slashdot.org)

--
                Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats

Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or         |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out   / | \
as soon as your grip slips.

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by mlw » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Despite the obvious power, flexibility, control of Linux and the best efforts
> of Slackware, Redhat and others I simply fail to see how Linux can be a
> mainstream consumer OS of choice. In preference to Windows 95 or Mac OS.

[deleted: meny seemingly good points]

I just had the opportunity to compare/contrast Linux and Windows NT. RH
Linux 5.2 completed in about half an hour, NT took about 4 hours.
Suffice to say, the ability to mount a disk to a directory makes things
easy, otherwise you have to take extreme steps, like getting NT to
install on an 8G hard disk.

Having C: and D: is not acceptable under NT, I don't care what you say.
NT assumes one root directory.

My point? I don't think anyone can make a fair estimate of usability
from the install. Installing an OS will always be problematic unless
there is a world wide freeze on hardware development. If it were not for
"factory pre-installed" Windows would not be considered user friendly.

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by David Steube » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


-> So like I said. Linux is good. But tricky and most consumers wouldn't touch
-> it. One very pertinent question was asked by a friend. What can you do under
-> Linux that I can't do on my Win95? I couldn't think of anything at that time.
-> All she needed was to run web browsers, spreadsheets, word processors and the
-> occasional organisers. Best she stuck to Windows. She's doesn't need a slick
-> and efficient Unix OS for that.

For a desktop OS, you are right.  Linux is rapidly improving, but
there is a lot of work to make it the OS for everyone.

The server is another story.  Server's don't need to run X like
workstations.  That is one major headache gone right there.  Server's
probably don't use ppp either.  There goes the other big problem.
Server's are set up and maintained by profesionals who are comfortable
in a Unix like environment.  So there is every reason to expect Linux
to take over the low end server market.  In fact, with beowulf
clusters, Linux can make serious inroads in the high-end number
crunching market.

Back to the desktop.  I have two machines that run X just fine.  My
primary terminal (the one I actually sit at) is a notebook computer.
It is running KDE.  My other computer now has the monitor turned off.
I don't have the X server running on it.  I use it to run my news
server and as a second CPU for compiles and serving files.  What I
can't do in Win95 that I do on my notebook _all_ the time is run
applications on the other machine with their display on the notebook's
X server.

The distributed computing aspect of Linux is very useful to me even
though I only have two computers at present.  I'm sure most households
with a PC only have the one.  But that will change as the kids all
need to use a computer for their homework at the same time, or
everyone in the family wants to use the computer with the cable
modem.  This is where Linux's superior networking will pay of in the
home.  One machine will have the cable modem and printer attached to
it.  The others will access the internet and printer through it.  This
all comes out of the box with a typical Linux distribution.  Win9x
can't do that.

I expect that in a year, two at the outside, Linux will install with
at least the ease of Windows.  It may be even easier.  Linux is an
excelent platform for automating tasks and remote administration.

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail

When will Altoids be available in 'extra strength'?

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by Volker Dittma » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:

> Despite the obvious power, flexibility, control of Linux and the best efforts
> of Slackware, Redhat and others I simply fail to see how Linux can be a
> mainstream consumer OS of choice. In preference to Windows 95 or Mac OS.

> Don't get me wrong. I've used Linux before and like it very much. But the
> effort and knowledge required to install it will put off some 90% of users.

Of course Linux has a long way to go. But most (90%) of the users have a
long way to go, too, until they can install an operating system. I can tell
you stories of that: with the first Windows 95 I've had MORE problems than
with ALL Linux installations since then. Installing an OS isn't something
an ordinary user can (or will) do, and this won't change. 90% of the users
won't be able to install Windows 9x/NT/2000.

Linux will be an OS of choice ONLY if the MAJOR pc sellers will sell their
machines with Linux preinstalled. It isn't sufficient that VAR Research
does it - the situation will become better if Compaq does it, though I
think the pc's of VAR Research are far better.

The year Linux will start to conquer the mass-market is 1999: Compaq, Dell
and Gateway will start selling machines with Linux preinstalled to any
customer. THIS will be the signal for average users to start using Linux.

Quote:> [deletia]
> So like I said. Linux is good. But tricky and most consumers wouldn't touch
> it. One very pertinent question was asked by a friend. What can you do under
> Linux that I can't do on my Win95? I couldn't think of anything at that time.
> All she needed was to run web browsers, spreadsheets, word processors and the
> occasional organisers. Best she stuck to Windows. She's doesn't need a slick
> and efficient Unix OS for that.

The question is: what is missing under Linux that most Windows users have?
THE CRASHES.

Most Windows users will stare at you in disbelief when you tell them that
your Linux machine DOES NOT CRASH.

The only reason why I still have Windows 98 on my machine is: I like to play
games. But this will start to change, too, not this year, but maybe next year.

Ciao, Volker

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by D. J. Bircha » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> The things is Windows is so readily accepted by consumers
> that hardware manufacturers and computer companies like Dell
> etc. will already pre-install Windows. God help should you
> wish to install Linux on your PC.

Funny you should mention companies like Dell, Eddie... in
the past week, there's been news of Linux support, increases
in existing support, or evaluation/testing of Linux by
Compaq, HP, IBM, SGI... and, oh yeah, Dell. :)

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,31628,00.html
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,31547,00.html

-Dan

--
D Birchall, VP of Technology, Digital Facilities Management
132 Kings Highway East Suite A-1, Haddonfield NJ 08033-2008
609-429-4777 - FAX 609-429-1481 - http://www.digitalfm.com/
Internet/Extranets/E-Commerce/Consulting - Spam Delenda Est

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by Leslie Mikese » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:

>The server is another story.  Server's don't need to run X like
>workstations.  That is one major headache gone right there.

Even if you do want to run X, it is seldom a problem to install
a supported video card on an important machine.

Quote:>Server's are set up and maintained by profesionals who are comfortable
>in a Unix like environment.  So there is every reason to expect Linux
>to take over the low end server market.  In fact, with beowulf
>clusters, Linux can make serious inroads in the high-end number
>crunching market.

The thing that would really make Linux server usage explode would
be 'fail-over' clustering where you could group machines and
continue transparently if any component fails.  Load sharing is
nice and it is useful in research contexts, but businesses need
a different clustering concept.

Quote:>Back to the desktop.  I have two machines that run X just fine.  My
>primary terminal (the one I actually sit at) is a notebook computer.
>It is running KDE.  My other computer now has the monitor turned off.
>I don't have the X server running on it.  I use it to run my news
>server and as a second CPU for compiles and serving files.  What I
>can't do in Win95 that I do on my notebook _all_ the time is run
>applications on the other machine with their display on the notebook's
>X server.

Have you seen http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/?  It goes either way, although
you have to take the whole desktop from Win95/NT.

  Les Mikesell

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>>The server is another story.  Server's don't need to run X like
>>workstations.  That is one major headache gone right there.

>Even if you do want to run X, it is seldom a problem to install
>a supported video card on an important machine.

        On some of the more recent (PCI) hardware it's even
        done automagically. Luck out & you can have a
        no-brainer Linux install. (Redhat 5.2)

[deletia]

Quote:>>Back to the desktop.  I have two machines that run X just fine.  My
>>primary terminal (the one I actually sit at) is a notebook computer.
>>It is running KDE.  My other computer now has the monitor turned off.
>>I don't have the X server running on it.  I use it to run my news
>>server and as a second CPU for compiles and serving files.  What I
>>can't do in Win95 that I do on my notebook _all_ the time is run
>>applications on the other machine with their display on the notebook's
>>X server.

>Have you seen http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/?  It goes either way, although
>you have to take the whole desktop from Win95/NT.

        Yup, and the Win9x can't really be used for anything else
        and the network bandwidth usage is even WORSE than X. It's
        a nice little parlour trick though.

--
                Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats

Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or         |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out   / | \
as soon as your grip slips.

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

Linux has a long, long, long way to go

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




[deletia]
>> occasional organisers. Best she stuck to Windows. She's doesn't need a slick
>> and efficient Unix OS for that.

>The question is: what is missing under Linux that most Windows users have?
>THE CRASHES.

>Most Windows users will stare at you in disbelief when you tell them that
>your Linux machine DOES NOT CRASH.

>The only reason why I still have Windows 98 on my machine is: I like to play
>games. But this will start to change, too, not this year, but maybe next year.

        Lokisoft is porting Civ3.

--
                Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats

Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or         |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out   / | \
as soon as your grip slips.

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

1. long long & long double types in Linux GCC

There are two non-standard types defined in Linux GCC: long long (8 bytes)
and "long double" (12 bytes, but I think it uses 10 bytes floating point
type supported by 80x87 coprocessor). Both seem to work internally OK,
but is there a way to "printf" such values. Man page for "printf" does mention a
format modifier "L" for long double values, but it is not working. Nothing
about "long long" can be found in manpage.

Any experience with these types?

regards, Michal.

****************************************************************************


  Al. Ujazdowskie 4                   Voice:    48-22-294011 ext 23
  00-478 Warszawa, POLAND             FAX:      48-22-294967
****************************************************************************

2. how to set env. variables in shell script

3. RH7.2 2.4.X off_t: long or long long?

4. SLS Modularized

5. why not a "unsigned long long" for rx_bytes in linux/drivers/atm/horizon.h ?

6. what it network is down

7. Q: about "long long" type..

8. mysql

9. loff_t / long long and printk()?

10. _BSD_OFF_T_ type long long

11. printf(3) long long

12. Large File System and long long datatype (gcc)

13. does tru64 v.4.g support long long int (%lld)?