Linux-Advocacy Digest #327, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (tholenbot)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (David Goldstien)
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Woofbert)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Stuart Fox")
Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians" (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:29:44 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:16:26 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Half the OS projects out there are about being a thousand times
> >more efficient, reliable, and secure than Unix and it will never
> >be sufficient.
>
> Can you explain what you mean here? Can you provide specific
> examples?
OS supremacy has to do with politics and nothing more. Unix
will remain dominant for a long, long time for no better reason
than that it is the status quo. Inertia is a factor in any political
system, not just some technical "network effect".
Go through
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
http://www.tunes.org/Review/OSes.html
and you can see an endless list of OSes. Just search for
keywords like 'small', 'reliable', 'secure', et cetera. Though
you probably want to stay away from microkernels since
they are inherently stupid (oh goody, more APIs in the
system. Just what we needed! Mind you, bloated warthogs
like Unix are hardly an improvement.)
If you want a secure OS then just pick *any* OS that is
based on capabilities instead of access control lists (*).
There is no lack of them but EROS comes to mind soonest.
With capabilities, worms and trojans become effectively
impossible and most security holes just disappear.
Then there's the Cache Kernel and L4 that come to mind
as far as efficiency goes.
*: this is due to the fact that with ACLs, all of the information
on who should get access is with the users (with processes being
understood as users) but all of the information on who actually
has access is with the objects. With capabilities, this information
is once again unified in one place.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:30:10 -0400
In article <_BDz5.34245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Eric Bennett writes:
>
> > What "argments"?
>
> The ones he was referring to, Eric.
He didn't refer to any "argments", Dave.
> > Copying and pasting your typos, Dave? Doesn't your advanced OS/2
> > computer with voice input know how to spellcheck, Dave?
>
> Of course, Eric.
Glad to see you admit to copying and pasting your typos.
--
Prove that "It's time to raise the curtain on the Muppet Show tonight", if
you think you can.
------------------------------
From: David Goldstien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:20:45 GMT
Oops, jumping in late -- very cool idea about time-delay open source.
Humbly submit that Sun makes 0% of revenues from software though (all
profits come from hardware), so profit isn't really a motive. Good
discussion, though...
--
David F. Goldstien :: Chip Design & System Programming, S.F. CA
Above the clouds, above the crowds, where the
sounds are original ... infinite skills create
miracles.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:48:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> It's because he lives in a grove of birch trees.
> > >> >> >> A special kind of birch trees, in fact.
> > >> >> >> John Birch trees :-)
> > >> Closest dictators?
> > >Yes, Loren, like you.
> > >Remember when you told us that the sign of success is to have
> > >"thousands of underlings groveling at one's feet" ?????
> >
> > This picture was inspired by Mr. Kulkis's foaming at the
mouth.
> >
> > Also, let's get to some really fun stuff,
> > like demonstrating that Linux is a Communist
> > conspiracy for the purpose of destroying
> > capitalist software such as Microsoft's.
Hate to disappoint you, but as one of the "Conspirators", one of the
people who helped propel Linux from a "college kid's hack" to a very
powerful and effective operating system, I can tell you that Linux
is a CAPITALIST conspriacy for the perpose of destroying Microsoft's
MONOPOLY and creating a competitive desktop market in which multiple
vendors compete for the user desktop, possibly on the same hardware.
There is no intention to destroy Microsoft. In fact, there might even
be some Microsoft applications that would be welcomed by the Linux
market, if those products continue to be part of a competitive market.
Microsoft used it's control of the operating system to force all OEMs
to use Microsoft's applications, including it's browser. The OEMs were
simply told "my way or the highway, and without Microsoft's OS (du jur),
"you only have box with pretty blinking lights".
For the first time in almost 12 years, OEMs actually had the choice
of which Office Suite to install with their machines this year.
That's because of Linux and the DOJ.
For the first time in almost 15 years, OEMs actually had the option of
buying less than one Microsoft OS per machine (yes, in some year the
actually purchased more than one (as many as 1.2 per machine). For the
first time in 18 years, Compaq will be introducing an alternative to
Microsoft's Operating system (Linux) on a retail product.
For the first time in 20 years, Microsoft has actually lost Market
share.
For the first time since the introduction of the first IBM PC, PC
manufacturers will see an increase in profit margin (due to
availability of Linux in the product mix).
Linux has also created a whole new product line, such as the TIVO
video capture machine, or the Mail Machine. We're even seeing whole
new classes of applications geared to Linux.
Linux actually created markets for Sun, IBM, HP, and DEC/Compaq UNIX
based products. In fact, these companies (along with other UNIX
vendors and OEMs) were among the conspirators.
Sure, no one was too keen on Stallman's GNU public license, but they
were even less keen on turning BSDi or SCO into another Microsoft,
with exclusive control of key strategic proprietary software. More
recently, the Public License (in whatever flavor) has been key to
getting the acceptance of OEMs, ISVs, and VARs for ANY UNIX based
product. The few exceptions such as MQSeries succeed because the
infrastructure is vendor neutral and the example software is public
license, making it very easy to create frameworks based on the
proprietary infrastructure.
And Java 2 has similarly succeeded in a strategy of "supporting
everybody" with core product backed by Open Source frameworks.
> If you can name a dictator-for-life who enslaves people to work
> on Linux, then you'll have something there.
Ironically, you could point to Bill Gates an say that he is the
totalitarian who forces the unwilling to submit to his perverse
notions of software, applications, and information services.
It is Microsoft who deliberately plants "bugging devices" into it's
software for the purpose of identifying and prosecuting software
piracy (but the same technology can be used in all sorts of creative
ways). Ironically, it's only when a third-party hacker exploits these
features in an obvious way that federal agents get involved.
It is Microsoft who punishes rebel companies by creating service
packs which render their software and/or hardware completely useless.
This is a form of cyber terrorism called "torpedos" (code that attacks
targeted code in nearly undetectable ways). Victims include Novell,
Stack, IBM, WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland. Unfortunately, the
evidence was sealed as part of court settlements.
> Until then, it's a volounteer effort.
Being a totally volunteer effort would indicate a form of
communism/socialism. In fact, all of the contributors have some
form of self interest. They may wish to have their name listed on
the credits as a point in their resume, they may have consulting
practices in which royalty-free intellectual capital gives them a
competitive edge, or they may have a UNIX system that they support
and Linux gives them the ability to prototype on a laptop or home
machine - unfettered by the trappings of a shared server (security,
permissions, resource contention, network connectivity through
internal networks...). Or they need to support a remote system
and Linux makes a much better UNIX workstation than Windows with
a torpedoed X11 server.
> > --
> > Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> > My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:04:20 GMT
In article <39d158ae$0$29999$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ostracus"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
> become a great writer.
>
> When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that
> the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a
> truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl
> in pain and anger!"
>
> He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
We need a guy like this to work at Infernosoft. Can I steal this sig for
a job description?
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:23:28 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
> > Hey, buddy, I also don't like professionals writing bad code. I have
> > just as much agaist most implementations of Unix as I have agaist
> > Linux.
>
> Then your standards of software quality are lame.
And how do you figure this exactly?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:34:53 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Unix is a piece of crap.
>
> You are just completely wrong.
>
> > For no better reason than Inertia, it will
> > continue to dominate for decades. Do I need a better reason?
>
> Do you need a better reason to what? Lie about a great operating system?
I seem to remember an MS Windows person saying /exactly/ that.
> > So my anger stems
> > from the fact that I have to deal with utter assholes on a daily
> > basis. Seem reasonable to you?
>
> No, your anger stems from your own cluelessness.
How much do you know about Unix exactly? My guess is that you
know nothing about how it works internally. And of course, this
is the first count of the indictment against Unix; that users
can't learn how it works and are reduced to mindless enthusiasm.
The more manic you act now, the more like a chump you'll feel
later so don't do anything too dumb.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:07:25 +1000
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:39:01 +1000, Chris Sherlock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My point was that most people in an office network who use Windows tend
> >to rely on the NetBEUI protocol to communicate with each other.
>
> No, they rely on TCPIP (NetBIOS) to talk to each other. I haven't
> seen a NetBEUI network in real life, ever. The only place I've ever
> seen it is Microsoft exams.
I sincerely doubt that. Most all small workgroup type networks will be
using NetBEUI (an environment it works quite well in). TCPIP requires
actual setup to use - IP addresses or a working DHCP server whereas NetBEUI
is just plug in and go.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:43:41 +0100
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39d1af94$0$26539$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:39:01 +1000, Chris Sherlock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >My point was that most people in an office network who use Windows tend
> > >to rely on the NetBEUI protocol to communicate with each other.
> >
> > No, they rely on TCPIP (NetBIOS) to talk to each other. I haven't
> > seen a NetBEUI network in real life, ever. The only place I've ever
> > seen it is Microsoft exams.
>
> I sincerely doubt that. Most all small workgroup type networks will be
> using NetBEUI (an environment it works quite well in). TCPIP requires
> actual setup to use - IP addresses or a working DHCP server whereas
NetBEUI
> is just plug in and go.
When I worked in NZ, the company I worked for did quite a few small networks
(10-15 people, 1 file server), and they were all exclusively TCP/IP.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:54:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:41:25 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> >Actually, this isn't too far off from how Linux got started. Richard
> >Stallman, and about 10 others (including me) were musing on a usenet
> >group, much like this one, about how a UNIX system for under $1000
> >including hardware would have an incredible impact on the worlds
> >economy. None of us had any time, but this kid in finland put his
> >little 10,000 line "Operating system" into Richard's TSX-11 Archive
> >and asked if this might be what we were looking for.
>
> Yes, but did he do it because of you ? Or did he start before ?
Linus wrote the code because he just wanted something better than
MS-DOS that he could fix if it broke. He also figured that UNIX
compatibility would give him access to more applications.
The conversation in the news group (comp.os.unix.*) was started by
Richard Stallman. In fact, Stallman had been working on GNU for
about 6 months, but kept getting stopped by a couple of patents that
Linus intuitively avoided and improved. This meant that the GNU
project had a working kernel and didn't have to try and reverse
engineer it's own.
Ironically, since Linus' work was based on Minux instead of UNIX,
a number of "accidental compatibilities resulted". Often Linux
achieved improved UNIX compatibility by fixing what he thought were
bugs in the Minux based code.
> In any case, this example doesn't really relate
> to what I was discussing,
> because Linus was allowed to be his own boss.
> It wasn't like you guys
> were playing chief, and he was being your indian.
You want "command an control" authority over the creative process.
This is where Richard had failed and we succeeded. We used an
enrollment/contribution model that simply created possible
opportunities for people to step into. When you speak possibility
and opportunities into a "room" of 15,000 people, you get a few
folks who say "yes".
In fact, this was the point of the course I was taking (that you
snipped from the previous posting). The Landmark Education
technology has since been used by numerous leaders, including
many of those working on Linux. It works just as well for projects
like ending corneal blindness (the stock broker who took that on
ended up raising the funds for nearly 200 eye banks in India, Asia,
Africa, and Indonesia. Back when there were NO eye banks in any third
world country.
I've also seen this technology used to enroll people at Microsoft
into projects like Web Browsers.
> [ diversionary stuff snipped ]
>
> The examples you give of programmers
> responding to user demands are different
> from what I am talking about.
Actually, we were just making requests, and seeing who would
promise, and who would deliver. The first thousand were pretty
easy to track, but after that it just become about 400 communities,
each working on their little package. Each community was managing
several hundred promises and contributions per month. These would
eventually be rolled into a manabable group of about 60 package groups.
These groups were then consolidated into distributions.
> The programmers respond to user demands, but
> they don't take orders from their users.
Everybody acts based on possibilities they see for themselves, even
if only as an alternative to a perceived threat. The see the
possibility of income, or they see an alternative to Microsoft's
expensive software. They see the possibility of having something
similar to the company supercomputer as an alternative to having
a crippled OS like MS-DOS (which started as QDOS, a subset of CP/M).
> And they certainly don't accept
> a "chief" who doesn't prove his worthiness.
Nope. But if they see the possibility of gain, and they trust the
"chief" no allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labors, to
"participate in the booty" (leadership techniques of Genghis Kahn),
they will continue to follow a leader who may have no direct "command
and control" authority.
> In fact I don't think anyone takes orders
>( unless they're being paid ).
Actually the only place where people obey orders is the Military.
In this case, the soldier understands that he will be told as little
as possible to prevent the enemy from getting information that will get
the rest of the unit killed. He understands that there may be a good
reason for doing something that may appear to be senseless and brutal.
Perhaps the hardest example of obeying orders was when American
Soldiers in Vietnam were ordered to shoot babies. The babys were
strapped to their mother's backs, along with enough high impact
explosives to take out a 20 foot radius. The mothers, who had a
woman as a national hero, would attack bases knowing they would
be killed. The babies would cry until they either starved to death
or until they wiggled free and exploded the mines. For the safety
and sanity of the unit, the GIs would have to shoot the babies and
leave mother and child to rot in the field.
This is "command and control" at it's most horrible. But even in this
case, the men who obeyed these orders knew that they were acting in
the best interests of the unit. Sometimes the baby would see the GI
and start kicking, which would trip the wire and blow up baby, mom,
and GI. These men would risk their lives for the benefit of the unit.
As for "normal people", who don't literally operate "at the point of
a gun", there is usually a personal self interest at stake. For a
good corporate manager, there is also a corporate interest at stake.
In fact, what makes a great leader a great leader is that he
understands the paradox of power. He understands that he is allowed
to lead because he serves the best interests of the community he leads.
In fact, he must often subjugate his personal needs and desires for
the interests of his team. He also understands that if the team
fails to thrive, if the personal self interests of his team aren't
respected, honored, and fulfulled, that his team will desert him,
seek out another leader, or "kill" him.
> People implement the features they want to implement.
Partially true. But this desire can be created. It is possible
to create the desire by listening for that person's concerns,
issues, fears, and dreams, and showing him how taking on your
project will fulfill those dreams.
Linux was created because the leaders of the project were able
to say "Billy has Billions, which he gets from you" they offered
the alternative "We offer the opportunity to pay less and/or get
better service".
Since there were thousands of applications involved, just being
the resident guru in a popular Linux application could become a
source of opportunities (consulting, service contracts, job offers...)
It's a different business model, but it is a business model, complete
with revenue plans, marketing and distribution goals, tactics, and
strategy, and statistical measures of results.
I make $300/hour as a consultant, others get service contract revenue,
others just create web sites for a fraction of the cost of the
Microsoft option. In some cases, implementation can be as little
as 1/10th the cost with MORE revenue (since the results are the same
and results get produced more reliably).
> If a user has a suggestion, and the developer hears
> the suggestion and decides he wants to
> implement it, then he does so.
And if one developer doesn't want to implement it, another will.
That is the nature of a competetive marketplace. This is a foreign
concept to Microsoft users, but it's very common elsewhere.
It's competition that forced Ford to switch from the Model T to
a version that was upgraded and enhanced every year. The Model A
had to be redesigned to comply with standards created by Ford's
competitors. The result was a vehicle that was easier to drive,
cost less to maintain, and was safer than it's predecessor.
> But the users can't order the developers to do anything.
Again, the users vote with their wallets. The developer who
ignores the needs of customers will eventually find himself
confronted with competition. When that competition provides
features and functions that are wanted and/or needed by the
consumer, the monopolist who ignores customers loses control
of the marketplace.
> In fact I doubt that even Linus can order the kernel
> developers to do anything.
No, but he frequently does step into a room of 2,000 or more
people at the Linux expo and make requests. He asked developers
to focus on the desktop - they did and the results were KDE, GNOME,
and a suite of commercial Linux desktop applications. He asked for
help with USB drivers, they were created as modules in 2.2.13 and
will be integrated into the kernel for 2.4.
Ironically, Microsoft pushed the SMP call, which resulted in
superior SMP support. NASA needed massive clustering, Linux
developers provided Beowulf.
> Likewise, the KDE approach has been to offer an API and let
> the developers write whatever apps they like for it.
But there was quite a bit of friction between Troll, who created
the qt libraries used in KDE, and the open source communities.
Eventually Troll but the linux version into an open source agreement,
largely because the combination of GNOME and some gtk developers who
were threatening to clone the Qt API. Again, in the face of
competition, Troll shifted it's focus from a royalty based revenue
model to a service based revenue model.
> Open source projects get done by doers, not talkers.
Actually, quite wrong. Projects are literally spoken into existence,
into a community of people - some of whom will want to transform a
possibility into a reality.
The web browser was spoken into existance when a few people began
discussing the possibility of a user interface, available on both
Windows and Linux, that would make UNIX systems as easy to use as
the Macintosh. The result would be direct access to UNIX systems
that could reliably conduct business transactions in real-time
over a TCP/IP network that could not be censored by economic forces
seeking to stifle competition. One developer created Viola, another
created Cello, and Marc Andreeson and his team created Mosaic.
This was exactly the process you fantasized about. Ironically,
most of the leaders, the ones who created the possibility, kept it
in existence, and used it to enroll or recruit corporate leaders
into participating, are almost anonymous. In some cases, the
"celebrities" were chosen because they were "poster children". Linus
Torvalds, with his little boy innocence, a bit too much beer, and
real modesty, was perfect for the Generation X crowd. Bob Young,
with his bald head, accountant glasses, gentle voice, and charming
smile was perfect for the Baby Boomers.
Richard Stallman appealed to the biker/hippie rebels who loved
thumbing their nose at the establishment (Microsoft in this case).
Some of us were better kept out of the lime-light. Mannerisms, habits,
and private life issues were best kept out of the media. If Steve
Jobs could derail Apple by refusing to aknowledge his child, imagine
what the impact of a Gay man, a lesbian woman, a deaf mute, a drag
queen, some ex-addicts, a David Bowie punker, a "suit" from MCI, and a
"Dead beat dad" would have done to Linux.
If the "real leaders" who sourced this thing in the first place
were ever put in front of an audience - in their "fullest self
expression", it would look more like a P.T. Barnum freak-show.
We'd even have a hunch-back and the "dog faced boy". About
the closest we come to showing our "true selves" is people
like John "Maddog" Hall.
People don't follow us because we're pretty, cute, handsome, or
even because we're rich. They follow our lead because we make them
rich, we create opportunities to create their own fortunes, and create
the structure for access to everything from hot cars to hot dates.
They follow our lead because we provide the opportunity to create
successful products, and Linux delivers.
Again, the Paradox of Power comes into play. If any of this ever
becomes about us, instead of what Linux can provide for them, they
will find new leaders. They will shift to those leaders who can
provide the opportunities that they want and need. This is why
the mind-share has shifted from Microsoft to Linux. There are more
dollars in the Microsoft play-pen, but there is almost no chance of
getting into the "big money".
There was a brief period, shortly after the release of NT 4.0, when
Microsoft was able to convince managers who knew nothing about PCs
and dangerously little about Windows 95, that NT would turn them into
the managers of their companies' most profitable projects.
Unfortunately, by the time Windows 2000 came out, most of those
managers had suffered severe career damage and many were forced
to resign from a string of bad NT Server projects.
Ironically, it was Microsoft's ineffective management of expectations
that eventually led to Linux and FreeBSD emerging as servers for the
enterprise. Linux and *BSD ran better on NT machines than NT did, and
even if you were running SMP configurations, real-world applications
were more quickly developed, ran faster, and crashed less frequently
than their NT counterparts. In fact, the biggest problems came when
NT managers would try to port NT code directly to Linux, ignoring the
special features Linux/UNIX and the weaknesses of NT (which much of
the complex coding and threading was designed to cover up).
Ironically, even though Microsoft fixed many of the most glaring
problems of NT in Windows 2000, most corporate managers are unwilling
to commit the resources to the redesign effort required to exploit
these new features on Windows 2000. Many managers have been pleasantly
surprised by Linux and UNIX, and have been astonished to discover how
many applications they can fit on a single box and still have
everything working.
And it's the Linux/UNIX capabilities as a server that make it
attractive as a developer's workstation. When you're developing
for a UNIX system, Windows is the wrong thing to have on your
desktop or laptop. With Linux you can work at home, work on the
train, work on the plane, work when you're having a hard time
sleeping, or just work because you got inspired. Ever notice
how the really great ideas pop up at 3:00 A.M. - Linux leaves
you with working code in the morning.
> --
> Donovan
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
