On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Martin Roberts wrote:
> > >A big strength of Linux is because it's scaleable (like its unix
> > >heritage). Therefore all those "obsolete" bits which would
> > otherwise go
> > >on the scrap heap can be built into perfectly good Linux
> > boxes - maybe
> > >not powerful workstations but certainly stable and reliable
> > machines for
> > >the "donkey" work like small workgroup servers, print servers etc.
> > >
> > Not really that way... lots of people still don't know what's
> > Linux is or
> > even how to install it. As you may know, knowing how to
> > install hardwares
> > doesn't mean you can easily learn other OS, things are
> > getting easier right
> > now like the capability of the device to do Plug N Play, etc.
> > if USB would
> > be used by everyone, how much better would it be?
> >
> I was really referring to its use by IT professionals who are probably
> familiar with UNIX (or at least not scared of it). Take a look at Linux
> News (www.threepoint.com) and read some of the articles about how people
> are using Linux. For example, the IT manager of a large finance house
> in the US is running 100 Linux servers on their network because his boss
> did not give him the budget for "branded" equipment. However, the IT
> manager dare not tell his boss because he's anti-Linux, thinking it's
> anarchic and lacking support! This situation is not unique.
>
> OK, Linux on every desktop is a long way off. Personally, I hope we
> never get there because to achieve this would probably mean it would
> have been highjacked by a big software house with visions of a monopoly
> (like M$). However, I would like to see a bit more "public" acceptance
> of Linux, with perhaps versions with fewer features and a dead-easy
> configuration. (Thankfully systems like Red Hat and others have at
> least made the installation part quite straightforward.) Why? Let's
> look at two examples:
>
> 1. the business (desktop) user
> - fast and reliable
> - good range of office apps
> - usually only one person logging in
> - secure
> - all kinds of network connectivity
> - cheap
> - no need for games
> - no need for software other than business apps
>
> 2. the home user (hobbyist)
> - wants an alternative to M$
> - wants to learn actually how to work his computer
> - likes not having to spend much money
> - surfs the net
> - might have lots of peripherals ("toys")
> - might want games
>
> Both of the above represent a LOT of machines, but neither needs a full
> blown Linux system. These machines don't need multi-user or PPP
> dial-in, or sendmail, telnet or FTP daemons etc. Therefore, a
> distribution with these things taken out and replaced with a more
> straightforward method of configuration would crack it. If it's bundled
> with some good general applications as well then all the better. What
> do you all think?
How do you take out multiuser capabilities ??
Moreover, they might not be necessary, but they are handy. Say, I want to
continue my work at home... I log in with my "work" account, and
everything is setup for my work...
There is no need to take anything out. If I take out sendmail, I'll have
to replace it with something else to handle my email...
>
> Martin
>
Frank
