This s*** is STILL going on?

[filburt1]

http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/08/17/technology/microsoft/

I'm getting a little tired of it. I may not be some MS fanatic, but I am tired of hearing people trash it and make Linux sound all godly. In fact, I really don't care what happens to MS.

[JungleMan]

Don't listen to some of these ZDNet talkback people while we're at it. If MS came up with a cure for cancer they'd be whining that it wasn't open source, it costed, god forbid, MONEY, and that some big group of hippies with a budget in the thousands was designing a new open source cure for cancer, which would be near impossible to use.

I am not a Linux basher, but Linux IS very over rated.

[Radar]

I use Linux (Mandrake) under Win95 on an old P166 that I use for testing my programs primarily to ensure backward compatability with Win95. I bought (yes! I PAID for mine :)) Linux and stuck it on there to see what all the fuss was about and to use if I decide to write any software for it. I did all of this about 6 months ago. My main machine right now is a PII/400 running "straight" Win98. In case anyone cares, here are my observations so far:

1) My version of Linux will not install without my supplying (2) passwords, one of which I must use each time I boot to it and log on. This gets very irritating, because I sometimes want to boot up, leave the room, and come back having my computer ready to go. This is also not really the big security miracle that Linux fanatics tell you, because I can do essentially the same thing by placing a password in my computer's bios.

2) Windows 95/98 et al. is a much more refined operating system than Linux. Having run both op systems side-by-side, it is clearly evident to me that although Linux is promising, and seems pretty snappy, it still lacks the general ease-of-use and underlying power (API) system which Windows uses.

3) Everywhere I look, it seems that I see scores of questions on hundreds of online forums asking for help on how to install such-and-such a program on such-and-such a version of Linux on such-and-such a computer. If Linux is so great, why all these questions? Well-written Windows programs with good install programs are generally no brainers. That's the way that the point-and-click generation wanted it to be.

4) Although I am a confirmed opponent of government and corporate control and believe in power-to-the-people, I also can clearly see that an operating system (Windows) which was written by a well organized group of people who get paid good money for their efforts and talents and is backed by the massive financial resources of a major company is a better operating system than one (Linux) which is written and supported by a group of loosely organized unpaid individuals who make too many changes too fast, and who tend to defend their systems more out of emotional responses rather actual fact.

5) I decided that I can't make a living writing software for Linux, because it seems that most Linux users have aquired the operating system for free, and are firmly of the opinion that they should NEVER have to pay actual money for any software which they use with it. An exception seems to be some corporate programmers, but that won't work for me cause I don't get along with bosses very well and I hate having a collar around my neck.

6) Although I don't approve of and outright oppose some of the things that Microsoft does such as this .NET sillyness and the software-as-a-service crap, I think that all-in-all they've done more good than harm, especially where developers are concerned. Don't believe me? Look closer at your copies of VB and VC++ and all of the free stuff you got with them such as the Winsock control, the Inet controls, the Flexgrid controls, Mediaplayer control, and some pretty cool documents on using the API to do stuff. This in addition to a host of other cool controls as well as the ability to write your own with ease. I'm sorry, but Linux and company just can't compete with that.

7) Linux does have its uses, seems to make an excellent server-side op system, after you go thru the rather complex task of setting it up.

8) Linux is not yet ready for the big time, and I really don't have time to wait until it is. I've got mouths to feed and programs to write, so I gotta go where the money is. Windows.


Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. Till next time :)

- Radar

[yidnab]

I hope you mean as a client OS.

On the server side of things, Linux is the fastest growing OS. IBM, Compaq and HP are throwing considerable weight behind Linux.

Movies like Shrek are rendered on Linux boxes. Check the statistics for web servers on the internet. Linux is big time right now.

At the moment, Windows is unbeatable on the client side and you are right to develop exclusively for it.

As far as having to enter a password, ever use NT or 2000? Linux can be configured to be just as insecure as Windows9x is out of the box.

Check out the costs of getting an MSCE and keeping them current.

Check the cost of licensing for MS products. MS makes decent stuff and they deserve compensation.

I as a consumer can see that I can solve 80% of my technology problems for free. Huh, guess what I'm going to do?

MS has good stuff. Linux has good stuff. There's no shame in using both.

[filburt1]

True, no problem if you use both. But Linux has one massive flaw: it is extremely difficult to use. Before you jump in, listen to this: using MacOS or Windows, I can do practically everything graphically. No command line required. In Linux, I am cursed by the GNU public license. Some programs I have to compile before I even use them!

The Linux kernel is great. But crashy Window managers like KDE are not. I put Mandrake on my system at school (for a project about JSP) and home. KDE crashed nearly every time I started the machine.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by Radar
I use Linux (Mandrake) under Win95 on an old P166 that I use for testing my programs primarily to ensure backward compatability with Win95. I bought (yes! I PAID for mine :)) Linux and stuck it on there to see what all the fuss was about and to use if I decide to write any software for it. I did all of this about 6 months ago. My main machine right now is a PII/400 running "straight" Win98. In case anyone cares, here are my observations so far:


I'm sure we don't, but go ahead.


1) My version of Linux will not install without my supplying (2) passwords, one of which I must use each time I boot to it and log on. This gets very irritating, because I sometimes want to boot up, leave the room, and come back having my computer ready to go. This is also not really the big security miracle that Linux fanatics tell you, because I can do essentially the same thing by placing a password in my computer's bios.


First off, Linux is a multiuser environment. Windows is not, it is a single user approach to a multiuser world. We do aplogize that your machine requires a password and your machine is never connected to another machine. Linux was not designed to be the stand alone machine you are using it for. Neither was BSD.


2) Windows 95/98 et al. is a much more refined operating system than Linux. Having run both op systems side-by-side, it is clearly evident to me that although Linux is promising, and seems pretty snappy, it still lacks the general ease-of-use and underlying power (API) system which Windows uses.


I will give you that the Windows UI is very dummyfied and easy to use. This is my cheif complaint with Linux, that no one has spent the time on the UI and ease of use. It has a much better kernel than Windows will ever have, but it is a few years behind in UI. But on the flip side, if you know how to use it, you can do anything you want. There are several network administration tasks which are needlessly annoying in NT, and NT requires a reboot for everything.

There are APIs for Linux, KDE, Motif, Gnome, et al. Keep in mind, anyone can write a UI for Linux. With Windows, there is one kernel, and one UI. Which has the benefit of one API, but many drawbacks.


3) Everywhere I look, it seems that I see scores of questions on hundreds of online forums asking for help on how to install such-and-such a program on such-and-such a version of Linux on such-and-such a computer. If Linux is so great, why all these questions? Well-written Windows programs with good install programs are generally no brainers. That's the way that the point-and-click generation wanted it to be.


Uhm... Windows runs on Intel boxes only, and comes in one build with millions of dollars in driver development.

I'm sorry, but Linux and BSD runs on anything with a power cord. A 486, doable. A PowerPC, doable. A Sun Pizzabox, doable. A VMI box, doable. An Amiga 2000, doable. A G4, eventually. XBox, ohyeah. So yes, there are lots of questions, not only because the UI needs work (see above) but because the possiblities are endless. I count that as an advantage. One which I'm sure Windows users don't understand.


4) Although I am a confirmed opponent of government and corporate control and believe in power-to-the-people, I also can clearly see that an operating system (Windows) which was written by a well organized group of people who get paid good money for their efforts and talents and is backed by the massive financial resources of a major company is a better operating system than one (Linux) which is written and supported by a group of loosely organized unpaid individuals who make too many changes too fast, and who tend to defend their systems more out of emotional responses rather actual fact.



I'm sorry, but this point is just stupid. That's like saying Ford cars are good because there are so many of them and you pay lots of money for them and people got paid lots of money to make them. Or like saying, "Everyone uses AOL, so it must be good."

If you submit this argument, you are an idiot. MS is putting lots of money into an OS not to make it the best OS on the planet, but because they are trying to find new ways of addicting the planet. There product doesn't have to be the best, so they aren't trying to make the best. Their product just has to be the only one you depend on. Their product has to be your drug of choice.

There is lots of organization in the Open Source community. And all of these people are getting paid lots of money. They work for one company or another. And because there are so many of them, they catch bugs faster, they patch security holes faster, and they can release Linux DVD drivers the day after the DeCSS crack. Because the source is open, too, they can find he security holes faster.


5) I decided that I can't make a living writing software for Linux, because it seems that most Linux users have aquired the operating system for free, and are firmly of the opinion that they should NEVER have to pay actual money for any software which they use with it. An exception seems to be some corporate programmers, but that won't work for me cause I don't get along with bosses very well and I hate having a collar around my neck.


You can make money writing software for Linux. Look for a job at The Kompany. We don't expect to get all of our software for free. That isn't the deal. We do expect to get our standards for free, and we do expect to get only good competitive products for our money.

'Course, to make money with Linux, you have to know more than your Joe Average Windows programmer. Sorry.


6) Although I don't approve of and outright oppose some of the things that Microsoft does such as this .NET sillyness and the software-as-a-service crap, I think that all-in-all they've done more good than harm, especially where developers are concerned. Don't believe me? Look closer at your copies of VB and VC++ and all of the free stuff you got with them such as the Winsock control, the Inet controls, the Flexgrid controls, Mediaplayer control, and some pretty cool documents on using the API to do stuff. This in addition to a host of other cool controls as well as the ability to write your own with ease. I'm sorry, but Linux and company just can't compete with that.


What has MS innovated? Ever? No one I ask can answer me.

As to all these cool little controls you got with your VS. Check out SourceForge. All of these cool little code snippets and controls are there. But you know what is better than that... you can get the source for completed projects. You like the Inet controls for IE? Well, if you like the ones for Mozilla, why don't you download the entire Mozilla source code.

I can't find the IE source. "I'm sorry, but" MS "and company just can't compete with that."


7) Linux does have its uses, seems to make an excellent server-side op system, after you go thru the rather complex task of setting it up.


Yes, it is complex to set up. That is something they should work on. But it is much more flexible and much more stable then Windows will ever be.


8) Linux is not yet ready for the big time, and I really don't have time to wait until it is. I've got mouths to feed and programs to write, so I gotta go where the money is. Windows.


Isn't that what the prostitute says just before she quits her job as a waitress to go peddle flesh? Yes, you gotta do what you gotta do. But 'least you can be humble and understand your place in the food chain. If you are a Windows developer, you are pretty low in the grand scheme of things. You are an automobile mechanic in the IT world, just looking at others who can build their cars from the ground up. Looking at OS designers, looking at R&D types.

Not to knock you or anything. I'm still learning Linux. In the mean time, I'm a MS AppDev Consultant. And it is the most degrading work ever. I don't understand the instant gratification of RAD development. I don't understand the idea behind making real world software in VB. And I can't stand using VBScript for ASPs. But until I can learn more and get a real job, I'll pay the bills from here.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by filburt1
True, no problem if you use both. But Linux has one massive flaw: it is extremely difficult to use. Before you jump in, listen to this: using MacOS or Windows, I can do practically everything graphically. No command line required. In Linux, I am cursed by the GNU public license. Some programs I have to compile before I even use them!


Okay, yes, Linux is not terribly user friendly (dummyfied). That is something we need to work on.

But having to compile the program has nothing to do with the GPL. I'm going to try and explain this, and I don't mean to insult you, but I feel like I have to use very small words because this is something every freshman Comp Sci major understands.

A binary is an executable. It is the machine code to run your program.

When you write source code for a program in your favorite language, it is compiled into an instruction set by a compiler. That instruction set becomes machine code that the computer can understand. There are dozens of langauges and dozens of instruction sets. But each computer only has one instruction set it can use, regardless of how many computer language compiliers it can use. It's instruction set is determined by which processor is running.

Windows can only run on an Intel processor because it is precompiled for the Intel instruction set.

We can't ship Linux binaries because you can run Linux on nearly anything. Intel (AMD/Cyrix), Motorola, Sun, DEC, IBM, HP. These processors have different instruction sets, and the source must be compiled for each one seperately.

And then there are dozens of different Linux distributions and different compiliers with different libraries. Your code will work under all of these configurations (usually), but it has to be compiled for each one seperately to account for the different variables.

If you don't like this, I'm sorry, you can crawl back to your little Windows world, where Big Brother Bill will protect you from all the things that are different and thus evil. Because history has taught us that anything different is bad. Jews are different, thus they are bad and Hitler just had to rid Germany of them. Blacks are different, and thus bad, so Europe just had to enslave them.

You see where I am going with this? If you only have to talk to Americans, then you can use English. But if you have to take your business abroad, you will need a translator, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

[CiberTHuG]

Sorry for the long posts.

By the way, I've never used KDE. I've wanted to, so I could try Kapital and Konquerer, but I've only used Gnome.

[filburt1]

But many people don't even provide binaries for x86, by far the most common processor that Linux users would have!

[yidnab]

My experience is nothing like what you describe.

I use window 95, 98, NT and 2000 a lot. I also use linux a lot.

Are you saying your experience is that KDE crashes more often than Win95 or 98? That does not reflect my experience.


True there are some software packages that require a compile(should have said "a tough install"). So are there for MS products(should have said, "that run on MS products"). When I say 80% of business needs I'm referring to software that does not require a compile(I just want to delete this sentance). I'm talking about no more trouble than the normal MSCE would have installing on a W2k box.

If you want to put up an FTP server on the internet and be legitimate, look at the cost of licensing for MS vs. Linux. No contest. Same for HTTP.

I could make comments about IIS being buggy all day. Its not fair though because if you install the patches its not too bad.

I could talk all day about trying to put W2k pro on computers. Its crashed during the install, It crashed after the install, etc. Oh, Hardware compatibility list? Whats that? If you don't know what you are doing, your experience is not going to be good.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by yidnab
True there are some software packages that require a compile. So are there for MS products.

Name three MS products that need compiling before you can use them.

[yidnab]

What I should have said is that there are packages that run on MS products that require a compile.

There is open source software for Windows as well as Linux.


I could turn the argument around a little and say name 3 MS products that have source code included by defualt.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by filburt1
But many people don't even provide binaries for x86, by far the most common processor that Linux users would have!

There is the issue of which kernel and which libraries. And if you use KDE, we need to build this with the KDE front end. Some people (half maybe?) use Gnome. The two don't share an API, so that build will have to be with the Gnome front end.

[filburt1]

But they're not nearly as common as on Linux.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by yidnab
What I should have said is that there are packages that run on MS products that require a compile.

There is open source software for Windows as well as Linux.


I could turn the argument around a little and say name 3 MS products that have source code included by defualt.

Yes, but they could've released the binary,they just chose not to. Releasing a binary for Linux is just a waist of time. You will only be releasing the binary for your build, which may be different then mine.

[yidnab]

You could go round and round on this. Big deal. If you don't find a free solution to your problem, buy or code your own.

[yidnab]

I have never compiled any software packages for my Linux boxes. I have only installed software binaries.(RPMS)

Your arguments are ringing pretty hollow to me. I've saved real dollars doing real business with Linux.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by yidnab
You could go round and round on this. Big deal. If you don't find a free solution to your problem, buy or code your own.

Okay, you guys are confusing issues.

Open Source and Free Software have nothing to do with wether or not you have to compile it. The two are seperate.

As to RPMs, yes, there are some binaries in these, but only if you are running RedHat on Intel or Alpha. And there may be some RPMs which are downloading code to be compiled without your intervention. We need to talk to an expert on that. I installed Opera via an RPM. If Opera only runs under Gnome, then I can believe that it was binaries that I downloaded.

[yidnab]

Kinda like having to release different versions of an App for different versions of Windows. Its the same thing. I can find binaries(I shoulda said easy installs instead of binaries) for every piece of open source software I use.

If having to compile something bothers you, don't do it. Buy an MS(or someone elses) product that accomplishes your goal.

Sheesh, this isn't hard folks. If it works and its free, why not use it? If it doesn't work like you want, don't use it.

[yidnab]

My point is that there are free software solutions for Linux that do not require the sysadmin to do anything harder than the equivilent software on Windows. If that means there is something behind the curtain going on, so be it.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by yidnab
Kinda like having to release different versions of an App for different versions of Windows. Its the same thing. I can find binaries for every piece of open source software I use.

If having to compile something bothers you, don't do it. Buy an MS(or someone elses) product that accomplishes your goal.

Sheesh, this isn't hard folks. If it works and its free, why not use it? If it doesn't work like you want, don't use it.

I think Yiddie got derailed.

You can release a Win32 Binary and it will work on any Win32 platform (with the exception of NT on Alpha) because they all have the same API and the same instruction set (since they are all on 32 bit x86s).

But I can only find a binary for progX if someone in the universe is 1) using the same rigging, and 2) cared to release it. If I'm running Linux on a 68K, then I need to compile for my 68K.

But yes, Filburt, compiling is not an evil thing, just something you have to look at from the other side. You get the luxury of compiling because you get the luxury of running on any platform you want.

If the makefile was well written, then you should only have to run an install script that will do the make/make install/make clean for you.

That goes back to the UI improvements we need for Linux. All of that could be done behind the scenes where the user doesn't have to see it.

[yidnab]

A good open Source Enterprise RDMS to use as a backend for Access and VB.

Postgresql is almost there(some might argue that it is already there). I keep an eye on that project with baited breath. I don't like how much work it would take to get me up and running.

If I needed to install an enterprise RDMS today, I'd have to go with Oracle or SQL Server. I can afford to wait, so I'm going to.

[JungleMan]

Dummyfied? what's up your ass? I am, yes, gasp, a Windows user. I am not, gasp, a dummy. If I wanted to..i COULD use Linux...but I'd rather spend more time doing things than compiling kernels and sitting at an 80s-ish command line. What's up with this. Seems like half the industry's going back to the 80s, and the other half is making things better for users.

Linux is a very good business OS, because it's free and is very powerful, but it just doesn't cut it for the home user.

If you want to call it dummyfied, CiberThug, be my guest. If things are all dummyfied..what do you say we not make them dummyfied? hell, why don't I give my mom some SCSI devices? or, screw it, let's all program in machine code, enough of this high level ****. Why don't we type "win" every time we start up windows, like we did in the 80s? We're trying to make things easier, and the Linux people who are a bit too high up on their ba******* suddenly are making it cool to be difficult. Oh, let's waste some more time typing crap in a command line.

Hmm want to add an appointment to my address book. i'm so high and mighty so I'll type some 5 line command. hey there is no pointing and clicking so now i'm l33t :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[yidnab]

How dare you :-)


I'm referring to applications that needed different versions of installs. There are applications that install differently for NT vs 2000 vs 9x etc.

Have you never tried to install an application on Win9x only for the install program to say "Hey dude you need NT for this"? and vice-versa?

I don't see how this is any different.


Whats up with Linux on 68k? Is there anyone out there doing real business on such a machine? I still run MacOS on mine.

If I release a binary for Red Hat 7.1 on Intel. I have covered most of the bases.

[Sundance Kid]

Originally posted by jpbtennisman
Dummyfied? what's up your ass? I am, yes, gasp, a Windows user. I am not, gasp, a dummy. If I wanted to..i COULD use Linux...but I'd rather spend more time doing things than compiling kernels and sitting at an 80s-ish command line. What's up with this. Seems like half the industry's going back to the 80s, and the other half is making things better for users.

Linux is a very good business OS, because it's free and is very powerful, but it just doesn't cut it for the home user.

If you want to call it dummyfied, CiberThug, be my guest. If things are all dummyfied..what do you say we not make them dummyfied? hell, why don't I give my mom some SCSI devices? or, screw it, let's all program in machine code, enough of this high level ****. Why don't we type "win" every time we start up windows, like we did in the 80s? We're trying to make things easier, and the Linux people who are a bit too high up on their ba******* suddenly are making it cool to be difficult. Oh, let's waste some more time typing crap in a command line.

Hmm want to add an appointment to my address book. i'm so high and mighty so I'll type some 5 line command. hey there is no pointing and clicking so now i'm l33t :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

THat is soo true!. We are pass the day of command lines. It was nice in the 80's but we have to move ahead. I love the Linux lovers. Here @ work we have our LINUX fans too. But they use Windows 2K, Office 2k, IE 5. And they HATE Microsoft.

I would love to see our clients setup linux to run their apps. "Before you add this new hardware you have to recompile your kernel".Windows is just installation friendly. Takes a few minutes and you are up and running.


What has MS innovated? Ever? No one I ask can answer me.

What has linux innovated?... the interface is a COPY of windows, mac os . Why is it a app is coded for Windows, and after a few months you'll find a duplicate programe for Linux.

MS has improved a lot of products (IE). Where is Netscape today? Nowhere... because MS makes a better prodcut. They didn't invent IE, but sure made it great.

How many games are out for LINUX? How many for Windows?

[Radar]

Well folks............

Some interesting points have been made here but now it seems like we're kinda beating a dead horse. People are gonna use whatever they like and are comfortable with and thats cool cause there are some pretty neat choices these days.

I've seen and worked with lots of op systems since CP/M in the last 25 years, and have been coding off and on since 1977. I admit that mabye I've gotten a little lazy from some of the MS stuff, but I just don't think that I could have produced near as much work as I have over the last couple of years if I didn't have a little bit of GUI help from MS.

Sorry Linux fans, but I maintain most of my original opinion as stated earlier in this thread, although CyberTHuG brought up a few points that made me think. But for now, at least, I'm gonna stick with MS and Windows, cause that's where the bigger client-side market is, and probably will be for some time yet.


By the way, can anyone tell me how I, as an independant, self-employed coder, can make a decent living writing open-source software for platforms such as Linux?? Seems that anything I write for it is expected to be free/GPL. I've asked about this on lots of other forums, and have pretty much been told that writing apps for Linux is kinda like volunteering for the peace corp. - you do it for the good of all and get a different profession to make money. Now seeing as how I'm one of those types who would rather work directly for myself than to make money for someone else, I suppose that I'll just have to stick with my lowly place in the food chain of writing apps for Windows if I want to pay my bills and my fair share of my unfair taxes. Oh well Linux folks...
don't go too hard on me. It beats living on the streets. But mabye someday I can write for Linux and get paid a little, and become a "real" coder. Command line and all. :)

[HarryW]

There's nothing wrong with having the option of using a command line interface. I often use a DOS console when I'm using Windows because I know the commands and I can get things done quicker by just typing what I want than by trawling through 20 windows, pointing and clicking and double clicking and confirming and blah blah blah blah blah... The Windows GUI is great for a lot of things but there are times when it's just a pain in the arse (yes that's right, 'arse' ;)).

CLIs are of limited use to beginners, which should be obvious if you've ever studied any HCI. Recognition of an action is easier than recall of an action. Windows and the similar GUIs available for different flavours of *nix do that well, but there are times when I don't need to recognise anything, I am perfactly capable of recalling it and I don't need my hand held along the way. CLIs can be easier to use if you know how to use them.

But they're not nearly as common as on LinuxWhat did you mean by this Filburt?

[yidnab]

How to make $$$ with Linux.

Like was said earlier, stay with MS on the client side. Leverage Linux in the things it is good at right now(Serving HTTP and FTP and file serving) You can save a potential customer the cost of a copy of W2k server as well as CAL's.(or maybe you split it)

I don't use Linux because I think its cool. I use it because it really does work.

I understand people who get frustrated playing around with Gnome and KDE. Don't go at it with the idea of replacing your desktop. Go at it with the idea of slowly replacing proprietary systems on the back end. Leave the front end alone until the tools are there.

If you find yourself developing for Linux, you don't have to GPL unless YOU want to. If you make a compelling piece of software for ANY platform, they will come.


BTW has anyone here taken a look at Borlands Kylix?

[filburt1]

Originally posted by HarryW
What did you mean by this Filburt?

Hehe, thread nuking struck. I was stating that it is more likely that you'll need to compile a program to use it on Linux rather than in Windows.

[Cander]

Some of my thoughts

First off Things written for Linux do not have to be free/open/GPL. They only need to be opn/GPL if you use previous GPL'ed ocde for your program

You can make money off writting for Linux but your best option for that is enterprise solutions for big companies that use Linux. Unless your product is really good and useful, you may not get much of anything out of a regular client program.

More and more open source programs provide pre-compiled versions these days. You are just better off sometimes compiling your own so that it is optimized for your specific processor.

[Cander]

I know the feeling, I tried compiling MAME back when they didnt release binaries for it for betas, and it was a ***** to setup. Took about 30 minutes to get all required files and libraries, then another 45 to compile.....