Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (720 mails)

[hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven T. Hatton)]

Steven Udell wrote:

> Steven T. Hatton wrote:
> >
> > Zentra,
> >
> > You say that people tend to migrate over to Linux based applications.  I have
> > noticed that Mathematica and WordPerfect are available for Linux.  I don't
> > know how well they are selling.  I'm expect that it is a bit of a social
> > deviance to use software that you actually buy in the Linux community.  On
> > the other hand, if Linux were to become as easy to use as 95/NT for the
> > uninitiated, and Linux were capable of running software that people already
> > have invested money in, there would likely be a mass migration from M$ OSs to
> > Linux.
> >
> Hi,
> I would like to know more about Mathematica, and WP7 I do have for
> Linux.
> I know that Star Office 5.0 (which will be out very soon) will Do
> OFFICE97
> stuff (namely WORD97), had a German friend translate Star Divisions WWW
> site for me, as the anoucement is only in German for now. And 5.2 SuSE
> should bring all the (somewhat) latest stuff to us in an easy package..
>
> I want a SUSE T-shirt!!!!!!!!!! (black please) hehehehe (you can get
> them)
> How about a coffee mug too :) (i dunno if they have em)
>
> > As far as running standard Win32 software on intel platforms goes, there is
> > no need for emulating the CPU as is done with a Sparc.  All that needs to be
> > done is to emulate the Win32 API.  I am not a stellar programmer, so that
> > "all" could be a lot more than I am making it sound like.  The main reason
> > that I bring this up is not to dismiss the programming effort required, but
> > to observe that the intel based Win32 programs should perform at least as
> > well under Linux as under M$ OSs.
> >
> Let's not turn LInux into windows9X, although, you might say well all
> the
> software(retail) is made for them. With the trend seen today, you might
> say
> MS overwelms everything else, this might happen for a few more years,
> but
> I think it will start to die off. By 1999 NT4.0 will be around only, and
> thats
> Unix based(MS Unix), MS will cut off the life support for DOS/WIN.Old..
> and
> more people will start complaining.
>
>
> > > Everyone had high hopes that SUN would continue with it,
> > > and get WABI to run win32's ; but they figure there really isn't
> > > a demand for it. Most linux users quickly switch to pure
> > > linux apps, or they dual boot to win95 or NT.
> > > zentara
>
> I wana be PURE LINUX POWER
>
> GNOMEs, Elfs, Trolls and Deamons...(is that all? ;)
> freewm, Binarys, QT, and you know demons(amt,kerneld)
>
> (off note- I think a G3 Mac running Linux, would be more powerful than
> a SMP Best Intel slot one or two or ?? heh. or Merced(blah), or Alpha)
>
> --
> Steven Udell             Wayfarers
> hettar@xxxxxxxxxxxx      for truth love
> sudell@xxxxxxxxxxxx      and courage
>   <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~hettar";><A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~hettar</A">http://www.teleport.com/~hettar</A</A>>
> --
> To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@xxxxxxxx with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

 Steve,

I understand your point of view.  You just don't want to have anything to do with
MS-Bill.  I see a place in my paradigm where folks like you could be fully
satisfied with the same base Linux running on your preferred platform, while those
who wanted to emulate Win32 could add that functionality to their Linux x86
systems.  I have been working as a sysadmin for five years now.  I remember when
NT was in beta.  I have watched it become a dominant market player.  One of the
most effective selling points of NT/95 has been the ability to do everything that
a Novell server or client could do, and then some.  Microsoft has produced some
decent products.  (Word is not one of these, BTW. ) Right now they are crushing
Netscape's browser development by dumping IE on the market.  That yanks my chain
big time! Part of the reason that MS can do this is because of their virtual
stranglehold on the intel OS market.  If they could not sell NT at $250 per
workstation and 95 at $100 per workstation, if there were a Linux alternative to
NT/95, MS would have to compete more equally in the marketplace when it comes to
other software products.

Now consider what happens when Joe administrator sets up his Linux system to run
MS-SQL server.  If MS-SQL server works well and does everything a Unix based SQL
server can do, then Bill gets to keep the business.  If, on the other hand, MS-SQL
can't hang with another product, perhaps a freeware product, Bill looses the
market share.  People who transition to Linux because they can get it for much
less, and can still use their MS investments, will then be free to move between
Win32 based products and UNIX based products.

It is also likely that software producers would be more willing to compile
software for other CPUs that don't run NT, but can handle Win32 calls through
Linux.  There would be no need to port the code to UNIX style calls.  All of a
sudden, people are using a Win32 API on a non-intel platform, and Bill isn't
getting a cut either.

The Linx/UNIX user who doesn't want to participate in this simply doesn't load the
Win32 emulator on his system.  He uses pure Linux software, and keeps a clear
conscience.

I guess what I am trying to say is that one of the best ways to break down the
MS proprietary fortress is to emulate MS OSs.  I truly believe that Linux/UNIX can
"do that too".

Remember when people were saying that the reason MS-DOS was so successful was
because it would run on open system architecture.  IBM made a killing on this
strategy for a while and then found that is had created its own major
competition?  Well,  its about time there was an open systems operating system
that could stand up to MS proprietary products.

Mathematica:  I love it!  I have not yet tried it on Linux.  I have run it on DOS,
95, and NT.  See: www.wri.com

NT = MS-UNIX?  I would not say that.  I am not as knowledgeable about the core
UNIX architecture as I am of NT's architecture.  There are some major differences
at the user interface level that I can speak authoritatively about.  First off,
that stuff about POSIX compliance?  I work in a Major DoD lab, and nobody talks
about POSIX.  UNIX products run on UNIX systems and Win32 products run on NT/95
systems.  The NT/DOS scripting language doesn't hold a candle to UNIX shells.  The
registry makes basic system administration easier, but puts many restrictions on
what you can do with a system.  NT seems to me to be slower in every respect than
UNIX.  I also have far more problems with Dr. Watsons than I do with core dumps.
As a workstation I have little trouble with NT other than the fact that it seems
to take twice as long to load things as it does on Linux.  I installed suse a week
or so ago.  At first I figured that it was going to be a clunky curiosity that I
would play with a bit here and there, while my real work would be done on NT.  I
haven't booted into NT in days except to retrieve files.  I am thinking of buying
a new system.  Before I tried suse, I was debating between NT and Solaris x86.
(which I do like, but has few applications which run on it.)  Now I am almost sure
that I will put suse on my new system. (if it will run on the dual Pentium II 333
Asus MB).  I then want to set up Samba  and network with my current NT system.

Steve


--
"Alles Vergaengliche
Ist nur ein Gleichniss"
-Goethe, as quoted in Ludwig Boltzmann's Vorlessungen ueber Gastheorie.

--
To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@xxxxxxxx with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e