On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:06, zentara wrote: [...]
I think there is confusion about the stability of linux.
Linux is very stable at what it was intended to excel at: running servers and automating them thru scripting.
The "Desktop Linux" phenomena has somehow co-opted the "linux stability label" and has confused the newbies into thinking that "Desktop Linux" is supposed to be stable; it isn't, it's experimental.
If you run linux with only a very basic X environment, (no KDE or Gnome), you will get a very solid machine, although you may need to give up some fancy "drag'n'drop" stuff, and the like.
Hang on a minute. X is at version 4-point-something KDE is at version 3.something. GNOME is at versions 2.something. OpenOffice is nominally at version 1, but is actually the same code base as StarOffice which has been around for years and is legitimately at version 6. Pardon my language, but... what thuh freakin' hell is experimental about that? :-) Not a single one of those desktop components is at a zero-point-something release. They are all WELL into the integer releases, having YEARS of history behind them. Don't say "experimental". At least, don't say it to Windoze users who want to come over. Whatever the market may be for servers, it will always be hundreds, thousands of times larger than that for desktop stuff. That's just the way it is. You can either address the bigger market, or ignore it. Microsoft addressed it. They had some rough patches, but they're doing a decent job. They must be, because they remain successful after all these years. Some Linux people are also addressing that enormous market, or at least they pretend that they are. The problem is manyfold. 1) Most people (for good or for ill) are using MS products, so they have this notion in their heads of one guy (uncle Bill) being responsible for the whole package. For them, it really is all one package. They buy a PC (or their IT department puts one on their desk) and it comes with Windows and MS Office pre-installed. That means, they already have all that they need, to do almost everything that the normal user does with a computer. If it isn't completely pre-configured, then there's a Wizard that asks the right questions, in language that the non-techy can understand, and it gets configured. Dial-up just works. You want ADSL, instead? Give the Wizard 3 correct answers, and you shall have your DSL. You want one to apply at the office, and the other to apply when you bring the laptop home? No problem. Not only can you have two separate profiles, but the system can probably figure out which one to launch. Sound just works, and the CD sound does not compete with the system sounds. The mouse always just works. It never STOPs working just because you changed your video resolution. Fonts? Well, enough standard fonts for most people are automatic. Adding new ones is easy, but most people don't even need to. Does anybody remember the last time Windows users were discussing anti-aliasing? Didn't think so. It hasn't been a conscious issue since Win 3.1. Printing? Just works. Change environments or add a new printer? The Wizard can find it, wherever it lives. And then, it just works. And so on. Bill has made it so. Thus, they have the notion that there must also be a "Mr. Linux" somewhere and there should be a "basic" package of ordinary user stuff that all "just works" the way it does IN THEIR EXPERIENCE of Windows. If they want to do *ordinary* PC stuff, as opposed to *experimental* (and that would be a Windoze user's idea of "experimental", not yours), then they have a right to expect that the basic stuff will "just work". Who sez? Bill sez. Most Windoze users, which means most of the computer users on the planet, don't even know the word "server". They only see desktop, and for the past several years, they've seen it: a) looking good b) working smoothly. That's the real standard. 2) When you rave about how "configurable" something is, that is a selling point ONLY if basic functionality is transparent, reliable, and already"just works" BEFORE you start playing with "configurable" bits. To a Windoze user, "configurable" means the fun stuff, or the specialist stuff that gets configured AFTER the basic functionality ... that basic stuff that already "just works" out of the box. 3) Linux people make a lot of noise about how important it is, and how "standard" it is to deal with the stable versions of any software, if you want reliable function. That sounds good, but then the people who make X will stop supporting earlier Linux kernels, and require current systems in order to run current X. Then, the people who make GNOME or KDE will stop developing their earlier "stable" version and will put all the effort in the new version G2 or K3 that requires the recent X, and won't even work on the earlier "stable" X... and so on. Meanwhile, Windows keeps trooping on. Moving the target. Because Windows is "the incumbent", that means the *current* Windows is the target for anybody who wants to offer a replacement... not Windows from five years ago. Never mind the costs, just consider the functionality, for a moment. On that basis, Windows NT 4 is much more capable for this ordinary (not power-user) office computer user than is SuSE 8.0 with the supplied (or YOU updated) versions of KDE/GNOME and office suite software. With NT 4, I can print. I can work on my co-workers' documents and not break them. I have had ONE blue-screen failure in year 2002. I have had four or five program freezes, and they did not require NT reboot. FrameMaker is just marvelous. I have spent most of my spare moments for MONTHS, trying to get SuSE 8 and KDE and OOo 1.0.1 to do the very basics that I need to perform my very basic job. There's nothing very fancy or demanding about my software usage, but I have not yet delivered even one small project using just Linux. Something always breaks and I always have to go back and recreate work in windows, in order to meet my obligations. Maybe nothing actually breaks, but I just can't make the software do what I need, in the time available, which is the same as it being broken, if Windows CAN do the job. 4) If somebody decides to take control of a wide variety of subsystems and components, in order to ensure stability and simple configuration, etc., then they start looking too much like "the Borg", (e.g., Ximian and their Red Carpet), and we distrust them -- too much like uncle Bill :-). Some days, ya just can't win. I live in hope. Cheers, /kevin