On Tuesday 10 June 2003 15:13, Curtis Rey wrote: <snip of good thoughts>

Much of what Linux has gained in the OS is on the side of getting things to just work. And now it's time to put all the pieces together. Getting the stuff to just work, to just install, to just upgrade, to not need Joe/Jane user to have to go CLI because it scares them to death.

I believe we're see a very important time in OSS and Linux. It's a make or break time. I know that those, such as the devs at SuSE, are up to the task. It's more a matter of knowing, resources and timing. These guys are most likely busting their humps putting out new products. Considering they just slammed out 8.2 and shortly after have pumped out this next Corporate version. I just hope that they have time to catch their breath and don't get over extended. This is my fear. That Linux will strain it resources and find it difficult to maintain the push. M$ has billions and a large pool of devs to throw at something. Even with this their complacency is showing. Now is the time for Linux and OSS to really step up to the plate and take a swing.

I think the big push on linux will arrive when hardware mgfs start realizing that they had better support Linux or lose a lot of business... and then they start writing drivers for their products. (and hopefully open source them so that they can be integrated into a distro... they almost have to to make it workable). And then software vendors start porting their products to Linux... some are already. And then there won't be any stopping of Linux......

On Tuesday 10 June 2003 19:55, wayne king wrote:

I would just add that one thing that worries me is the divergence between the various linux distros. I'll just put in my personal example, I'm a professor who uses linux almost exclusively for research. One thing that I have noticed though is that while I can certainly get linux distros of all the scientific software I need (Matlab, S-Plus), they don't run on all the linux distros. There are big differences in java implementations for example, it may be something as simple as the libncurses being different on one distro as opposed to another. I think this is a potential problem because as a vendor I can't possibly write software to run on all the different linux distros, with windows it's easy, there's just one. Especially when the market is not as large. Anything that makes it more difficult to package a linux distro of some professional software, the less likely they will support especially when there isn't a great financial incentive. I'm not talking about issues like well you need at least such and such kernel or at least version whatever of glibc, I think it's reasonable to require a certain kernel number or later, or a certain glibc version or later as windows does. But the differences and divergences are bigger than that and I see it as a problem particularly for people like me, who like linux and would like to continue using it, but aren't as sophisticated as probably most of the people reading this list. wayne

Not to be too pendantic, but I am not sure "divergence" is the right word. All the distributions are moving in the same direction, but the difference is in the details. The thing is that you *can* get the apps to work. Maybe not by simply downloading a single package. Instead you have to download a dozen to get all of the libaries, etc. However, that is changing as there are tools available that will generally get all of the necessary components for you. On the other hand. I consider myself a linux expert compared to the majority of the users, but a "knowledgable user" compared to many on this list. However, I personally find the mechanism for installing new software very annoying in comparison to Windows. Today I had to install two new products on my Windows machine at work and they installed very easily. Recently I wanted to install something on my Linux machine but I found out I was missing a couple of things that needed other things to install, which needed still other things. I'm all for different distros as Linux is all about choice. However it should be a "choice" like Microsoft where I cut myself off from everything else. My two cents. Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

The thing is that you *can* get the apps to work. Maybe not by simply downloading a single package. Instead you have to download a dozen to get all of the libaries, etc.

Shared libraries is a major strength of Linux. Can you imagine having multiple sets of libraries where each one of them is linked to its very own individual package only? Kind of Microsoftish approach with their .dll's.

On the other hand. I consider myself a linux expert compared to the majority of the users, but a "knowledgable user" compared to many on this list. However, I personally find the mechanism for installing new software very annoying in comparison to Windows.

Annoying in the absence of the expertise in Linux :)

Today I had to install two new products on my Windows machine at work and they installed very easily.

True Linux experts will use Linux even at their work places and convince and teach their colleagues and management how to do the same.

Recently I wanted to install something on my Linux machine but I found out I was missing a couple of things that needed other things to install, which needed still other things.

And after this, you're still calling yourself a "Linux expert" !?? :) Alex

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 02:46, James Mohr wrote:

In the real world, decisions like which OS to use are usually based on economics.

s/usually/hardly ever It's usually decided on a "what is everybody else running" or "what did that guy say that I played golf with last saturday" You give upper management *way* too much credit

It would cost more time to convert everyone's workstation to Linux than we spend on Microsoft licenses. It is **not** economically sound to switch.

I'd like to see the math behind that assertion. And please don't let the analysis end the day after the conversion. I know it isn't fashionable these days, but sound economic analysis should be longer term than "what will the stock price be next tuesday"

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 03:55, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030610 18:35]: ->On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 02:46, James Mohr wrote: ->> In the real world, decisions like which OS to use are usually based ->> on economics. -> ->s/usually/hardly ever -> ->It's usually decided on a "what is everybody else running" or "what did ->that guy say that I played golf with last Saturday" -> ->You give upper management *way* too much credit

Yep. I've seen this first hand. I was part of a migration team several years ago that took Anheuser-Busch from a working Lotus email system that worked very well and had a group of 22 admins+techsupport+management. This occurred when "management" above the "email group" decided that the company MUST have Exchange and Outlook. The migration took 14 months because none of the email group had the slightest clue how to do any of this..let alone setup that big of an Exchange server farm and convert all those clients. Had they stuck with their current setup they could have upgraded cheaper and had it done in 30% of the time.

The thing is, we are already running Outlook and Exchange, we have already invested the money. So what I hear you and many others saying is that regardless of how much it costs the company, we should just switch to Linux. It doesn't matter that we are already working at least 10 hours a days, as well as often on weekends to meet deadlines and the fact we have laid off about 5% of our employees already, we should invest the time and money to convert the system to Linux. So we have to work even longer hours to meet our deadlines, just so we can install Linux workstations. Sorry, despite my fondness for Linux, your arguments are illogical.

It's never the geeks or their direct managers in most large to medium size companies that make the decisions and it's CERTAINLY not for economic reasons 9-10 times. It's a case " oh boy that CEO's company is using *blah* so I MUST use *blah* or we won't be competitive..."

Hmmm. Let's see if I understand your equation competitive <> economics. Hmmm. If you are not competive, you don't get the contracts and don't get the money from the customers and then you go out of business. That's not economic, right? Hmmmmm. Sorry, I guess there is a misunderstanding somewhere about what economics is. If you are talking about **home** economics and baking cakes, then I would agree with you. However, I was talking about the economics of staying in business.

These days it's becoming partly economic since quite a few companies just can't afford Microsoft wares and the headaches they bring with them. But it takes some early adopters to get the other PHB's at the country club to sit up and take notice an say " I must have that..."

Yes, and we cannot afford to migrate. Again, economics. In my last company, Microsoft had pretty good arguments why their licensing "saved" money (pre L6). Yes, if you upgraded Windows and every MS applications every single time a new version was available, it would be cheaper. cheaper = less money = economics Or am I missing something? Granted the "savings" meant spending more money on the upgrades (we had so many employees that we were continually upgrading systems). However, the decision to go with that licensing was based on a preceived belief that money would be saved. So, why is that not economics? Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 08:37, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 09:54, James Mohr wrote:

...

Or am I missing something?

Yes, the long term view. More money over the next 10 day period can mean considerably less money over the next 10 year period.

Very, very important and significant word there "can". Yes, it **can** mean less money in the long run. You seem to be assuming that it is always the case the spending the extra time/money now for Linux will save money.

...

Granted the "savings" meant spending more money on the upgrades

Words fail me

...

(we had so many employees that we were continually upgrading systems). However, the decision to go with that licensing was based on a preceived belief that money would be saved.

So, why is that not economics?

Again words fail me. You were spending MORE money on the PERCEIVED BELIEF that you were spending less, and you ask why that is not economics???

Because in the real world, budgets are typically defined on much, much, much shorter time frames than 10 years. If you are a public company or are owned by someone who is not directly in the company, then you are probably expected to turn a profit **every** year. You have a hard time convincing non-IT people to invest $200,000 in time and money to save $20,000. You will have a very hard time convincing them that Linux will "save" money. Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 08:38, Ben Rosenberg wrote: <snip>

You missed what I was commenting on so the above statements are meaningless. My story above was about how upper management "outside" the email group made the change for no good reason at all because the Lotus Solution that was in place would have been easier to upgrade. Maybe a another reading of what I wrote and what I left quoted in the message for my response would be a very large clue. :)

I stand corrected.

->> It's never the geeks or their direct managers in most large to medium ->> size companies that make the decisions and it's CERTAINLY not for ->> economic reasons 9-10 times. It's a case " oh boy that CEO's company is ->> using *blah* so I MUST use *blah* or we won't be competitive..." -> ->Hmmm. Let's see if I understand your equation

You didn't understand the entire point of the posting...so the equation isn't an issue.

->competitive <> economics.

In 1998 it was about competitive edge today it's about getting that edge via an economically sound solution. Which maybe just sticking with what you have and gradually migrating or migrating when/if you ever need to.

That's part of what I am getting at. Particulary when our customers *demand* that our products work on Windows, we need to make sure they do. <snip>

->Yes, and we cannot afford to migrate. Again, economics. In my last company, ->Microsoft had pretty good arguments why their licensing "saved" money (pre ->L6). Yes, if you upgraded Windows and every MS applications every single ->time a new version was available, it would be cheaper.

Completely untrue. If you spent money every time they wanted you to upgrade when you had software that worked well for you and your support staff knew how to make it work for you then upgrading every time would be tossing money out into the garbage can.

I disagree. If you upgraded Windows every time a new release came out, it would be cheaper than buying a brand new license every time. That how it works.

->cheaper = less money = economics

Be careful of the other meaning of "cheap". With a lot of OpenSource that meaning applies, unfortunately.

Yes, Linux and Open Office are cheaper in the long run after the migration to the software is complete.

Ben, that is an **extremely** important issue: after. During the migration you have costs in terms of both money and most importantly in many time.

The problem is that we have quite a few people in the IT industry that know nothing but what they work with ..it's true on both sides of the fence. I see it day in and day out with the people I work with. The Unix guys don't give a crap about Microsoft and the Microsoft guys don't give a crap about UNIX..they stay within their comfort zone of what they know and like. I happen to be an anomaly and know both so the economics of my career is that I'm expensive. ;)

I have to ride the fence. In our situation (as well as for many companies) making a conversion (dare I say "upgrade"?) to Linux does not make business sense.

-Or am I missing something? Granted the "savings" meant spending more money on ->the upgrades (we had so many employees that we were continually upgrading ->systems). However, the decision to go with that licensing was based on a ->perceived belief that money would be saved.

You missed the point of what I was commenting on .. and I'm sure that your company did what it perceived as the right thing based on it's fixed skillet of the people working there.

Granted.

->So, why is that not economics?

I guess the economics of it would be that it's cheaper and safer to keep people within their comfort zone. The management can be comforted that they have a perceived company to take to court if something goes wrong. The IT staff stays within their comfort zone because they know what they have to do and know how many hours they have to work and Microsoft is kept in their comfort zone because they've locked in the business.

My original comments were just about how upper management of many corps. make decisions that have no input from the technical staff and that the use of a lot of software comes down to marketing to people who know nothing..along with the mentality of " Jack (non descript CEO name) has a BMW, so I must have a BMW or I'm not with it. " And this way of thinking is not only silly ..it's extremely economically unsound.

Granted. But if it is along the lines of "I must provide my proposal in MS-Word format because that's what the customer wants and what the competion does", then is is economically sound. If I create a presentation that looks amaturish because of some "cheap" software when trying to negotiate a $10 Million contract, **that** is "extremely economically unsound". At that point whether the software licenses cost $20,000 or nothing is really a moot point.

Welp. I'm off to bake some muffins. ;)

Save some for me! regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 20:52, Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* James Mohr (suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com) [030611 11:26]: -> ->Granted. But if it is along the lines of "I must provide my proposal in ->MS-Word format because that's what the customer wants and what the competion ->does", then is is economically sound. If I create a presentation that looks ->amaturish because of some "cheap" software when trying to negotiate a $10 ->Million contract, **that** is "extremely economically unsound". At that ->point whether the software licenses cost $20,000 or nothing is really a moot ->point.

Well, my boss wrote all of the proposals to the TSA for a contract to provide all of their VPN, Dialup and other such needs in OpenOffice 1.0.1 saving in .doc format and we got that $45 Million dollar contract. He's also communicating back and forth with Microsoft right now in our renegotiations with them over bCentral which we host and all the documents are being exchanged (no pun intended) without any hassle what so ever. The only machines he has are a Sun Ultra10 running Solaris+KDE using OpenOffice and a Toshiba laptop running SuSE and he uses OpenOffice on this machine as well. I'm not to sure what you mean by cheap software not being up to the task. Remember cheap / free doesn't always equal crap.

I never said it was crap. I said that it some cases it's "cheap". By the way .doc "format" does not have any real meaning. I can save a file in RTF with a .doc extension and it can still be read. Problems arise when I save something in Office 10 (2002) format and try to read it Star Office 4 (or even Office 97 for that matter). So if the customer sends documents to us in a format that we cannot read, we're in trouble. It's like health insurance. You can pray all you want that you will never need it, but if you are wrong, your brankrupt.

Please be well aware that I'm not trying to get you to switch to anything. You are welcome to use whatever you wish. I could actually careless. I stopped talking to brickwalls quite a long time ago. Some companies / people won't change anything unless they come kicking and screaming. I'm not blaming you or tearing into you personally in anyway. I'm just not fond of statements that are untrue. Open Source software can work quite well, but as with anything else the user must know what they are doing. To muddle through something will cost time, effort and energy that just can't be spent in some cases. It's better sometimes to ease into things so that everything is smooth.

What I see happening a lot here (not necessarily) from you, is that people seem to thing that it "always" make sense to migrate. That is both unrealistic and naive. As you say, the time/money "just can't be spent in some case". I had Linux running VMWare for Win2K until my boss said that all of the PCs in the department would be standarized. He admitted that there was no technical reason for doing it, as I do all of my own admin, but the impression that it gave to customers was that we were not organized. Unfortunately, some people think that way. -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 03:35:27 at 03:35:27AM +0200, Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) wrote:

...

It would cost more time to convert everyone's workstation to Linux than we spend on Microsoft licenses. It is **not** economically sound to switch.

I'd like to see the math behind that assertion.

I asked officially in my office why we shouldn't switch. The official answer, math included, was: Cost of one (Windows + Office) license = less than cost of (x manhours of IT time to reinstall everything on one PC) + (y manhours of training to the new platform, estimated to 3/5 working days) (x + y) above *is* at least four times bigger than one license, almost everywhere in the western world. I do see, as you will too, several flaws in the calculation above. I also partly agree with what you say below, but you wanted *their* math, I gave it.

And please don't let the analysis end the day after the conversion. I know it isn't fashionable these days, but sound economic analysis should be longer term than "what will the stock price be next tuesday"

"Sound economic analysis", as you define it, belongs to politics (in the idealistic sense of "acting for a better society", not of jumping of any party's wagon). It doesn't, by definition, belongs to the way business is made in the current western world. Ciao, Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport that requires you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and real programmers wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring up in the middle of the machine room.

On Tuesday 10 June 2003 23:13, Curtis Rey wrote:

On Tuesday 10 June 2003 12:48, Alex Daniloff wrote:

...

...

The thing is that you *can* get the apps to work. Maybe not by simply downloading a single package. Instead you have to download a dozen to get all of the libaries, etc.

Shared libraries is a major strength of Linux. Can you imagine having multiple sets of libraries where each one of them is linked to its very own individual package only? Kind of Microsoftish approach with their .dll's.

...

On the other hand. I consider myself a linux expert compared to the majority of the users, but a "knowledgable user" compared to many on this list. However, I personally find the mechanism for installing new software very annoying in comparison to Windows.

Annoying in the absence of the expertise in Linux :)

...

Today I had to install two new products on my Windows machine at

work and they installed very easily.

True Linux experts will use Linux even at their work places and convince and teach their colleagues and management how to do the same.

...

Recently I wanted to install something on my Linux machine but I found out I was

missing a

...

couple of things that needed other things to install, which needed

still

...

other things.

And after this, you're still calling yourself a "Linux expert" !?? :)

Alex

Excuse me for stating the obvious and inciting a flame war. But your statements seem blatantly eletist and a tad an the crass side. We are not talking about Sys admins, programers, devs, gurus, etc..... The very nature of this particular thread is What? Linux on the desktop in a CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT. It is not Linux on the desktop in the enclaves of a guru's dev lab. We're talking secretaries, accountants, customer service reps, nurses, doctors, lawers, marketing departments, sales officers, sales clerks, middle managers, upper management, people in accounts receivable, people in accounts payable, Home offices, Small offices, yada yada yada! And eventually home end users who figure out that theres is absolutely no reason to run dll as an app, have the OS contact M$ servers to "authenticate" the OS ownership or to match a table of hardware unigue identifiiers to see if it has been place on another machine, or to worry about having a redirect to a malicious site on a constant and ongoing basis because some M$ programming drones don't know what the fuck they have written into the umpteen millions of lines of code in their freaking OS because their division bosses are trying to meet deadlines rather then do proper testing to get the next product out the door to pump sales in order to jack stock prices to keep their share holders and boards happy with ever increasing revenue streams.

WE are talking about making it viable for a corporate environment with admins that have experience with Windows and need to come over to a safer, more effecient and cost effective altenative than being blackmailed into the next upgrade, series of time consuming, server crashing, hack ridden programs and patching tasks.

It can be argued that in a corporate environment many of the installation functions are not set for end user desktops in order to provide safety and stability to a networked series of desktops. It can also be argued that sys admins are those that install, after testing, new apps and verious upgrades for the corporate body. That's what they get paid for. But answer me this. Why would I want to buy a product that 90% of the ISPs won't develop for unless their is a distinct advantage to doing so?

You do not gain clientele by mandating that you need to be an expert in a specific field in order to use my products. This only works in select fields and they have a very limited market. If, however, you goal is to provide a product for the mainstream and the overall general populus then telling them that in addition to buying and using the product is it recommended that they have either two years experience in computers systems or a bachelors degree in said comp sci/sys admin to use the product then I suggest you stick to servers and to drop any notion of providing a product for the end user, Joe and/or Jane Q. Public, gamers, Mom and Pop home users, small business owners, home photo and film buff/video enthusiast, home recording/music enthusiast, etc, etc, etc, etc,....

Fortunately, this does not appear to be the way thay many of the presently "successful" Linux distribution companies have chosen. I believe they have publically stated a desire to produce, market, and sell a desktop product that is both affordable and usable be your everyday average persons. Having taken this position I further believe that they are aware of the need to put together a product that is functional and meets the needs of this demographic. If they were to take the opinion and stance you suggest then I submit that they are doomed to failure - no one group of any mass will use the product, no OEM would even consider making it available in their product line and the company would soon be bankrupt or forced to drop this product line and return to offering only Middle and High End Systems. This is fine if that's what you want to make - however I'm sure that most will agree that SuSE has decided to produce and market a version for the everyday person and doing so have decided to taylor said product to meet "their" expectations - not yours.

So, unliess you have some viable suggestions about what would make it easier for people that do indeed have busy lives and really don't want and shouldn't need to know the advantages of apropos, grep, sed, ./configure, make, make mrproper, make clean, make dep, make install $LIBPATH=. --with-oss=yes, --with-sequencer=yes, prefix=. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. then please step away from the gui and return to your console. Thank You!

Cheers, Curtis :)

Yeh, but tell us what you really think...! Right on!

Curtis Rey wrote:

...

And after this, you're still calling yourself a "Linux expert" !?? :)

Alex

Excuse me for stating the obvious and inciting a flame war. But your statements seem blatantly eletist and a tad an the crass side. We are not talking about Sys admins, programers, devs, gurus, etc..... The very nature of this particular thread is What? Linux on the desktop in a CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT. It is not Linux on the desktop in the enclaves of a guru's dev lab. We're talking secretaries, accountants, customer service reps, nurses, doctors, lawers, marketing departments, sales officers, sales clerks, middle managers, upper management, people in accounts receivable, people in accounts payable, Home offices, Small offices, yada yada yada! And eventually home end users who figure out that theres is absolutely no reason to run dll as an app, have the OS contact M$ servers to "authenticate" the OS ownership or to match a table of hardware unigue identifiiers to see if it has been place on another machine, or to worry about having a redirect to a malicious site on a constant and ongoing basis because some M$ programming drones don't know what the fuck they have written into the umpteen millions of lines of code in their freaking OS because their division bosses are trying to meet deadlines rather then do proper testing to get the next product out the door to pump sales in order to jack stock prices to keep their share holders and boards happy with ever increasing revenue streams.

WE are talking about making it viable for a corporate environment with admins that have experience with Windows and need to come over to a safer, more effecient and cost effective altenative than being blackmailed into the next upgrade, series of time consuming, server crashing, hack ridden programs and patching tasks.

I'm cutting in on a thread that I haven't been too closely following, but I do have some observations that are contrary to your statements. Corporate Environment: No one installs their own software anymore. It's done by someone in IT who responsible for everything working out correctly. Therefore, the process of installation, finding all the dynamic libraries necessary, and configuration of the network, is all entirely left up to the experts in question. No Secretary is going to take on this job in Linux or Windows unless they have a personal interrest to do so. Home Users: I have not met a home user who is not quasi-sys-admin who is capable of installing very much on Windows. Have you recently tried to install a complete Windows OS without a ghost image? It's getting pretty damn difficult to accomplish! Furthermore, can you imagine a non-sys-admin type, who simply uses it for email and photos trying to install WindowsXP with all the fixings? There is a very distinct difference, even under Windows today, between the User and the Administrator. What you have missed in your arguement is that the User under Windows does not install anything. It comes that way, preinstalled, out of the box. If I could buy the same thing under Linux, then it would be a far cry easier to deal with. As for the User Interface. Windows is not a very good design, but we are all used to it. Personally, I use WindowMaker where I can because of it's exceptional speed and flexibility. I know that Suse is dominantly KDE, but the Desktop Environment is better appreciated on faster hardware than I have at my disposal. Changing that paradigm from Windows to something else as a GUI is going to be harder to accomplish than anything else. -- FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 01:11, Curtis Rey wrote:

As I stated before. This is an important period for Linux and one that if done correctly will put it in a steady market position. Pair this with the fact, unlike Mac, that it runs on the common x86-ia32 arch and can be easily put on any common store bought computer then it's just a matter of catering to the OEM's and ISV's to enable them to produce products and software with a minimum of effort. And frankly, this is what scares the sh** (language filter) out of M$.

Cheers, Curtis.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread but the urge is just to great. I've been using Suse since 6.3 plus tried a few other distributions over the years. I feel that the main goal of any serious Linux distributions is the server market. The desktop market is just some added income for them with little funding. It still has many hurdles to overcome for the average new user. Hardware compatibility still has many problems. Then throw in all the new USB products, DVD's, PDA's, and graphics cards, sit back and wait a year or never. I do have a life besides trying to make Linux work and function. At the end of this year it will be time to replace this computer, it won't be Microsoft or Linux but Mac. I have three friends that were Linux users that have gone to Mac, they just love it. I feel I'm at the time in my life to spend more time using new hardware and programs rather then trying to make them all work! John..........

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 01:36:27 at 01:36:27AM -0400, John Murphy (jfmurphy@charter.net) wrote:

I feel that the main goal of any serious Linux distributions is the server market. The desktop market is just some added income for them with little funding.

Who controls all the clients, and fills them with closed protocols and formats, eventually rules all the servers too. Ciao, Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ Don't you wish you had more energy... or less ambition?

*** Reply to message from BandiPat on Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:00:21 -0400***

I think I would have have to disagree first of all that Linux is not also a desktop OS now.

I haven't been able to figure out where, exactly, this prejudice against a LINUX desktop has sprung from. From 6.3 which I only used for a few weeks ( newer SuSE version came out shortly after the book w/ 6.3 arrived ) And it seems to me that , certainly from 7.1 onward .. the desktop portion has become an install and forget setup... 7.2 got my husband from commenting on how long my (desktop) box had been up and not needed a reboot to actually installing and beginning a Linux life of his own. His data doesn't disappear, this is very important to him, since he's a writer /lecturer / and general "you name it" in the world;d pf medical journals and magazines , and occasionally , even the odd book. He had heard and read the general FUD that surrounds the possibility that anyone might consider not using an MS product. Tho, I suspect he was less , um, "panicky" than most as he had never used MS much himself One place he worked only supplied 386-486 black and white laptops ... I got him a lovely THinkpad for much less cash than the IT dept at that company claimed they were paying for the old slow B&W versions. That colour laptop had OS/2 on it , as I wasn't about to have maintain , not to mention rescue a windows box.. especially not one that I paid for. I'm not an MS hater, tho I'm not convinced at all of the sincerity of the grubby little being who claims that he is the only computer person and his company is the only one that "innovates" . The man is a salesman and nothing else. He doesn't even care about anything at all but the money. ( that's how he keeps score ) Linux, esp. the SuSE distros are certainly ready for "prime time" and I have put any number of wannabe computer users on a Linux desktop , even the much maligned 8.1 version. Some folks don't even know they aren't using Windows , others aren't certain what a "desktop" is .. absolute beginners are charmed by the 8.2 Suse version , the games , the assortment of free programs they can play w/ , and the helpful folks they find on lists such as this one. Even folks who wish to go wireless are not having any more *problems" than they get from a Windows computer.

The desktop market

...

is just some added income for them with little funding. It still has many hurdles to overcome for the average new user. Hardware compatibility still has many problems.

Really ? I've not found that at all. And I generally have the hottest and fastest , not to mention newest stuff on the block. As a technology wonk and born "early adopter" I often buy hardware that "should" work , but may not. However, usually the very next version has at least limited support for the new toys and certainly the *.3 version will have a setup for the new stuff that "just works" *.2 , for instance setup and connects to a Suse web site during the install,at that point , it will happily get any and all updates that need to be installed and install those. It isn't even *necessary* to go back and "setup" a network ( connection to the internet esp.) IF you have a "stand alone" box, once you boot into your desktop , you are done. ( Tho you will have more "fun" if you do go thru the yast2 setup stuff.. if only to see what can be set and what you can improve or remove ) They ONLY thing I would caution against is proprietary hardware .. Gateway comes to mind here , possibly Dell as well, where they cut corners ( in order to stay afloat ) and often use weird hardware that may bring your linux install experience to a crashing halt ! Generally a few tweaks later it will install properly , and run as the problem is realized and work arounds are created.. -- j Talkin' to myself again; Wond'rin' if this travelin' is good. Is there something else a doin' ? Somethin' I'd be doin' if I could. But if it all blows up ; and goes to hell;I hope that we could sit upon , a bed in some motel... just singin' all the stories we could tell. j. sebastian it's just an afterthought; okay ? : Save the Rainforest! Eat a vegetarian!

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 11:00, BandiPat wrote:

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 01:36, John Murphy wrote:

...

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 01:11, Curtis Rey wrote:

I think I would have have to disagree first of all that Linux is not also a desktop OS now. Many of the things that prevented it from being a viable desktop OS are gone now and I find it to be one of the best around in both installation and hardware setup. Gnome2 and KDE3 are beautiful GUIs in looks and working well. Having the correct hardware is helpful, yes and if the hardware manufacturers were held to a higher set of standards and quality, few would have need to complain about any OS working correctly. IBM compatible hardware is still some of the oldest around, believe it or not, but blame that on M$ for holding it back, not Linux for not working on some of it. One of the advantages Apple has in this regard is that they are the only ones that make their hardware, but also one of the biggest drawbacks in getting their hardware & OS widely accepted. Good hardware is available though and makes Linux that much more fun to work with too. I can attest to that as can many here, I suspect. It gets boring sometimes because everything works so well and reliably with my setup. :o)

Yes the hardware issues have come along way over the years. Still far behind in many areas such as DVD, USB, and multimedia, and pim devices. I think you have to look what you're using the desktop for to see if Linux meets your needs. As it stands today it might get by in some office or business environments with the cost factor being a big advantage. If you're a typical home desktop person into multimedia, desktop publishing, gui style web publishing and all the point click and go programs of other OS's then you're into a lot of soul searching. If you're a family man with kids that are serious gamers, they likely will leave home if you switch to Linux. Don't get me wrong here I can't say enough for all the people who code and put their heart and soul into getting Linux this close to the MS market. Today's Linux desktop takes a giant step forward and two back. Why because the other OS's are moving ahead much faster with hardware and user friendly programs. There are a few desktop programs that I can't say enough good things about in Linux but still way to many not coming close or don't exist.

I also think the Linux community of users and developers are some of the quickest reacting to problems, fixes and needed software than any group I have been aquainted with since the Amiga. The Linux community reacts

I owned an Amiga 500, it was the best computer I ever owned. Take a note on what did it in, SOFTWARE support. Linux needs desktop software that equals other operating system today not tomorrow. The constant game of catch up or something close will never make it happen. Then you have the favorite Linux problem solver, crossover programs. All this shouts is Linux can't do it, it needs windows!! I can see Linux growing as a office or business desktop. Years or maybe never for a home desktop unless some of the big software companies like Adobe and others see it as viable home desktop. More then likely Linux will be on one drive in my extra computer. My next main home desktop purchase later this year will be a Mac with OSX. Looks something like Linux and has everything a desktop user needs now!!

quickly to needed software and linking to new hardware I believe, but with anything lacking the full resources available to them that M$ has or Apple has in full time dedicated to the project workers, some things take a bit longer to iron out all the bugs. It's not from a lack of trying though, as these Linux guys & girls surely stay up late at nite fixing, building and making things work correctly.

Again i can't say enough about the people who put their heart and soul into coding Linux. I have bought every release of Suse since 6.3 showing my support. The time might come when Linux will be the desktop for all, trouble is I don't think I'll see it in my life time:( John

Yes the hardware issues have come along way over the years. Still far behind in many areas such as DVD, USB, and multimedia, and pim devices. I think you have to look what you're using the desktop for to see if Linux meets your needs. As it stands today it might get by in some office or business environments with the cost factor being a big advantage. If you're a typical home desktop person into multimedia, desktop publishing, gui style web publishing and all the point click and go programs of other OS's then you're into a lot of soul searching. If you're a family man with kids that are serious gamers, they likely will leave home if you switch to Linux.

DVD, worked great here out of the box...But with that one legal issue that prevents encrypted DVDs from working (packman website has SuSE 8.2 rpms that have this functionality). What issue are you having with USB, multimedia and pim devices? Then again, my PS2 plays DVD's on large TV's... What is a typical home user? In my experience its just this; Someone who uses their computer for two functions, e-mail and simple word processing. The more proficient may get into using their digital camera that they got for Xmas. Serious game machines equals Playstation or Xbox...PC game sales fell by 2% and quite a few computer stores that I have been to have reduced the amount of PC titles.

Don't get me wrong here I can't say enough for all the people who code and put their heart and soul into getting Linux this close to the MS market. Today's Linux desktop takes a giant step forward and two back. Why because the other OS's are moving ahead much faster with hardware and user friendly programs. There are a few desktop programs that I can't say enough good things about in Linux but still way to many not coming close or don't exist.

Any examples of programs that you have missing? Last time I asked this to someone it turned out that they were referring to a specialized program at work that was written in house.

...

I also think the Linux community of users and developers are some of the quickest reacting to problems, fixes and needed software than any group I have been acquainted with since the Amiga. The Linux community reacts

I owned an Amiga 500, it was the best computer I ever owned. Take a note on what did it in, SOFTWARE support. Linux needs desktop software that equals other operating system today not tomorrow. The constant game of catch up or something close will never make it happen. Then you have the favorite Linux problem solver, crossover programs. All this shouts is Linux can't do it, it needs windows!!

Actually, from following the crossover list its because companies had to use it due to contractual reasons. Few individuals use crossover, or because one silly application needed a plugin that only runs on Windows. Even the Mac has its own version, its called Virtual PC. But ultimately this is more the sign of a monopoly if anything. I too had an Amiga 500, and an Amiga 1200 plus a bunch of accessories. And what did it in? Hardware. NOT software. Software follows hardware, still remember getting titles that had features removed because of the limitations within the hardware. Still also remember my first PC with its DOS prompt. What did it have over the Amiga at the time? Not sound, the Sound Blaster Pro was more beeps compared to the Amiga, but it came down to much better graphics, visually the 486 with its VGA card beat my poor Amiga and hardware updates were slow in coming to the Amiga...Then throw in a confused Commodore management who failed to adjust and released a confusing product line (Amiga 600) this all lead to its downfall. The Amiga 500 only had a little trap door underneath for upgrading one slot. That was a major pain as you tended to need more of everything :). However, for its time the Amiga was one of the best. The Atari ST was the other computer...Gosh, those endless arguments...

I can see Linux growing as a office or business desktop. Years or maybe never for a home desktop unless some of the big software companies like Adobe and others see it as viable home desktop. More then likely Linux will be on one drive in my extra computer. My next main home desktop purchase later this year will be a Mac with OSX. Looks something like Linux and has everything a desktop user needs now!!

People have been saying that it will go through the business channels for sometime, very much like Microsoft did in the 80's...Mac OS X is fine in its own regard, but its not as configurable as Linux, nor is it as open. Before anyone spouts off that they are Open Source, only parts of it are. Quite a few key areas remain under heavy lock and key, which they will remain to do so. Adobe wouldn't change a thing, what is required is a successful OEM to market directly to the public through heavy advertising. This will in turn put a lot more pressure on firms like Adobe to then produce the software. Its only ever the other way around if the firm started on a particular OS. Unfortunately most software firms started on DOS/Windows...

...

quickly to needed software and linking to new hardware I believe, but with anything lacking the full resources available to them that M$ has or Apple has in full time dedicated to the project workers, some things take a bit longer to iron out all the bugs. It's not from a lack of trying though, as these Linux guys & girls surely stay up late at nite fixing, building and making things work correctly.

Again i can't say enough about the people who put their heart and soul into coding Linux. I have bought every release of Suse since 6.3 showing my support. The time might come when Linux will be the desktop for all, trouble is I don't think I'll see it in my life time:(

Who knows, but you might find your nirvana on the Mac side. Again, you maybe disappointed (I was, found it mainly hyped up, things running through Fink like Open Office start even slower and look seriously out of place on the Mac OS X desktop, plus lets not get into patches that break things they "supposedly" didn't touch). But, who am I to say what *you* like :). And that goes vice versa, just because you used SuSE since 6.3 does not mean much, if anything to me I am afraid (in fact, when I see people say this, its like they are trying to come from a position of authority and that anyone else is going to be wrong because they lack experience, truly I look for what newbies want and feel more than oldies, but again its a personal thing ultimately). My experience is different, and so are my tastes. You maybe right, the consumer desktop Linux may never arrive, not because of Microsoft's monopoly or because of so called shortcomings with Linux desktop, but because the desktop market as we know it may die due to so many much more powerful handheld devices do what most consumers want it to do. Not trying to flame and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I am sick and tired of the computer industry, which is full of pundits who forgot to take their clue pills and with far too many IT workers that took a multiple choice course or two and received a piece of paper that got a job they can't even handle. Anyway, use Mac Os X for what it is, heck its a lot better than XP :). But its a different market from Linux as you'll find out. With Apple, know when to sale the whole unit and move on. Do not add anything but PCI cards, or external devices. I have personally had to tell people that the reason they are having issues installing Mac OS X onto their desktop is because of the CPU upgrade they put in. Also, the amount of shareware programs on the Mac platform is much higher, things that are actually high quality that come bundled with most Linux distro's then start to cost $20 and the Open Source versions may not actually be compiled to run on the Mac, or become a real pain to get going. Matt

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 01:18, Curtis Rey wrote:

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 19:32, Matthew Johnson wrote:

...

Serious game machines equals Playstation or Xbox...PC game sales fell by 2% and quite a few computer stores that I have been to have reduced the amount of PC titles.

Ya, riiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttt !!!!

Ok, you go online in Tribes2, UT/UT2k3, counterstrike, Q3A, RTCW, or any other shooter. You pick any character, load out, tactic you like. I'll pick sniper and we'll see how close and often you can get to me before I pick you off with repeated headshots.

Oh, so it was *you* that kept snipering me on beach assault huh?

Console games definitely have there place. And yes many gaming stores have indeed cut down the list of PC games. BUT! serious gamers use PCs. It is more configurabel and controllable. I spend 75% of my time on a computer playing games of every sort. I have played consoles. Those of us in competition teams in online gaming rarely ever find a console gamer that is capable of competing on the same level. They simply get the ever loving tripe beat out of them. I do it in Linux and most people are always of the opinion that I must be an admin or some sort of guru. Fact of the matter is that Linux in networking is better and PC gaming on this level is all about connection and control - I get both to a vastly higher degree on my Penguin PC.

So do I Chris, but the sales did indeed fall 2% and Fry's has taken out two sections of PC Games and handed it over to country music...Console games give a higher return from what I have been told. I beta tested EverQuest adventures for the PS2 and it was completely different experience from the PC version. Hey, the PS3 is likely to run some form of Linux :). I agree, and use my Linux box more than my PS2, the titles just don't excite me that much, but yet stores that I went to reduced PC games available. And actually looking through the aisles and with GameSpot most games have been a disappointment.

As far as the rest of your comments I think they're spot on.

Hehe, well cannot ever agree with everything 100%, especially nowadays because markets are changing, companies are adapting, whilst others are dying because they fail to adapt.

Cheers, Curtis (aka Crusher-1) :-P

Matt

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 12:48:56 at 12:48:56PM -0700, Alex Daniloff (alex@daniloff.com) wrote:

True Linux experts will use Linux even at their work places and convince and teach their colleagues and management how to do the same.

Where do you work? On which planet, I mean? Here on Earth, in 90/95% of cases, true "real world workers" will have to use whatever their IT department will have installed on their computers. They won't have compilers available, or the root/administrator password, because system administration is not in their job description. The great majority of the workforce is not allowed to mess with their PC's inside no more than they can say "I'll throw all this cubicle junk, and replace it with furniture I like". They will be fined or worse if they pop up one morning and say "hey, I'm not writing that report in Word: I'm going to spend the whole morning installing XYZ Linux, instead. Oh, and next week don't schedule any appointment with customers, I'm going to show you how to convert all your bookmarks, databases and addressbook" Even if, at home, they write drivers in assembler for sheer fun, or recompile the kernel every other hour "just because" Preaching Free/OS SW is good and needed, but doing it with that attitude is not going to accomplish much. Ciao, Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ "Get real! This is a discussion group, not a helpdesk. You post something, we discuss its implications. If the discussion happens to answer a question you've asked, that's incidental." -- nobull in comp.lang.perl.misc

James Mohr wrote: [bits removed]

Not to be too pendantic, but I am not sure "divergence" is the right word. All the distributions are moving in the same direction, but the difference is in the details. The thing is that you *can* get the apps to work. Maybe not by simply downloading a single package. Instead you have to download a dozen to get all of the libaries, etc. However, that is changing as there are tools available that will generally get all of the necessary components for you.

On the other hand. I consider myself a linux expert compared to the majority of the users, but a "knowledgable user" compared to many on this list. However, I personally find the mechanism for installing new software very annoying in comparison to Windows. Today I had to install two new products on my Windows machine at work and they installed very easily. Recently I wanted to install something on my Linux machine but I found out I was missing a couple of things that needed other things to install, which needed still other things.

Well said. THIS is the most annoying part about using Linux - including SuSE : trying to update without having to jump thru hoops and walk over hot coals. Re having the tools now available "that will generally get all of the necessary components for you". The one most people seem to be impressed with is apt. But even here it takes a lot of effort to work out exactly what one needs to download and install for apt to work. On the other hand, when you decide to use fou4s the instructions there simply say to download 2 RPMs, install them and then use, say, a couple of commands to get your updates.

I'm all for different distros as Linux is all about choice. However it should be a "choice" like Microsoft where I cut myself off from everything else.

My two cents.

Regards,

jimmo

-- Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. Pablo Picasso

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:13:08 -0700 Curtis Rey wrote:

On Tuesday 10 June 2003 07:46, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300602

"Customers want to get off the dependency of Microsoft, including large corporate shops, but they want a Linux desktop with a three- to five-year life cycle, not updates every few months," the source said...."

Then they can use Debian. :-) -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation