Re: Talk to your frTalk your friend into switching to Linux(Re:)

[r.e.ballard@usa.net]

In article <gmgraves-2305981427310001@sj-pm3-24-152.dialup.slip.net>,
  gmgraves@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> In article <6k5h0b$7i8$1@winter.news.erols.com>, clee2@envirolink.org
> (Chris Lee) wrote:
> > In article <356631ED.40DA8AE4@delphi.com>, crc3419@delphi.com says...
> > ><WARNING TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL
> > >ALERT!>
> > >
> > >
> > >George Graves wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <6k4cvb$283$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, r.e.ballard@usa.net
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Linux has really only been a good "Workstation" since 1997 (Red Hat
> > 4.0)
> > >> > but it has been rapidly evolving into a very sophisticated
workstation.
> > >> > When equipped with Red Hat 5.0 or Caldera 1.2 and Communicator 4.0
and
> > >> > an Office Suite from Corel, Applix, or StarOffice, you end up with a
> > very
> > >> > sweet machine for a very reasonable price.

The Latest news is that Red Hat 5.1 is now to be released June 1.  Looking
forward to it.  See you at Linux Expo !!!

> > >> Bullshit. You end up with a very techy, very geeky OS
> > >> that makes the user
> > >> jump back through his own rectum in order to perform even the simplest
> > >> task.

This may have been a legitimate assesment of Slackware 2.0 or Debian 1.1,
but Linux has gone through a great deal of innovation in the last 24 months.
If you haven't tried a version of Red Hat or Slackware that has been released
in the last 6 months, your observation is no more legitimate than me
assesing Windows NT based on my Experiences with Windows 3.0 (remember
THAT abomination).

This also sounds like the assesment of someone who tried, unsuccessfully,
to install X11 and rather than get a resolution to this problem (Red Hat
and Caldera are very supportive in this matter), chose to assess linux
based on it's command line  interface.  This would be a bit like me
assessing NT based on my Experiences with DOS 6.0.

If you really have successfully installed a full-blown implementation
of Linux with ALL features and functions, used it for at least 90 days,
and still hated it, please let me know.  Reply via e-mail or via this
group.  I've been waiting for 9 months for someone to complete the "Linux
Challenge".  If you can send me a detailed experience of your experience,
I will even send you $5.

You can use it as credit toward your purchase of your next Microsoft
product, or an upgrade disk from www.wgs.com.  Care to guess which
investment will give you more bang for your buck.

Microsoft prefers to be evaluated on the "hit and run" evasuation,
commonly known as the "3-2-1" project, using 3 people for a 2 month
project and evaluating progress after 1 month.

The problem is that Microsoft is only a "Win" for about the first 60-90
days, after which time, the learning curve of a Linux system has been
breached, and the Linux based developers are more productive than the
Microsoft developers.  By the end of 6 months, the productivity is
high enough to reach break even on a Solaris/Sparc solution.

> > >> You get an OS with almost NO software available for it and that
> > which

Actually, you get about 8000 applications (which you appearantly never
bothered to learn to use - even the simplest).

> > >> is available is VERY primitive

Several thousand of the Linux/Unix utilities are "Lego Blocks" which
can be interfaced using perl/cgi, python, java, or TCL/TK scripts.
Again, it will take about 90 days to learn enough of these tools to
be an effective applications programmer.  Much less time than it would
take to pass the entire MCSE series.


> > >> (StarOffice, for example).

Which version of StarOffice were you using.  It doesn't have those cute
features of Office97 like "Animated Paper Clips" or a "Doom" style game
built into the spreadsheet, but it does have a nice help system, the
ability to create nice "Office" quality documents, and the ability to
save them in "publish friendly" formats such as HTML.

Personally, I also liked the Applix system.  I especially like the
"hot cells" that can be wired into unix "named pipes" and fed with
data such as real-time quotes.  The Red Hat tools disk has some
really fun financial applications.

I also like Netscape Communicator.  With a minimal amount of effort,
I can quickly create and publish HTML documents using an HTML WYSIWYG
editor.  Not bad for $40.

I am looking forward to getting WordPerfect 8.0.  WordPerfect 7.0 is
already available (Many secretaries still prefer WordPerfect to Word).

It's true that you don't get the really nifty game software, but what
are you doing running "Doom" and "Virtual Valerie" at work anyway?

If you can't find everything you want, just use LILO to give yourself
the choice of booting Microsoft Windows 98 or Linux.  You can "bounce"
to the system of your choice.

If you are absolutely addicted to that animated paper clip, go ahead
and spend $800 for LEGAL copies of Windows 95 or Windows 98 and Office 97.
If you are using UPGRADES, then you are not only a software pirate but
you are also advocating piracy in the worst way.

When was your last software audit?

By the way, is your employer paying for Office97 or did you just
assume that your "Take home license" was valid for Office97 like
it was for Office 95.  A little shocker.  If you are using Office 97
at home and at work, your employer had better have paid for two copies
or somebody will owe Microoft about $700.


> > >> If one is
> > already a
> > >> "Unixmeister", its probabaly fine.

I've been running some exeriments with some computer novices who have no
experience with Microsoft Windows.  It seems that with the combination
of Red Hat or Caldera, Netscape Communicator, and StarOffice, they can
be quite happy with a rather simple system.  What they like most, after
trying MS-Windows, is that Linux doesn't crash every few days.

> > >> If one is not, its a nightmare.

If one is not, one should probably have a Linux Guru install the software
for them.  You can even get a VarStation or a Corel "LC" for less than
the price of a Windaws NT workstation.

You also need to remember that you are getting more bang, and that
bigger bang comes with more overhead.  With Windows 95 you don't get
a web server, mail server, news server, domain name server, router,
firewall, kerberos security system, remote access to GUI applications
(via X-Term), or the ability to simultaneously access multiple systems
at the same time.  You get the SMB server, but you don't get the NFS
server, the IPX server, or the Appletalk server.  You also don't get
network management software including SNMP and MIB-II support.

All these extra features do make the "Control Panel" a bit more sophisticated,
but the available control panels are pretty robust.  Personally, I prefer
the Red Hat control panel.

> > Whichever
> > >> you are, your computer needs have to be pretty simple in terms of
> > >> functionality, because most software categories simply are not
> > represented.

Of course it is much easier to get custom software quickly developed.
Many ISP "Web Page Authors" are using Linux for the prototyping, and
many ISPs offer remote hosting of Linux systems for as little as $100/month,
compared to the $400/month they need to charge for NT servers (and they
often loose money on NT servers even at that rate).

Since a Linux Workstation is little more than an ISP with it's own built
in browsers and editors, it is pretty easy for anyone who can create a
web page to create a pretty robust publication.  Add a bit of Java for
a really "Jazzy" system.  You can also use the CORBA engine built into
the Netscape Navigator to create some interesting "e-commerce" solutions.

> > >Hmm....sounds like the rantings of a troll who hasn't actually *USED*
> > >the software...

Or downloaded the "freebe-ware" version "base system" without even bothering
to install the basic X-11 system.

> > Or a Windows 95-98 cripple/shareware programer who sees
> > his market in danger

With the exception of a few top consulting firms that bill for NT
projects on a Time and Materials basis (NT is a great way to create
"scope creep" into a trivial project without blaming the consultants),
there aren't too many people who really benefit from Windows NT/98.

Microsoft has most of the market locked up, the few niche markets that
have "canned" products usually end up "stomping" each other (race conditions
and lockouts due to undocumented semaphores) and causing projects to run
way over budget.

Of course, if your business has no concerns about compliance with government
regulators, and you never need anything more than the canned "Microsoft
Solution", then you might want to go for it.  Given the antagonism and
contempt that Microsoft has for government regulators, I wouldn't count
on them for much help in creating government compliant systems.

Also, you are required to idemnify Microsoft from all damages.  Calculate
the MTBF of Windows 95 and the MTTR, and then calculate the cost of
down-time in worst hour scenarios.  Now, try to get insurance againt
a catastrophic outage.

Compare these numbers to the MTBF and MTTR of Linux or Solaris or HP-UX
or AIX and estimate what the "insurance" would be against that type of
failure.

Remember, a qualified technician can be "inside" your server within
15 minutes on a Linux system (assuming that the administrator has to
give him a "root account" each time.

In most cases, the server can even page the operator, service people,
and even managers within a matter of minutes with a description of the
problem and it's severity.

> > if more and more people start to abandon the windows plaform in favor of
> > Linux, since the Linux platform doesn't follow the windows model....

If more people adopted Linux, they might see the same types of economic
opportunities that made it possible for Internet Service providers to
grow from 386/SX 16 servers in some guys closet to a multibillion dollar
company due to the trivial effort required to scale from 386 linux to
Pentium Linux to Solaris/SparcServers to Enterprise 6000 and Enterprise 10000
servers or HP-9000 servers.  These guys learned quickly that their "toy"
Linux servers were their best first shot at an "Industrial strength" server
capable of serving a global market.

> You guys are clueless. I wouldn't use Windows if it
> were literally the only OS
> left on the face of the earth.

So what do you like George?  OS/2 Warp?  Mac Finder 7?, BEOS?, Solaris?,
SCO?  You seem to have found something more reliable, more robust,
more scalable, more user-friendly, than Linux.  What is it that gives
you the best "blend" of all of these criteria?

Inquiring Minds want to know!

> I hate it that much - And I'm not a programmer!

So take the 90 days to learn how to do the things that you could NEVER
do in Microsoft Windows 95.  The things that are relatively trivial on
a Linux system.

To be fair to George, Linux is far from perfect.  Microsoft has a much better
"upholstery", who cares if the motor comes from a Yugo. :-).

> George Graves

Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading