Re: [TCLUG:628] Linux in the StarTribune

[Christopher Reid Palmer <jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu>]

On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Clark Whiting wrote:

> Ahhhh! So who said Linux was trying to go head-to-head with Microsoft?

Young man by the name of Linus Torvalds...minor figure. I beleive "Total 
World Domination" was his exact phrase. ;)

> I am a software developer, primarily on UNIX systems. I write 3-tier 
> middleware applications and I'm primarily in one of the big-3 (sun, HP, 
> or AIX). The company I worked for for years decided they were going to 
> save some money and replace our UNIX workstations with PC's and give us 
> XWindows emulators (Exceed and the like).

sheesh! That SUCKS!

> Well, I'll tell you, the second they plopped that PC on my desk, my 
> productivity was cut in half!  

No doubt.

> Here are some pros-cons for having Linux on your desk:
> 
> PROS:

> 2. You don't have to spend a fortune on software every 6 months as the 
> PC leeches pump out their upgrades for $99 (or whatever). You've got 
> cutting edge, robust development packages out there for free -- and they 
> don't nag you for upgrades every couple of months.

Define "cutting edge".

> 3. Linux (UNIX) is build on a backbone of networking, where Windows has 
> networking build on top of it.

Can you elaborate on this?

> 4. UNIX is far more robust of an operating system. The only time I every 
> saw a UNIX box (non Linux) panic (crash) was when the motherboard 
> developed a crack in it.

I dunno, I make a hobby out of killing every flavor of Unix I get my hands
on. So far, HP-UX 9, NEXTSTEP and Linux have died brutal deaths at my
hands. Granted, I'm usually doing krazee stuff like reading my mail *and*
formatting a floppy at the same time. (You know, stable multitasking.)

(I don't get to SunOS/Solaris all that often, but don't worry, I'll kill
it, too.)

And even if the kernel can stay up, individual apps and daemons die plenty
often. Don't tell me your X server has never locked up on you or that you've 
never had to restart 'inetd'. (In all fairness, *no* kernel could truss up
Netscape Navigator.)

> We had a company policy to reboot the UNIX boxes once a month, just because 
> we though it would be a good idea.

Well, if it *did* do the machines any good, then Unix isn't as stable and
robust as you say.

> We had an old Pyramid up and running for over 700 days with no down-time! 
> (try that with NT!!!)

Bah, NT. We're talking about *operating* systems -- you know, systems that
actually *operate*. :)

> -- Remember, the floppy disk was a PC invention, not a UNIX invention. 
> Until a few years ago, you couldn't even get a floppy on a UNIX box. 

I dunno, this NeXTStation is pretty damn old, and it has a 2.88MB floppy
drive.

> UNIX was designed to operate on permanent file systems.

Right, like tape.

> Admittedly, Linux (UNIX)'s solution to accessing a floppy drive (or any 
> other removable drive -- except tapes) is a hack and should be re-architected.

I don't know. Given the Unix paradigm, 'mount' is probably the best thing.
Until someone writes a virus checking daemon, I don't want automounting
storage volumes under Unix.

> CONS:
> 1. Linux (UNIX) was not designed as a desktop environment. It requires a 
> system administrator to keep the machine in good running order. For 
> Linux, that means YOU! If you have no desire to be a system 
> administrator, then I suggest getting Windows.

If you have no desire to be a system administrator, then I suggest getting
a Macintosh. Compared to Unix, Windows and MacOS are a power and stability
joke. Compared to MacOS, Unix and Windows are an interface joke. (This
leaves Windows in the interesting position of being a complete joke, all
the time.)

> 2. Linux (UNIX) was designed for power and speed, not eligance.

If a system is butt ugly, arcane, obtuse, ill-equipped for what users
want to do and ass-backwards, how can you take advantage of its "power and
speed"?

> UNIX is 
> very esoteric -- and that probably won't change. UNIX was never designed 
> for the average Joe off the street. It's a serious development platform 
> designed for industrial strength applications.

So, an OS has to be difficult to use in order to be "serious"?

The Macintosh is "industrial strength" -- it gave birth to several
currently booming industries. Granted, it has no place in the server
industry, but the server industry is not the only industry worth
mentioning.

> 3. Linux (UNIX) is NOT user friendly. This is back to #1. If you have no 
> desire to learn the UNIX shells (Borne, Khorn, C-Shell, etc.) then buy a 
> PC.

If you have no desire to get useful work done, then buy a Unix 
workstation.

> XWindows is an Add-On and rather difficult to configure and 
> maintain.

Uh huh...this is in sharp contrast to the other parts of Unix?

> Well, the list goes on and on. My short sample here, I hope, gives you 
> the flavor of what you are getting into when you put Linux on your home 
> PC. What you aren't getting is a "better" Windows.

What you're getting is a server OS for your bedroom. How nice. The simple
fact is that the majority of computer users today are interested in
computers for what they can do, not for the computers themselves (I'm
interested in both, which is why I'm bothering with Linux at all).

Look at it this way: The MacOS has primitive, stripped-down and downright
sad memory management and multitasking. Unix has primitive, stripped-down
and downright sad usability and applications. The MacOS has a highly 
advanced user interface, and this fact enabled all kinds of great apps --
image editors, document layout programs, music composition programs, 
office suites... Unix has advanced processing power -- great for servers
and mainframes.

For its time, The MacOS' weaknesses were acceptable. For its time, Unix'
weaknesses were acceptable. But now that we have cheap, powerful hardware
and now that users have come to expect more out of their desktop machines,
the weaknesses of the Two OSes Worthy of Consideration(tm) are quickly
becoming unacceptable.

Linux is in a great spot to come forward as the next insanely great
workstation/desktop OS. It's not there yet, but headway is steadily being
made.

> What you ARE getting 
> is the most powerful operating system next to a $50,000 commercial 
> computer.

But what is "power"?

> Maybe someday UNIX will be entirely redesigned and re-architected to be 
> user friendly and it will compete with Windows. But not today.

*Already* it has a user interface not much worse than Windows --
<www.kde.org>. Or have you fallen asleep at the line printer and missed
all this great stuff?

_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu : innerFire on IRC (EFNet)

Free Software Special Interest Group : acm.cs.umn.edu/~jaymz/sigfs/
Digital Media Center : www.umn.edu/dmc/