Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2982 comp.os.linux.misc:20804 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!nobody From: peter@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Usefulness of BSD/Linux Source Knowledge Date: 1 Aug 1994 09:19:25 -0500 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Lines: 84 Message-ID: <31j09d$ipi@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <1994Jul31.044558.12981@cs.brown.edu> <31grdf$o8g@u.cc.utah.edu> <1994Jul31.224245.24749@cs.brown.edu> <31hjgn$spj@u.cc.utah.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com In article <31hjgn$spj@u.cc.utah.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> wrote: >First of all, most UNIX venders I know (and I "know" more than a few), see >no need to "compete" with free OSes. At any point in time they have been >asked to comment and haven't simply declined comment, the competition model >they have cited involves support, code quality, pre-engineering, and >testing. All these are failings of the free OS phenomenon, which tends >to be a collection of small projects bundled together. I think what you're saying here is true, though the reason you give isn't. System V itself is a collection of small projects bundled together, and the seams show at least as badly as they do in any free O/S. The reason that free software can't provide the same level of support as commercial software is: 1. Support costs money. For some vendors it's the biggest line item in their budget. 2. Support costs money. 3. Support costs money. 4. User-friendliness costs money. Tools that help the naive user aren't nearly as much fun to write as a cool new file system, so you have to pay for them to get written. 5. Support costs money. There is a very large market out there that needs a commercial style load and go O/S with all the spammy GUIs. There is another market that needs the O/S without the spam. Free UNIX is perfectly fitted to the latter. Unfortunately, commercial UNIX isn't yet up to the quality where it can be used by the former. If it were there wouldn't *be* an OS/2 or an NT or Netware or any other commercial operating systems. To paraphrase you, I can go into great gory detail on commercial failings in System V, and the failings of every UNIX out there to meet the needs of naive users. No commercial vendor that I know of is doing anything significant to address any of the real problems. They are working on the cosmetics, while Bill Gates is force-growing MS-DOS into something that's slimy but satisfying (money is like water... given time it can wear down the edges of the harshest interfaces). >It has been long held as a maxim in the industry that "software sells >hardware" and "software sells operating systems". That the driving force >and the majority of profit is in the applications, not in the platforms; >this is why I laugh when I see knife-fights between the cable and phone >companies over who will charge for wiring "the information superhighway"; >it's not where the money is. That's why Microsoft spends so much on applications. That's why their secret interfaces were such a big deal. >Consider a company that wants to run an Oracle database; they look around, >and they see "what platforms will run Oracle?". Say they see UnixWare, >Solaris, and Linux, all on Intel hardware -- what do they get? We got OSF/1. >This is not to say that these free systems will not be used as platforms >for vertical market and embedded systems applications; they probably will >be, but since the majority of the market is in the Fortune 1000 business >that Linux, BSD, et al. won't get, this is comparatively nothing. That's true. But then the whole UNIX market is comparatively nothing. For USL or USG or whoever owns the UNIX name this week to expend energy on *BSD commercial or not is so short-sighted that it makes Chamberlaine's appeasing Hitler look visionary. >What is this bigger picture? UNIX versus NT. >I don't think it would; other than possibly MIT, very few Universities >are in the Fortune 1000. If what you say is true, then the UNIX market >is truly small It is. >and they need to address the issue, not by acting >against their replacements at University sites, but by pursung their >real market more vigorously. Exactly.