Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!news.jhu.edu!aplcenmp!netnews.jhuapl.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!mv!news.missouri.edu!vortex.cc.missouri.edu!rhys From: rhys@vortex.cc.missouri.edu (Justin "Rhys Thuryn" McNutt) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX) Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Date: 16 Apr 1996 15:56:25 GMT Organization: University of Missouri - Columbia Lines: 203 Message-ID: <4l0fv9$1bfs@news.missouri.edu> References: <4ki055$60l@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <jdd.829261293@cdf.toronto.edu> <tporczykDpqKHL.7vG@netcom.com> <DpsKyx.1Jo@catzen.gun.de> <tporczykDptpAL.8uG@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vortex.cc.missouri.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:21672 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:667 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3293 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3126 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17600 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46095 Tony Porczyk (tporczyk@netcom.com) wrote: : Yes, but remember we were talking about commercial desktop - that's : where the money is. $295 for the OS is peanuts if it doesn't involve : significant (read: transition from Windows to UNIX) retraining. The point that the Unix advocates are trying to make here is: "We want to try to make Unix (FreeBSD, Linux, whatever) easy enough to use that Windiots can handle it." How is another issue. Let me show you something: Linux - It's a *free*, powerful, POSIX-compliant, widely-available, and supported operating system. It's got people developing for it right and left. They're usually just developing drivers and miscellany, but it's there. It got here slowly, but it's getting there. The St. Louis Arch - Same sort of thing. It took those engineers years just to design the thing. It took another few years to build, but was worth the trouble. The Sears Tower, The Taj Mahal, The Eiffel Tower, the telephone, the stereo, the space shuttle, the *printing press*... All of these things are wonderful. They were hard to achieve, but they were all well worth the effort. I hear all this whining on here about "someone else tried it before and they crashed and burned!" So what? Is that a reason to not try again? If we really want to get it done, we *CAN* get it done. We have to commit to doing it *first*, and worry about *HOW* second. It's cheesy, but to quote Yoda, "Either do, or do not. There is no try." And Mr. Myagi, "Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, <sqwk!>, just like grape. Either you karate do yes, or karate do no. You karate do 'Guess so,' <sqwk!>, just like grape." Besides, dammit, if MS-DOS could take over the PC market, why the hell can't we make Linux or FreeBSD just as good or better? It infuriates me that all this whining is even happening because it all boils down to, "But it'll be too HARD!! WAHH!" Another quote: "Of course it's hard! The hard is what makes it great!" (figure out the quote yourself) [inspirational ranting mode off] Also, a lot of those people were trying to do all that for profit. Linux and FreeBSD aren't controlled by profit-oriented organizations trying to make a buck. They're people who want to see computers perform as well as possible. Hell, I'd write it all myself, but I'm not that good of a programmer yet, and I'm still trying to graduate (one more year, and I'll be available to help you out, guys). Basically, what I don't understand is what all this is about. We all want to see Unix become mainstream. So let's quit arguing about it and just do it. It's *very* simple: First: What is it that DOS, Windows, and OS/2 do when you first install them? They check out the hardware, they say to the user, "I need this much hard disk space. Can I format it and use it (yes/no buttons)." and so on. Linux makes you make all kinds of decisions. No problem. We just take Slackware's existing install program, and add a small choice to the very beginning: Advanced Install Easy Install (default) This idea is stolen blatantly from the Mac. That's how they do it. Then everybody can have his or her own way. The easy install *should* make all kinds of decisions for the user. That's what easy install means. Those admins (like me) out there are just cringing, but if you think about it, that's what the user *wants*. As long as it works, they don't care. All the config files like /etc/inittab, /etc/fstab, /etc/hosts, etc. etc. should all be set up automatically by little scripts in the install program. It can't be that hard. DOS and Windows have been doing it for years. As far as X Windows goes, I'm no expert on video hardware, but I do know that the existing setup process for X is abysmal. Why can Win95, WinNT, and OS/2 set themselves up with a graphical *install* no less, but X is such a pain? It can't be that difficult. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the default on all three (and in Win 3.1) is 640 x 480 x 16. *ANY* VGA card supports that, and it's about as standard as you can get. If you can get it running that far, most users will probably put forth at least a token effort to go further. Okay, then the OS is set up and we have our handy-dandy graphical interface. Now what? We need a program launcher. It could be object-oriented like the Mac (the Magic Desktop for X is pretty cool) and OS/2, it could be launcher oriented like Program manager, or it could be a combination like Win95 and NeXTStep (I *LIKE* having the dock and WorkSpace Manager). This shouldn't be very hard either. If I am not mistaken, there already exists a program that does a program icon dock for X Windows in Linux (it might be part of twm, I'm not sure). Want Program Manager? How about Xfilemanager? It needs some work, but it's pretty much all there. It's got a little directory tree window (the default tree should be the root), and it's got a little window with neat little icons in it called (imagine this!) WorkSpace. Great. Now we get to the harder part. Put some good programs in the WorkSpace that people will want to use. <sigh> I believe that TeX is the way to go, but it has one big drawback. As far as I know, it doesn't have a widely-available, easily-configured, WYSIWYG interface. People like MS Word, Windows Write, Ami Pro, etc. because they can *see* what their document is going to look like before they print it out. What does the doc actually look like in TeX? Who cares? Ever look at the inside of an MS Word doc? Pure rubbish. They can't even keep things consistent from version to version. TeX is portable and user-editable in a pinch. TeX -> PS is child's play, and just about any printer can print PS. Given a WYSIWYG interface, and perhaps the ability to read other popular documents, a TeX-based word processor could just eat up the market. Some people will say, "But there's more to it than just a word processor!" Really? I have to take off my shoes and my friend's gloves so that I can count the number of people that I know personally who only use their computers for word processing. Their stupid little PC boots, loads Win[3.1|95|NT], and MS Word is in the Startup group. It runs right away, and that's all they ever use it for. Given a decent word processor, and an installation process that will let novice users get to that word processor with the least hassle, and you will have given Unix a chance at the PC. Just for motivation, I don't want to hear any, "But it's too HARD!" crap. Look at the Linux kernel. *THAT*, ladies and gentlemen, *WAS* the hard part. Are you telling me that no one out there can write a *WORD PROCESSOR*? Come on... The way I see it, the hard part will be getting X Windows up and running with only the Windiot user to rely on. It can be done. Someone (I nominate myself, although I *will* need help) just needs to do it. It doesn't even matter if the programs and scripts underneath are slow, obnoxious, not very portable, etc. If they *WORK*, we can fix them in our spare time. Linux was *written* in spare time. But if it doesn't exist at all, no one will use it. Feedback from novice users will be important. I work at a University *full* of feedback. If someone can help me work on this, I have supervisors who have already let me install Linux in our computer labs, and would be willing to help me make it more usable. I have students who want things idiot-proof. Talk about beta-testing! :) If the kids here can use it, anyone can. To recap: I have stated what needs to be done. Although it is irrelevant if no one is willing to do it, I have also suggested ways in which it might be done. I have offered to help. Now, if Linux and/or FreeBSD doesn't start becoming one of the most popular operating systems for the desktop PC, it's because no one tried. It won't happen overnight, but it won't happen at all if we don't start working on it *right* *now*. : As I said originally, the only thing that can sell UNIX to desktops : (besides specialized uses) is applications - common productivity : applications, priced *reasonably*. Superiority or inferiority of OS is : irrelevant. Exactly. Get it installed, give 'em a word processor. Other apps? One thing at a time. We'll get to it, but first things first. Let's not overwhelm ourselves here. : Example from my own desktop: I use Linux and FreeBSD at home, SunOS at : work, but when I sit down to write courseware (part of my job), I plug : in hard drive with Windows and MS Office. Why? Try to find a package : for UNIX that contains easily mergeable Word Processing, Presentation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : and Spreadsheet that a common mortal can afford. Show me *one*. And : let's not talk about TeX. If I told the rest of the team that I will : submit my work in TeX, they would die laughing. No one has the time to : play with that kind of stuff anymore. Bingo. Easily mergable? TeX or PS. No problem. So what if they die laughing? Does it work? Who is playing? TeX is good. The format in which most word processors save their documents is proprietary. It even changes from version to version. If someone were to write a word processor that used TeX, that problem would disappear. Documents would cease to be "MS Word 6.0" or "MS Word 5.0" or "WriteNow! 4.0" documents and would become "a text document". Want graphics? Use PS. That way, when you release updates for this fictional word processor, you can add features without having to ruin your backward compatibility all the time. You can work on the *program* instead of playing around with the *output* all the time. C'mon, you all. Let's just do it. The only thing standing in our way is the willingness to do it. -------- If you can lead it to water and force it to drink, it isn't a horse. Got a Linux problem? Or can you help others solve them? Visit the Linux Common Problems page at http://vortex.cc.missouri.edu/~rhys/linux.html rhys@vortex.cc.missouri.edu