Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!felix.junction.net!not-for-mail From: michael@memra.com (Michael Dillon) 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) Date: 17 Apr 1996 03:03:14 -0700 Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting - http://www.memra.com Lines: 94 Message-ID: <4l2fl2$7hk@sidhe.memra.com> References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sidhe.memra.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:21667 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:666 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3292 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3125 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17596 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46091 In article <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com>, Russell Nelson <nelson@ns.crynwr.com> wrote: >If they could buy a computer with Linux and (a fully functional) Wine >installed, they would use it with no hesitation. > >In order to create a market for Linux, we need to say, and say again, >that Linux is THE ONLY RELIABLE 32-bit desktop operating system. The >only other choices simply are not up to the task. But it's not. FreeBSD and NetBSD are also reliable 32-bit desktop OSes as is OS/2. And WINE is anything but reliable and my personal opinion from several years of reading Microsoft Systems Journal and 2 years of watching the WINE project is that WINE will never be a reliable and fully compatible Windows execution environment >THIS IS HOW MICROSOFT MARKETS ITS PRODUCTS. Why do you think there >was sooooo much hype about win95? It's because there HAD to have >been, otherwise people might start evaluating operating systems. People evaluated OSes anyway. Even if cluefulness is only found in a small proportion of the computer-using population, the absolute number of clueful people increases as they gain experience with the tech. >Now, given that we have to use the same weapon to win the war, where >do we start? Do we try to introduce the idea that there are multiple >free 32-bit operating systems? No. Of course not. The OS is mostly irrelevant and we are talking about UNIX here anyway. >Bad, bad, bad. It confuses people. There is room for only one free >32-bit operating system. Which is it to be, Linux or *BSD*? Who cares. Time will tell. Right now neither one dominates because neither is mature enough. I have especially noted that Linux users are more friendly and open to FreeBSD now than they were a year ago and people who run networks that only used Linux a year ago will now admit that they are either using FreeBSD for some things or are evaluating FreeBSD. > Linux >already has a big head start, given that there have been Linux >conferences and a Linux magazine, and multiple companies distributing >competitive versions of Linux (but it's always Linux). It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. >This might sound like bullshit to you, but that's okay, because it's >marketing. Technoids traditionally do not understand marketing, or >the value of it. As you very aptly demonstrate here. People don't want OSes, they want application execution environments. In other words, number one is the application and its interface. Number two is the environment and its interface. The underlying OS is a distant third. Right now neither the applications nor the environment exist for free UNIXes and I know of no developpers working on a credible environment or toolset. This kind of thing needs architecture work done first, then detailled design, then programming. >desktop: Linux. We need to shout this from the rooftops. This is not >blind advocacy, this is a CRUCIAL step to overcoming the Microsoft >hegemony. Don't start shouting until you have your troops amassed or you *WILL* get slaughtered and the survivors may find it hard to raise a new army. >But you didn't answer my question: what is wrong with Linux that you >cannot fix? Nothing. And the FreeBSD project *IS* fixing Linux in two major ways. One, by making FreeBSD compatible with Linux file systems and binaries so that it will soon be possible to run a FreeBSD/Linux using the FreeBSD kernel. Secondly, by providing the competitive edge needed to keep both Linux and FreeBSD improving so that someday the combined forces *WILL* be powerful enough to destroy the hegemony of Microsoft and any other would-be succesors. This isn't about playing games here; this is about the future of Western civilization. Twenty years from now, around the time when packet-switched network access is as ubiquitous as telephones are today, there won't be big commercial software comapnies and packages with proprietary and incompatible OSes. Instead, everything will interoperate more or less smoothly and under the hood, ticking away will be OSes based upon the work of both the FreeBSD and Linux projects. The feudal lords of software will only be a bad memory. -- Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com