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!in2.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: 18 Apr 1996 16:31:29 GMT Organization: University of Missouri - Columbia Lines: 130 Message-ID: <4l5qp1$1eam@news.missouri.edu> References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <4l2fl2$7hk@sidhe.memra.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:21842 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:716 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3353 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3195 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17747 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46396 Michael Dillon (michael@memra.com) wrote: : >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 That's not the point. FreeBSD, NetBSD, WinNT, and (maybe) OS/2 are all reliable alternatives, but the consumer doesn't want to be confused with choices. He or she wants you to say, "This is the answer. There aren't any others." Ever do sales in a computer store? Unless you get a technically oriented buyer (rare), that's the way things work. If you give the customer all kinds of choices, they don't appreciate it. They get confused, then they get mad, then they leave. No sale. I agree about WINE, kind of. It could work, but it would require *far* too much work, and it really isn't worth it. Windows 3.1/95 need to die completely. WinNT might be worth keeping around, but being able to run its programs aren't exactly a requirement in an OS. : >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. I disagree. Lots of people that I know personally who are very technically oriented still went blindly out and got Win95. They struggle with it each and every day, convinced that with just a little more tweaking, it'll work just fine. The absolute number of people who understand computers is growing, but there isn't a whole lot of practical difference between 0.001% and 0.003% of the population. :) : >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. That's fine for us techies who don't mind installing three or four OSs on a single machine to try and play with, but the original poster was talking about the end consumer, who uses *one* OS to get things done. Actually, after all this debate, you know what I'm thinking about doing? I'm going to clean up my DOS/Win 3.1 crap and "update" it to Win95. Then I'm going to make some room for Warp and FreeBSD. All four OSs on the same machine. Just for fun, to give them some real comparisons... : > 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. Agreed, but Linux is still ahead. I haven't seen "FreeBSD Unleashed" in Waldenbooks lately. :) : >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. Okay, so who is capable of doing that kind of work, and what subset of those people is *willing* to do that work? That's the solution, so let's do it. : >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. Linux needs a smoother install and a WYSIWYG word processor. Other than that, Linux is just as ready as Win95 was when it came out. More so, actually... : >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. I agree. I just hope that we can get that going sooner rather than later. I want Micro$oft to be *more* transient. :) -------- 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