Re: Back to Windows??
On Monday 19 February 2001 21:06, Duane Powers wrote:
> > Hans Verschoor and Jennie Kohsiek wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Craig T. Milling" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: "'Debian-Laptop (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
> > Cc: "Christopher Wolf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Craig Milling"
> > <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: Back to Windows??
> >> Here are some concrete positives (in my experience) for why you would
> >> *want* to run Linux as more than just a hobbyist.
> >> (1) You control the interface. You have a choice of window managers,
> >> GNOME, KDE. *You* get to decide how you want to interact with the
> >> computer, not Bill Gates.
> > Hans:
> > In the first place these window managers are Windows look-alikes,
> > especially KDE that was intentionally designed to be as Windows as
> > Windows can be i.m.h.o. In the second place, I do not have this
> > insurpressibke urge to "decide by myself" if others offer a good
> > solution, named Bill or not.
> >> (2) Stability. It is a pleasure knowing that I can leave my laptop
> >> running for days/weeks at a time and it won't crash. Even if there is a
> >> misbehaving application, it can be killed without destabilizing
> >> everything else.
> > Hans.
> > I do run KDE, and the browser and office applications crash on a regular
> > basis and in fact much more often than the Seattle counterparts.
> >> (3) Free. As in beer. I really like the fact that the next
> >> kernel/GNOME/gnuplot/emacs upgrade won't cost me $90-$100. It's free.
> >> Yes it costs some time, but (2) makes up for that.
> > Hans:
> > The money issue is relative, Japanese companies are now kicking Linux out
> > because they discover that they are spending huge sums at "Linux
> > specialists" maintaining their systems.
> >> (4) Free. As in speech. The source code is open, which means no one
> >> has control over your computer. It also helps combat software obsolence
> >> and forced upgrades by having file formats open.
> > Hans:
> > I don't follow this argumentation. The fact that the source is open is
> > in no relation that your computer is not controlled. I am not an OS
> > expert, I don't want to be an OS expert I don't want to look into sources
> > that are not part of my core business, I want the software to work
> > correctly and therefore yes: Any software controls my computer.
> >> (5) Unixisms: True multitasking, multiuser capabilities. You don't have
> >> to worry about nuking important files (as long as your not root!). You
> >> don't have to worry about being bit by the LOVE BUG. You can lock down
> >> services to hold script-kiddies at bay. You can share your computer
> >> with other users w/o them messing up your files and desktop.
> > Hans:
> > Misargumentation, the file protection system of let's say NT or W2000 is
> > much more sophisticated than UNIX, alas for you but that's a fact and I
> > will not share my computer. And for viruses, yes you have to be a bit
> > more careful, a bit less naive, that's true.
> >> It is difficult. It seems everything involving setup and installation
> >> is difficult the first time, but the time spent is an investment, not a
> >> loss. The next time you do something it gets easier. I would recommend
> >> you aim low. Set up a dual boot configuration so you can always use
> >> Windows. Then install Linux and work on it a little bit at a time. Get
> >> a command line going, then X, then compile a kernel specific to your
> >> machine. First get your NIC going, then sound card, then ... Yes it may
> >> take awhile, but you will find yourself being slowly won over to Linux.
> >> Then the next computer you get, things will go much faster.
> > Hans:
> > Again, from my objectives of using my computer, these investment are pure
> > losses. I don't want a dual boot system, my computer is a server, so
> > hopefully boots a few times a year. I have no intention to become a
> > kernel hacker, an inventoe or a whizkid, my objective is to have a stable
> > simple server machine on the shortest term possible. And don't forget,
> > companies switching to Linux usually have exactly this reason.
> >> Don't forget that a computer is just a tool. If you need all your
> >> hardware, use the preinstalled OS. If you also need some of the GNU
> >> tools (tar,awk, ...) install Cygwin, or dual boot.
> > Hans:
> > Right on !
> > Linux should not be a cult, but I think it is by now .....
> >> My testimonial: I got my laptop in Jan,1999 (an ARM TS759. ARM is very
> >> linux friendly and even offers preinstalled RedHat. I specifically
> >> asked about Linux before buying). My NIC (a generic 10baseT) was
> >> supported off the bat. It took about 6 mos for the soundcard driver to
> >> make it into the stable kernel. I would still use Windows regularly.
> >> Eventually my windows use was only for games and all my work was done in
> >> Linux. Finally I got bored of the games. The last time I booted into
> >> windows was 6 mos ago, and last week I got rid of the last fat partition
> >> on my disk.
> > Hans:
> > Mine: I got an all Linux compatible hardware set, because I checked all
> > components before. Got Debian 2.2.18pre21 and the result: I can't print
> > on a HP2100 (mentioned to be "perfect" for Linux), I can't tar to a DI-30
> > tapestreamer (proudly declared: "Linux certified" by the manufacturer),
> > I'm doubtful if my network will work and it will probable take another
> > year before I get my ADSL modem working. I will install W2000 in the days
> > to come and if everything works: "bye bye Linux".
> >> Craig Milling
> >> PS. If you made it down this far, thanks for reading my rambling
> >> missive.
> >> :)
> > Hans:
> > As you can see, I made it.
> >> ____________________
> >> Dr. Craig T. Milling
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Illinois
> >> Phone: 217/333-1930
> >> --
> >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> flame bait much?
> I have debian installed on two laptops, one is my CPiA 400 Dell, works
> great, took about a week to setup properly (running kernel 2.4.1 and
> X4.0.2) the second is a new IBM Thinkpad A-series (2.2.18 and X4.0.2)
> They are great, both of them. I don't give anything up by having linux
> on them. Now, on to why I am replying to this thread.
> In my opinion, there are two types of people; users and tinkerers, users
> want it to work, they don't care what's inside, how or why it works,
> they just want it to do a task, the other group, tinkerers, are always
> trying to find out how things work, or how to make such and such better,
> how to get something to bend to their will...(if you will) if you
> consider the computer and the distinct differences between windows and
> linux you can draw rough parallels to these two distinct personality
Pooh, pooh, Mr Freud ..................
I don't think the dividing line is that clear and sharp. What is a typical
user, what is a typical tinkerer ?
In my case for example, it's typical in between: I want to deploy an
experimental server, for the time being based on Java technology, which
will "prove" a new theorem on transaction persistency. In order to enhance
the reliability of the empirical trial the test environment should be as
stable as possible and that lead me to have a very serious look at Linux.
I have an interest in the quality of Linux, I do care what's inside and I
want to put a fair amount of effort in managing Linux but I also have a
responsibility to conduct my core business, in this case a research project.
And after all: Linux is there to do a job, the jobs are not there because of
Linux. Now tell me: Am I a typical user or a typical tinkerer ?
> This is not to say that all "users" have to use windows, nor that
> all "tinkerers" use linux, merely to indicate that people are different,
> and as such, we have been blessed with having the "choice" to use
> whichever Operating System we prefer.
That is pretty exaggerated, especially for the PC platform. Give me the
names of all important others than The MS family, the UNIX family,
the MAC family and the BEOS family.
> I am known far and wide as a
> zealot, specifically a linux zealot, my reasons for this are also known
> to most of my friends and acquaintances, but in a nutshell, I like linux
> because if I hadn't started using it, I wouldn't know 1/10th of what I
> now know about computers, the internet, and networking.
That's my point. You probably HAD to know that to keep it all
working. In that case you had "no choice" ......
> Which to me
> means, I would not hold the job I know hold. If you don't want/care/need
> to understand what "happens under the hood" then don't go there,
> continue (or begin...) using your computer however you feel most
> comfortable, and shame on those who would squash your freedom to make
> the decision yourself.
I don't want to use Linux because I'm anti Microsoft. I want to use
it because I am convinced that in essence it is more stable platform
for server applications.
> I have avoided rebuffing individual comments
> about this being better than that... It is a moot point, if you don't
> believe it's better (for whatever reason) then for you, it's not better,
> just don't be so closed minded as to think that because it doesn't work
> for you, it isn't a perfect fit for someone else.
I never said anything like that.
> Now, this is primarily talking about the "user" space, not the "server"
> space, where, in my opinion, you should have administrators (regardless
> of OS)
> who are trained, experienced and competent in configuring, maintaining
> and perhaps even improving the machines they are responsible for.
That's risky, very risky. As a company I would never allow my EDP
department to change inhouse running operating systems at the source
level. I would stimulate contributions to Linux releases, but I would never
allow them to be implemented just in my company.
> As such, ease of use is not, or should not be, a major consideration to the
> adminstrators and management of a "server" setting. Security, stability,
> scalability, cost, and projected lifespan should be the primary
I don't see why not "both", especially as a stimulus for the acceptance of
Linux by companies and non-expert computer "users".
> As such, NT /and/ Unix administrators who fit the above
> description are worth pretty good money. So if japan is indeed moving
> away from linux, quoting Hans "Japanese companies are now kicking Linux
> out because they discover that they are spending huge sums at
> ""Linux specialists"" maintaining their systems" then I can only presume
> that they are hoping to save money by hiring inexpensive (read,
> inexperienced) NTadministrators. They'll pay, one way or another...
What makes you think that NT administrators are inexperienced and
"cheap" by default ?
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"; name="Attachment: 1"