Re: Is Linux Unix?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:18AM -0700, Ryo Furue wrote:
> "Steven Jones" <Steven.Jones@vuw.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<2keyS-1CX-9@gated-at.bofh.it>...
> > Working in a MS, Solaris, Linux, Tru64 shop, I find that for the vast
> > majority of our servers the usability of Linux is as good as Unix if not
> > better. While Unix might have high end bits Linux lacks for 95% of the
> > world's servers that small missing % I suspect is not an issue.
>
> This is not a Linux-vs-Unix issue, but I've recently been experiencing
> a downside of Linux. I think one of the biggest problems for developers
> of commercial software for Linux is that there's no such thing as "the"
> Linux OS. There are simply too many combinations of the kernel version,
> libc version, pthreads version, etc. to support all. The consequence is
> usually the vendor supports only the RedHat Linux.
>
> I'm using the Intel Fortran Compiler (IFC). Its version 7 runs on Debian
> without any problem whatsoever, although Intel doesn't support Debian. But,
> last year Intel released a total rewrite of the compiler, version 8, with
> which my Fortran programs don't work at all (*). Since Debian isn't supported,
> even if I paid (which I don't), Intel wouldn't fix my problem. (If paying
> would fix it, I would pay.) This is a big headache. Uniformity is sometimes
> good.
If your programs work with version 7, why do you feel a need to
migrate to version 8? Well maybe because version 7 will become
unavailable soon (?). Would migrating to the GNU fortran compiler be
more or less work than migrating to intel version 8? (Or migrating to
C/C++?) If you were to migrate to GNU, you would be safe from the need
to ever migrate again. You just have to keep a safe copy of the
source.
But this is not the main point of your post.
>
> I also heard from a programmer that her company develops software only for
> Windows because it's so uniform and ubiguitous. Her company, being small,
> wouldn't be able to support Linux. If a costomer doesn't have a Windows
> machine, the company makes the costomer buy one. (The sofwares so expensive
> that the cost of a lowly Windows machine is nothing.)
>
> Unfortunately, uniformity and community efforts don't come together.
>
This post and the other responses that it has already triggered all
seem to assume that commercial software has a future. But consider:
Maybe Steve Balmer is more right than he is given credit
for. GNU/Linux is a virus that has infected the software world and is
killing software businesses. Maybe its really true.
Or look at the situation another way. In the Open/Free software
community there are a lot of true believers in a social mission for
software. They seem to produce and maintain software for non-monetary
reasons. In the business world there are a lot of people committed to
paying their suppliers the least possible amount for the supplies that
they need to operate their business. Open/Free software costs less
than commercial software. Some businesses will move to using Open/Free
software. They will reduce their cost structure. They will become more
competitive in their respective industries because of their lower cost
structure. The customer base of commercial software enterprises will
wither and die. (Or maybe not die, just be bought out by a competitor
with a lower cost structure.) Alternatively, commercial software
houses might retool as suppliers of IT staffing and management for
corporations. But they will give up on their licensed software business
because they can't make money at it in the face of GNU/Linux
competition.
Prior to actually getting out of the business, they will give all
sorts of self serving arguments as to why they are having trouble, but
the truth is that the Open/Free software community doesn't need their
services at the prices that they need to charge.
More about Intel fortran compiler:
In the future, the intel fortran compiler will be release as open
source, or not, depending on whether or not Intel views it as part of
its core business.
I expect that they will release it because their core business it
chips.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: