Board index » kylix » Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop


2004-01-19 04:26:28 PM
kylix0
Quote
>However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total
>control of the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows
>microkernel, upgrading certain part of interface with hardware is
>upgrading/installing driver.
RP>Requiring a reboot.
On home desktop PC installing new driver for videocard with reboot is
normal. Nothing bad. On corporate server this usually happens only on
new/upgrade of hardware. Requires reboot anyway.
Quote
>There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often
>lead to compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS
>deffinitely is not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is
>way to get problems.
>Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It
>is not working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or
>P.Q.R on distro B".
RP>That's not because it is possible in Linux, that is because it is
RP>impossible in Windows.
But in Windows it is not necessary. There is no such problem as "need to
change windows microkernel". You guys create problems and then successfully
solve it. Not much pride in it.
Quote
>Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more
>functions like Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for
>Linux.
RP>Maybe, but the impact always is smaller than under Windows, for the
RP>simple fact that the underlying security model is more robust.
When Linux will have same popularity (if it happen someday) we can say
deffinitely.
p>>>Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the
p>>>options you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p>>>customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
Quote
>IPChains or IPTables,
p>>>Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p>>>Why do you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
Quote
>Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on
>Agnitum Outpost Firewall for example.
RP>Payware, no doubt.
It has payware version, it has freeware version. I'm happy with free.
Quote
>Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux.
>Upgrading all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working,
>roll on local copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another
>solution to run soft over nfs. There is another problem, after
>changing executables on nfs we need to close programs, unmount nfs
>mountpoints, upgrade software, mount nfs, then run again. This option
>is not better that Windows'es.
RP>Get yourself a decent distro, create the scripts and run them
RP>overnight.
My machines used in 24x7 rythm.
RP>Or pay through your nose for Windows remote upgrade stuff. Pick your
RP>choice.
p>>>Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on
p>>>a client desktop.
Quote
>Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of
>control. And work significantly faster than Linux X over slow
>connections.
RP>Insecure and insecure. I can pick ssh, vnc or spawn an extra X
RP>session to that box.
Did you sure that Windows do not have ssh? Did you sure that RDP5 unable to
encrypt traffic? I'm not tried that things but think it is possible.
Quote
>400 X-clients?
RP>Yes Ender, quite easy. They all share their text segments, and the X
RP>server runs on the desktop machine. If I would have to accomodate
RP>the same amount of clients on a Windows Terminal Server, I would
RP>have to shell out major bucks in hardware and software.
Seems something specially prepared to run in such environment. 2Gb/400=
~5Mb. So it amount of private memory for one program. I don't think one able
to put into it something siginificant.
p>>>(4) stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p>>>stable as Linux, period.
Quote
>BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In
>some hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to
>kill or hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix de{*word*81} while debugging
>certain programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network
>connect was not possible. stability of Linux desktop - myth, not
>more.
RP>Plain stupidity on the programmer part this is. It's high time you
RP>study how to set limits to the amount of memory and processor time a
RP>process can use.
What if i need all memory? I'm working with graphics. The amount of graphics
sometimes get more than size of RAM. Windows behave perfectly, Linux has
total slowdown.
RP>If it runs away, kill the process before it gets out of hand.
RP>This kind of behaviour is almost in all cases attributable to either
RP>runaway processes or committing so much memory that the swap runs
RP>out.
Why it is not happening on Windows? Even if one of process consume all
available memory, then OS easily throw it into swap when OS itself needed
memory and give to me options to kill it without precautions or hurry. Of
course entrie PC getting somewhat slower. Anyway abovementioned behavior is
evidence of Linux myth.
p>>>Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches
p>>>from
p>>>MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p>>>Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
Quote
>Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
>company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0
>servers which runtime was about year each. There was pair of
>interrupts when there was power failure or company relocated into new
>office.
RP>Pff. I've seen outfits that had to reboot dayly because otherwise
RP>their Windows boxen would fail pitifully.
I saw that cases. Often it is hardware problem. One case i remember was SCSI
controller failure. Once drive which based on that controller actively
worked some time it overheated and cease PC to malfunction. Same thing was
on my home PC when video card fan failed and after some time (about three
hours and depending from activity) PC locked-up.
p>>>(5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p>>>initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
Quote
>That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
>programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer
>spend only 5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example
>compiling Qt -
>7 hours on C700, or guessing how _ to _ run _ that _ program _ in _
>that _
>conditions _ and _ how _ to _ configure _ it _ to _ run _ properly)
>Linux advantage is wanish.
RP>You're forgetting the upfront cost. Plus he didn't say $100, he said
RP>hundreds of dollars.
Desktop Windows OS cost about $150 (can't remember exactly how much). Anyway
once user lose few hours on solving some problems that initial cost
advantage is compensated.
RP>Like EUR4000 for an Exchange license which comes preinstalled as an
RP>open relay thank you very much. And you're equally forgetting that
RP>setting up and securing Windows software is equally or more difficult
RP>than Linux software.
You forgetting about the subject. Do i need to secure Delphi? Or
Microstation? Or Great Encyclopedia of Cyrill&Mephodius? Do i get machine
with such products preinstalled? Never.
RP>Not to mention the fact that if one process poops on your registry,
RP>you're having a disaster. And failing to notice all kinds of trouble
RP>with the totally dim filesystems available under Linux.
It is kinda difficult to damage system registry in Windows NT/2K/XP from
user process. It accessible only in read-only mode.
p>>>(6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything
p>>>you need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux
p>>>is free.
Quote
>There are plethora of free software for Windows.
RP>All payware.
Sorry but you saying complete BS. There are many examples of freeware,
shareware, payware for Windows.
RP>And that is exactly the point where Linux shines. It won't even run
RP>suspicious content in the first place.
There is another point. On Windows any application is easy to run. Just
point and click on exe. In Linux process of running of application is
somewhat difficult. It does not recognize what is suspicious, it is just
difficult to run downloaded app from Internet.
RP>Yes, inherent. And you don't need to look at the code to know that.
RP>Add a driver? Windows requires a reboot, Linux does not. Add a
RP>server process?
RP>Windows needs a reboot in most cases, Linux does not.
It is not Windows needs a reboot. It is stupidly written installation
program/script requires reboot.
Quote
>Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside
>windows is not belong to open standards.
RP>Just wait for the moment that Microsoft is charging you 10 cents for
RP>every Word document you create.
Why you can't imagine that Borland start charging 10 cents for every "new
application" click? Or VMWare start charging 10 cents for every VM's load?
Why you think that MS so bad?
RP>Just wait and see what happens if they only support a Word document
RP>version that's not backward compatible and see how much money your
RP>government has to shell out to make all the old shit useable again.
Then we deffinitely turn to another system. But current state of things
shows that using Windows as desktop is more productive than Linux.
p>>>Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p>>>With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p>>>be locked in.
Quote
>As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they
>will remain with windows and both make millons while linux still
>crawling under the dinning table and loudly scream.
RP>Fact of the matter is that Windows is not stable. Period.
RP><snip>
:-)))) My Windows XP is stable, my friends Windows XP is stable, friend of
my friend Windows 2K is stable. What you talking about? I know guys that
work in Windows under administrative account, or guys that install
everything they found in internet, or guys that install every new version of
driver for their videocard and then they scream "Windows is not stable!"
p>>>Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p>>>written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If
p>>>it isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p>>>untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as
Quote
>point p>and click, drag and drop
p>>>Gurus :)
Quote
>If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force
>him to write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to
>write that makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that
>files should be written, he may use his time to solve real problems
>instead fight with results of laziness of creators of development
>tools. The system that required that human must do something when
>system can do it itself -
>flawed system by deffinition.
RP>Only holds as long as you stay in a single environment. Plus a
RP>programmer that's unable to specify how to build his stuff in a
RP>particular language isn't worth diddly.
For example in Delphi makefiles is not necessary. In Oracle PL/SQL same
thing. For certain microcontrollers there are compilers that do not require
makefiles. My colleague write programs for microcontrollers, he never used
any kind of makefiles. So he is not programmer? The makefiles is not center
of earth.
p>>>Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p>>>the average user, which means that they will have more exprience
p>>>with
p>>>Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p>>>increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.
p>>>This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p>>>from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p>>>survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch
p>>>from Linux, we told them the same things.
The market is rules all. If Linux will be profitable (read better in terms
of money) it will be popular. Currently it is not.
Quote
>Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of
>it), but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of
>Windows. And such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
RP>As a matter of fact, Windows made a huge step backward with XP.
I'm intrigued. What huge step backward you talking about?
RP>And if you think pilfering the property of others euqates learning, I'd
RP>say it's high time you looked again.
What they pilfered?
 
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

RP>That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and
RP>every user account has administrative rights.
Don't make all users as administrators. Enter only one user at installation
then use Computer Management to add users and give to them appropriate
rights.
RP>Buy an XP Home box and you can't even change rights on directories and
RP>files.
Buy XP Professional.
RP>The point is that any Linux box is pretty safe to begin with and it's
RP>quite easy to set it up so that a user has minimal rights and remote
RP>systems have no access at all and you start working from there. That's
RP>not a choice you have when starting with
RP>XP. You install it, then you have to start tying things down to a
RP>degree that is acceptible.
See above.
Quote
>The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced into
>the corporate network is a matter of how the network is used. In the
>end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
>If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
>firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
>cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
RP>True. Badly configured ones.
Same as badly configured and protected Windowses.
Quote
>Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to {*word*75} about
>it.
RP>And when they're hit and you answer that they should have Read The
RP>Fine Manual they're insulted.
Usually they just not have time to read FM. From that point of view, product
that required reading such kind of documents is bad. That is most of Linux
apps.
RP>The point is: Is it useable and what is the cost? As a matter of
RP>fact, I find the XP interface totally unuseable. Horrible, really.
This is your opinion, not more (seems you prefer another type of desktop).
It at least not less functional than KDE and working faster. Only on P4
2.6GHz i do not see difference, on my old C700 KDE noticeably slower.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Quote
No one expects Linux to take over the home desktop market any time soon.
because they are sealing the software anyway <g>
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Ralph F" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
They are also beginning to show up regularly on ebay. Not a lot, but a
steady flow.
I also think that there is not much money in the Linux desktop-software-
market, but I am quite sure that this will change.
If only half of the IT managers I know do what they are planning to do
(switch over almost completely to Linux within the next years), the Linux
market will grow quite heavy within the next years.
It seems that many people want to switch over, but have not completely
figured out what the best way to do it is.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It seems that many people want to switch over, but have not completely
figured out what the best way to do it is.
I want to be rich, but I have not completely figured out what the best way
to do it is<g>. But I am on the verge of ruling out Linux desktop software
as a possible scenario<g>.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:400d63e9$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
I want to be rich, but I have not completely figured out what the best
way to do it is<g>. But I am on the verge of ruling out Linux desktop
software as a possible scenario<g>.
Well, most IT managers I know are unhappy with the M$-dictate and they
try to escape. There are a few circumstances which make a move a little
bit difficult at the moment.
I spoke with one yesterday, and their plan is about this:
- Migration of some servers. Desktops stay Windows for now.
- Change from MS Office to OpenOffice or StarOffice on the desktop.
- Applications which are available for Windows only will not be bought
any more.
- Rewrite of some desktop-applications to intranet-application
- Other desktop-applications are rewritten with development tools which
allow X-platform development.
- And then the slow change of the desktop.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Trane Francks < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Those are the standard answers. Now, let's say I've just bought
20 systems for my new startup. They come preinstalled with, say,
XP and SmartSuite.
Why would anybody who does not want to use Windows buy systems with
Windows preinstalled?
Quote
My staff have been using Windows at home for
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff,
Of course it's cheaper not to buy systems with preinstalled Windows.
Quote
install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
them?
This costs some time and money at the beginning, but the lower costs of
the software and the higher quality will IMO bring the money back soon.
Quote
As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable.
May be. Under Linux it's probably way easier to block such nonsense.
Quote
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch.
Don't forget MS's license policies.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
it is still not on desktop?
IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the beginning.
They know that the money will be back in within a few years, but it's still
a lot of money and work at the beginning.
So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to{*word*219} me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/21/04 08:16 +0900, Andreas Prucha wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :

>Those are the standard answers. Now, let's say I've just bought
>20 systems for my new startup. They come preinstalled with, say,
>XP and SmartSuite.

Why would anybody who does not want to use Windows buy systems with
Windows preinstalled?
From an established manufacturer, it's easier to find
Windows-preinstalled systems than it is to find bare bones
systems. That trend has been changing, yes, but not quickly.
Quote
>My staff have been using Windows at home for
>years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
>stuff,

Of course it's cheaper not to buy systems with preinstalled Windows.
Can I buy bare- or Linux-preinstalled ThinkPads? Not that I can
see. When I can see Linux offered on most/all of the ThinkPad
line, then I'll happily concede the YotLD.
Quote
>install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
>them?

This costs some time and money at the beginning, but the lower costs of
the software and the higher quality will IMO bring the money back soon.
Higher quality? Hmmmm. I'll have to reserve judgment until I try
OpenOffice. None of the office suites under Linux has come close,
IMO, to the MS offerings. It could be that OpenOffice becomes
Linux's "killer app." I don't know.
Quote
>Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
>ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch.

Don't forget MS's license policies.
There's no question that a company facing the latest iteration of
MS licensing has seriously good reasons for looking elsewhere.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :

>I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
>it is still not on desktop?

IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the beginning.
They know that the money will be back in within a few years, but it's still
a lot of money and work at the beginning.

So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to{*word*219} me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
over how much M$ gets out of the deal.
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Hilton Evans wrote:
Quote
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
>
>>I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
>>it is still not on desktop?
>
>IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the
>beginning. They know that the money will be back in within a few years,
>but it's still a lot of money and work at the beginning.
>
>So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to{*word*219} me, or
>should I fight and take a risk".

Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
over how much M$ gets out of the deal.
Or is it that they don't know they can send the software back and get a
refund?
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"R.F. Pels" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Hilton Evans wrote:

>"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
>>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
>>
>>>I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
>>>it is still not on desktop?
>>
>>IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the
>>beginning. They know that the money will be back in within a few years,
>>but it's still a lot of money and work at the beginning.
>>
>>So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to{*word*219} me, or
>>should I fight and take a risk".
>
>Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
>computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
>30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
>over how much M$ gets out of the deal.

Or is it that they don't know they can send the software back and get a
refund?
And go through the hassle of unistalling and then installing
a Linux distro that they might have bought at the same store?
Maybe they don't care. Or maybe they have a *life*. Most
consumers are not cultist geeks in some hissy fit over Bill
Gates' money. They buy a PC for the same reason they might
buy a Mac. They have a need and the computer fills it.
They don't go to the computer store asking for a custom
configuration the way of some geek or game playing
mommy's boy. They look over a variety of configurations
and buy one that fits the need well enough.
No one is preventing stores from selling PCs with Linux
pre installed. Walmart offers them; I have yet to see one in
a Walmart. There are six my area. I suspect if they were a
compelling consumer item, Walmart would dedicate shell
space just as it dedicates space to it $29.95 microwave ovens.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Hilton Evans" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

No one is preventing stores from selling PCs with Linux
pre installed. Walmart offers them; I have yet to see one in
a Walmart. There are six my area. I suspect if they were a
compelling consumer item, Walmart would dedicate shell
space just as it dedicates space to it $29.95 microwave ovens.
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices
if they put any other os on the pc's they sold.
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys
a PC with no os.
Mike
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Quote

>>investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
>>companies will feel the same way.
>
>
>Then maybe you're not looking.


I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run Linux
on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the ROI for the
average 50-seat company making the switch. While I could be mistaken, it
seems to me to require a fairly large economy of scale before the
investment of switching is worthwhile.

trane
There, you see? You're right and wrong. It isn't about replacing, not
even windows XP can replace windows 98, or Windows 2003 replace Windows
NT. But for starting, with no windows xp preinstalled pcs, or linux
pre-installed, installing linux is the choice.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Mike Mormando" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices
if they put any other os on the pc's they sold.
No, it had to do with the fact that MS licensed Windows to volume
manufacturers based upon the number of PCs they sold. When they were no
longer allowed to do this, they started the mandatory registration thing ---
as a way of keeping manufacturers somewhat honest as much as anything else.
Quote
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys a PC with no os.
Personally, I don't believe this for a number of reasons:
1) The smaller shops in my area don't care who you are or what you want to
buy if you pay cash.
2) The smaller shops in my area are the ones selling pirated software.
Several have been caught, convicted and gone out of business.
3) If MS paid for just names and addresses, some would sell names out of the
phone book. And they'd have to employ an army of people just to track them
all down.
4) Ok, assume they have a name and address that they paid for. Then what?
They'll need a lot more to get a search warrant to look at someone's PC.