Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Unix Operating Systems Software

The Continuing Rise of Linux and UNIX 123

Posted by Hemos from the up-from-the-grave-he-arose dept.
z4ce writes "It appears ZDnet it yet again reporting on UNIX and Linux here. " Little ditty about the resurgence of UNIX in the business environment and how Linux is changing the commercial world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Continuing Rise of Linux and UNIX More

The Continuing Rise of Linux and UNIX

Comments Filter:
  • I have linux office suite 99 - released by suse, which is essentially applixware 4.something. Apparently it handles PowerPoint just fine. Can't vouch for it myself, since I've never had to do a PowerPoint presentation (and the few I've seen others give that were made with MS PowerPoint left me unimpressed).
    Assuming you have a fast net connection, you could just go to applixanyware.com and use it for free to check it out (java based office suite on the web, ala the upcoming star office portal).

  • Re:Same old song and dance (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have never made that mistake. I also wonder how you, with experience, could still be considering NT to be a server choice. It is better for desktops than 95 or 98. It has not place in a server environment. At any level, these are the things (and I know that I am being pedantic, but still) that you need from a server:

    1. reliability -- uptimes are a good measure, and a year is a minimum
    2. predicatbility -- it can't just crater, ist has to squawk and slow down
    3. security -- the basics have to be secure and be able to be locked down
    4. permanence -- we shouldn't be surprised by costs (a predictable upgrade path is a basic here)

    NT does none of these things. On the basis of NT's unreliability, unpredictability, near-complete lack of security, and continually spiralling costs (more hardware, less attractive licencing, requirements to upgrade OS to run apps), I would select apps that would run on something other than NT.

    It really IS emotional -- I weep when I am spending silly money. It really IS politics -- I don't get liked if I am spending money I don't have to. Linux has a place here -- in many cases instead of BSDi and FreeBSD sue to drivers and in almost all cases with x86Solaris and SCO and low-end RISC boxes.

    Sometimes the conventionally obvious choice is really, really bad. Like NT.

  • Re:A better Unix than Unix? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You could always install ActivePerl, or install Windows Scripting Host (into which you can plugin languages, they need to be written to do so however), which by default gives you JScript or VBSCript. Either one offers a LARGE amount of control over the OS.

  • Even setting up WINE and makeing Word 2000 run didn't phaze / convince them.

    Just out of curiosity, how well does Word 2000 work with WINE? I'd be happy just to get Quicken 6 (or something like that) going 100%.

  • VBScript is really quite awful. To base a scripting language off VB, and then to dumb it down *even* more...well, you get the idea.

    Very very lame. I suggest ActiveState Perl for Win32, much better and it supports all your perl scripts from Linux!

  • I'm actually a huge fan of CorelDraw and can't wait for it to hit the Linux market.

    Gimp is shaping up to be a really nice paint program (a-la Photoshop or Corel's PhotoPaint), but for a lot of things a drawing program is better.

    Paint programs deal with individual pixels. Drawing programs deal with shapes. With CorelDraw you can create a complex drawing, drag around and re-size the component objects, and render the result at any resolution.

    I use Gimp to touch up photographs and to design small graphics for web pages. CorelDraw I use for diagrams, maps, logos - basicially anything complex that I draw myself from scratch.

  • OSS Solution du jour:

    --- cut here ---

    #!/bin/tcsh
    foreach file (*.url)
    strings $file | grep http > /tmp/$file.output
    wget -r `cat /tmp/$file.output`
    end

    --- cut here ---

    Note, I have not tested this, and don't intend to. :-) If it works, great. If not, it gives you an idea of how to do this. :-)

    Enjoy! :-)

  • Meanwhile, where can a bloke like me, got to learn how to write scripts for linux?

    man zsh

    (Replace 'zsh' with whatever shell you wish...)

    --

  • If all else fails, sacrifice a few penguins

    Good $DEITY! Are you insane?

    Now sacrificing paperclips would be different...

  • Yeah, `wget -r' is a great idea if you want most of the damn site! For just one page, `lynx -dump > filename' is better, if you don't mind plain text.
  • That would be nice - professors knowing what they are doing. :-)

    Here at UWO, many professors have this ego thing. "They" are professors so they "must" know what they are doing. It is never their fault, only the "stupid" system. Because they "already know so much", they are impossible to teach to (and are unwilling to learn). It's a very difficult situation for us in Instructional Media Services who are just trying to be helpful in order for things to work as smoothly as possible.

    [Funny story - just had the Western Linux Users Group Installfest yesterday and the last person we tried to install Linux for was a CompSci networking prof. Without a doubt, the worst install of the day. He had no clue (although he assumed he did) and made the entire ordeal painful. The guys eventually gave up, essentially saying "Screw you".]


    OK, I'm kinda done ranting. I hope some UWO profs are reading this (go ahead and email me! :-)
  • Agreed. Computers aren't easy to use. What I like about Linux is that it doesn't try to sugar coat things. That's one of the reasons I want to use it.

    Unfortunately, the computer does have to be exceedingly simple and functional in order for it to be useful in a classroom setting. There is nothing more distracting than having the tools you are using to give a lecture die on you halfway through. It completely interrupts the flow.

    The last time I tried StarOffice, it was a beast of a program to start up. Perhaps it's different now (but based on the response to my post, I'll give it another shot. Thanks everybody! :), but one requirement is that a prof can come in, turn on the computer and have a PowerPoint presentation going in under 2 minutes. This can be done on the lowest grade computers we have (P166's) as of right now.

    Also, I would have to do something about mounting a floppy, unless StarOffice does that for me too.

    I guess the hardest fact I have to deal with is that I must assume that anyone using the facilities my department provides does not know anything about computers and are not willing to learn (a hard fact that demonstrates itself over and over again - the number of times I've heard disappointment in the voice of those who I have told "In order for that to work, you have to..." is disappointing, to say the least).

    However, I'm grateful for the advice given so far. A hearty "Thank you" to all.
  • That's funny, but I took the MIA (Music Industry Arts) program for record production at Fanshawe College before coming here to UWO for CompSci, but that's exactly what I though (except we used Macs. They didn't crash so much, but still weren't great).

    Once I'm done school, I aim to start work on professional quality audio programs for Linux - possibly even during school, assuming I have the time.

    I would very much like to chat with you about this. No email address is given and your homepage link doesn't seem to work. Can you contact me, please? Thanks. gzw@home.com [mailto]
  • I did not know that about #1. Thank you.

    As for point 2, you're already being far too technical for those who prepare presentations. You're going to have to believe me on this one. People can't even use the web to transfer their presentations to the classroom machines - they still insist on using floppies (ARGH! I say. ARGH!)
  • Okay, okay, the media lies. . .big surprise.


    "According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as
    complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."


    And you disagreed (. . .). First, cut through media lies and remove the "enthusiasts", as that is plain media BS. Point is, Corel is going to be a distribution with their own focus. Lil' secret here: I don't think they are courting the hardcore Debian guys or Slackers. I bet if you looked at the number of people dual booting there would be a big difference by distribution. Corel is going after that crowd. . .the ones now using RH and Mandrake. (All the distributions I have mentioned appear pretty cool to me, I am not trying to start a dist war, just pointing out different types of users use different distros. . .omigosh)


    but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to /use/ for any significant amount of time

    The point here isn't the present. . .it isn't the future. I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). . .the thing most people use computers for.


    "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.


    Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple.


    in summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability


    Again. . .think future. The impression is what Linux could excel at, even Dominate the World with. Sure, the happy hackers will still be using vi et. al. on Linux for the foreseeable future, but this is about what Joe Computeranxiety wants. Remember, setting your VCR's clock is too complex for the majority of the population. . .Keep It Simple Stupid!

  • IBM have released Object REXX for Linux.

    Just go to www.ibm.com and search for it.

    It's a free download.

    I've tried it. It works. It's REXX. Happy happy joy joy.

    --
  • No, it isn't.

    It's released under the Artistic Licence.

    http://www.perl.com/pub/language/misc/Artistic.h tml

    The Artistic License is considerably less complex than the GPL, and less restrictive too. You may or may not consider this a Good Thing.
    --
  • > What I'd really like to find is a way to run my > employer's software token in a *Nix environment > so that I don't have to use Windows to dial up

    (a) ask the vendor about a Linux port - you never know what you might find out. My Security Dynamics salesdweeb just sent me a Linux executable that's either their client or server code - haven't had time to untar it and look at it yet. But asking for "Whatever you've got that runs on Linux" seems to have paid off with a few hundred K of gzipped tarball.

    > to the office. Regrettably, they use a hardware > firewall device whose software clients only come
    > in one flavor. Short of buying another computer
    > and using my windows box for a proxy server, I
    > have no way of connecting a more pleasant OS to
    > the network where I work

    Run NT or 98 in a VMWare window - if all you're using is a software challenge/response (Soft token) program, the VM shouldn't need to connect.

    VMWare is $99 for home use, which is cheaper than a new machine. You can also run multiple VMs, so it's good for upgrade testing, testing across versions, etc.

    If it has to connect, and you get to do PPP negotiation first, then just IP Masq the VM.

    Paul
  • If it's under GPL, it certainly CAN be sold! Since Windows does not have a C compiler bundled with it, MS can sell the binaries along with the rest of Windows; the source code must go with it, but it won't do anybody any good unless they buy a C compiler (or install DJGPP). How man MS users would do that?
  • Well, remember who ZD's reader base is - primarily power users (of PCs) and people who manage departmental servers, etc.

    A summary of the article might be:

    Our reader base has been using NT and NetWare for years, and Unix has always been only for the guys in the datacenter.
    Vendors such as SCO and Novell have tried marketing Unix to our reader base but it hasn't worked, so we have never been interested before in writing about Unix.
    Now there's Linux which is actually economic and runs on our reader base's hardware. Some of them find it useful and it's appearing more and more on the departmental level, so we are going to write more stories about Linux and Unix.
    Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to promote NT to the datacenter guys. To help with this they've bought a Unix layer for NT.
    Conculusion: None

    All in all a typical ZD article.
  • Now, a historic observation, for what it may be worth: all UNIX emulation layers in the past have bit the dust. Only real kernels have survived.

    My understanding of Interix is that it is not really an emulation layer (UNIX to Win32), but talks directly to the NT kernel (real enough?) independantly of the other subsystems. I have no idea how it would help you port to Win32 other than the convience of being able to run the POSIX app right there.

    My guess is that they are aiming Interix at the higher-end "datacenter" version of 2000. This would allow shops with one or two older Unix network apps to running them on an NT box that's presumably capable of running other applications at the same time. (Of course, NT right now is pretty much 1+ box per application, so the product would need to get much better for this to be feasible.)

  • ? The documentation makes it clear that it's POSIX.1 only.
  • > "computers are easy to use!"

    OT, I know, but anyway...

    Just this friday, I was helping an anthropology grad student (where I'm the comp tech) use the scanner, the subject came up that I use Linux most of the time, for it's stability.

    It had apparently only been recently, in her use of computers, that she had noticed that all of the crashing of Windows was (usually) not her fault! Apparently, for YEARS, every time her computer would crash, she would be guilt ridden that she had done something wrong! Now, I guess I can understand this, as she studies Anthropology, and doesn't really use computers that much, but still. Has Microsoft/Apple/etc really convinced everybody that everything should work perfectly, and always take no more than 3 mouse clicks to do anything?

    Anyway, it would be nice to have that world. And maybe Linux/BSD/whatever can achieve that dream, as they have a good foundation to start with, but for now, the common opinion that computers are like toasters, and should always work that easily, needs to change!

  • I will consider it in two roles, as a desktop and as a departmental application server for other Windows NT desktops. I will never put it out for anything else at this time. The article mentions other uses, such as email and communication infrastructure, but that can be easily filled with other offerings.

    Because you should never say never, I reserve to spend the time (once every two years or so) re-evaluating NT just in case it decides to grow up. Next major evaluation is sometime in 2001, after the first Win2K service pack has come out.

    And "conventionally obvious" varies from site to site. In my world, it's Unix/Solaris.
  • wasnt making arguments as to the merit of a.d. versus nds; was just pointing out that microsoft itself admits ad isn't good enough and went out and bought something that may be.
  • microsoft just bought a meta-directory company; they will be using the technology to provide what active directory cannot.
  • Disclaimer: I'm a Linux Usre, but I hate FUD either way, so...

    Microsoft released something called WSH (windows scripting host) a year or two ago, and you can basically write a script that does well, anything a Unix script does, there is also a scripting language called Kix, which my school uses, (its a high school, and, no, they won't listen about Linux) and then, there is the good ole *.bat file.

    Meanwhile, where can a bloke like me, got to learn how to write scripts for linux?
  • Then use PP 97, which doesn't have this "Feature".

    :-)


    "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
  • I have had to fight tooth and nail just to setup a Linux partition where I work. They would actually see me run Windows 2000 Professional RC-1 (We're a Microsoft Certified Solutions Partner) than a stable OS like Linux. Even setting up WINE and makeing Word 2000 run didn't phaze / convince them. Sigh. Still, it impressed a few of the other techs. :-)
    "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
  • Well, mind you I spent NO TIME AT ALL tuning this: I just installed Slackware (because I think it is the most difficult to setup, and wanted to show them it's better even worst case), configured X, added and configured WINE, and ran Word 2000. It came up. I didn't even TRY to make it do anything, I just wanted to prove it would launch! HOWEVER: I did get the Rc5 client (the GUI) from distributed.net [distributed.net] to run in this exact same setup for an entire weekend, and it didn't crash! This got the attention of the other techs. :-)
    "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
  • Forgive my ignorance, but didn't they support REXX at one point? Doesn't that qualify as a scripting language? When I ran OS/2, it was VERY powerful.
    "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
  • Actually I've found the exact opposite to be true. At the university I work at, most of the professors are running linux on their machines. Some professors don't even know how to reboot into win9x even though they have it on their machine too. Linux is all they need for the most part. The cost savings from using "free" software leaves us with more left over in the budget for faster hardware in the labs.

  • If you go to the MS web site, you can download WSH all by its lonesome. Which I've done. The first thing I do at any computer I have to use for a long period of time is to uninstall IE so I can reclaime mucho disk space to make room for items I consider a necessity, like WSH and ActivePerl, gvim, NTEmacs.

    What I'd really like to find is a way to run my employer's software token in a *Nix environment so that I don't have to use Windows to dial up to the office. Regrettably, they use a hardware firewall device whose software clients only come in one flavor. Short of buying another computer and using my windows box for a proxy server, I have no way of connecting a more pleasant OS to the network where I work.

  • I should probably mention the studio computers run NT Workstation. I don't know if that would make a hell of a lot of difference, but there you have it. Since these systems don't normally have ZIP drives plugged in, I don't believe you could install the drivers for ZIPs without NT looking for the drive and whining on every reboot. The option just isn't there. I wonder if NT just isn't that great for multimedia work; I hear similar complaints about crashes in the video editing suites running Video Action RT, and from the cable company back home using Adobe Premiere and Inscriber under NT. Keep in mind, some (if not most) of these systems were purchased with the software preinstalled, for piles of money. Are these companies just not doing proper system testing before sending them out?

    Linux, BSD, and the variants may be more of a bear to set up, but they certainly don't go down in flames as often. From everything I can tell, NT just can't handle multimedia work. Is it the programs themselves? NT? The hardware? All I know is, random, fatal crashes should not be an issue, especially considering the limited time these students have to do their productions.
  • OT. Whee.

    Unfortunately, the computer does have to be exceedingly simple and functional in order for it to be useful in a classroom setting. There is nothing more distracting than having the tools you are using to give a lecture die on you halfway through. It completely interrupts the flow.

    Thoughts of Bill "Just plug this scanner in and - HAHAHAHAHA" Gates come to mind:)...

  • I thought the problem with all the Windows scripting was that you couldn't write to files. Was that fixed? Also, do any of those Windows scripting languages provide more than OS-level scripting?

    For example, with AppleScript, you can tell an email client grab an attachment from email, send it to Word (hiss!), convert it into HTML, send it to Adobe GoLive, format it, then use an FTP client to put it on the web. Then send an email to the original sender to let them know their doc is on the web -- all in on simple script. Pretty cool.

    The example Phil Schiller (Apple VP) always uses at press events in something on the order of launching a script that grabs images from a Quark document, exports them to the web site, and catalogs them in a database. Although last time, it was all done over TCP/IP (new to Mac OS 9).

    I'm not sure how powerful Windows Scripting Host is but "LARGE amount of control" doesn't quite quantify it enough for me. Can it do the type of stuff described above?

    - Scott
    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • I don't remember Apple ever supporting REXX, though maybe NeXT did?

    - Scott
    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • I think Interix as it stands serves Microsoft's purposes well. It provides a convenient stepping stone to get an app from Unix to windows. Used as a glorified porting tool I'd say it will convince may Unix developers to make the move to NT land.

    All Interix has to do is provide enough of the Unix/POSIX API to get the "legacy" apps up and running. Then the wealth of Microsoft propaganda will begin convincing the developers to start developing to the new extended and expanded Win32 API with its COM+, Transation Server, IO Completion ports, etc.etc.

    Before long the developer will be stuck with a fully Win32 (and therefore fully non-portable) app and the Microsoft evangelists can give each other high fives.

    In short I can see this acquisition being Microsoft's way for just developing Interix further along its current path. MS has no reason to maim or kill the project. Neither does Interix pose any threat to developers except those who are presently unconvinced to stay with Unix or jump to NT.

    Oxryly
  • the news is that a ms-centric orginization like zdnet is actually noticing linux, and while this has happened in the pat it is getting more common.
  • I agree totally!! And with #119 [slashdot.org]. I hear these people whine all the time about how unstable NT is and how you cant use it for 1 day with out it giving a BSOD.... What a load! I run NT as long as I want until I decide to turn the machine off for a needed reboot to update device drivers (you gotta do the same to recompile the linux kernel) or if I want the noise level down. Once I do get BSOD problems it is because I am reconfiguring a piece of hardware and need to set it up. Once it's setup right - no more BSODs. I too used a low class P133 NT server running heavy IIS development and filesharing, and SQL server 6.5, and it ran for over 30 days in a row till the scheduled monthly maintenance had it taken down.

    I think the people who have it crash all the time must be using like Packard Bell motherboards with integrated Aztech sound cards and Winmodems or something!! Because folks, I'm as competent as #119 (see top of this post) and we both certainly dont see all these BSODs you are talking about. So thank you, please drive through and come back again! (when you have some real facts to state, instead of a bunch of linux-biased FUD).
  • Amusing that Microsoft had to go outside to buy Posix compatibility for NT.
    I guess they're finally admitting their own Posix subsystem was designed solely as a featurelist checkbox item, and was not intended to actually be used.
    Heck, it didn't even support sockets!
    I think it was more like a Posix Ghetto- they made sure programs using it couldn't communicate with the outside world.
  • Powerpoint and Word both convert Well.
    Excell spreadsheets loose all their graphic objects though (this is NOT good when your entire network map was done in this :+)
    --
  • Here here...

    I think that microsoft is stepping on its own toes by removing the unlimited-user/connections part of its license in exchange for the two tier, server/workstation approach.. ANd then raising the prices on both!

    I use a fair amount of NT where I work, and I must admit that it isn't too bad, but trying to get anything unixy to compile can be a nightmare.

    Simple things like a lack of "drand48()", and the fact that the winsock API is slightly different than "standard" BSD sockets. (And they ARE standard!)

    Microsoft makes me scratch my head in puzzlement oftentimes.. They have a big enough market advantage that they could "win" almost as much as they do now, without playing the big bad FUD game.

    Most of my lab has been moving to NT since many of our machines have been donated by MIcrosoft...


    Personally, I strongly dislike the change, because I hate having everything buried under layers of menus and checkboxes. GImme a textfile and a man page over that GUI crud anyday!

    (I remember looking for the one checkbox that was fouling up my options in MVC++ for days!)

    Don't get me wrong, GUI is nice most of the time.. but its not very easy to search.. especially if you're not sure what you are looking for.


    Back to the topic at hand:
    Bjorn said:
    Admittedly, this is a big step beyond "Linux is crud and Unix is dead." Still, maybe the time has come to set the standards for Linux news higher.

    OH yeah.
  • You could always install ActivePerl, or install Windows Scripting Host (into which you can plugin languages, they need to be written to do so however), which by default gives you JScript or VBSCript. Either one offers a LARGE amount of control over the OS.

    yeah, you and everybody's uncle. I recently read about a hole that allows a remote web site to write files on your system via WSH and using a common activeX control. I don't recall the url, but there was a very convincing demo i checked out that wrote a shortcut file into my startup folder, and all i did was view the page. next time i booted, notepad opened with the source code of the exploit loaded. point taken. it could have done anything. i have had the WSH and all ActiveX controls disabled since.

    PS: IE5 is annoying as HELL if you disable ActiveX. You can disable Java, the non-M$ technology, and it will silently layout any page without complaint or warning. But just try surfing around with ActiveX disabled. Warning dialogs out the wazoo:

    "You have disabled ActiveX!
    This page may not display correctly!
    Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh My!"
    [ OK ][ Cancel ]

    Fucking M$ schmucks... [meepzorp.com]

    ======
    "Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

  • (score: -2, flamebait, illegal) Not to burst your bubble, but are the other systems there so unstable that getting a box to run a simple rc5 client for a weekend would impress people? I'm running the rc5 client on a win95 box at work, and it usually can go a weekend without crashing. My Sun ultra 1, on the other hand, has only crashed twice in almost 1 year: once, filesystem full, the other time, a cpu fan failed causing an overheat condition, so it shut itelf down before the cpu overheated (let's see a windows box do that!) Why not keep linux running until the next millenium without crashing? They won't be able to argue with demonstrated reliability like that!
  • Go to control panel, system, find the hardware profiles section. copy existing profile, name new copy NOZIP. Reboot with zip attached, and at the prompt use the existing profile. Install zip drivers, and rename profile to ZIP. See how that works.

    I don't quite see how this is an NT problem. Unless a *Nix variant was configured such that anyone could mount drives, etc, it is unlikely that OSS would be a panacea on the hardware and OS side, not considering the lack of *Nix audio apps.

    matt
  • US Govt requires a certain level of POSIX compatibility for OS purchasing decisions. They are the only ones I have ever heard complain about it, thus the level of support for it in NT is not surprising.

    matt
  • I am not sure what you all are saying. Why just yesterday I heard from a "big-wig" who works at some consulting firm in Boston that NT had in fact beaten the crap out of linux. "Why Linux got cracked at PCsomething.... NT din't".


    ^^^^ Hmm sad thing is that this is the kind of person who will be controlling where the money gets spent, and even worse will be the type i have to interview with in less than a year! Arrggh.

    The reasoning at the top level of management is still what we get taught at college! The good old phrase every Economics/Business major has heard a lot " There is nothing like a free lunch "

    This is where articles like this come about, i have never heard of any business person check out a proper article on OS's. They like to read things on CNN, and ZDnet UNIX'S ARE NOT DEAD TILL THE MEDIA SAYS SO!


  • Given the insecurities of MS operating systems, aren't you concerned that you are going to end up with people playing with your lights, and the rest of your house that you have wired up to your computer?

    Just a word of advice, don't computerize your door locks.

    TML
  • What, the POSIX subsystem doesn't work correctly? Perish the thought! My MCSE books never mentioned any difficulties, ergo there are none.

    Bopping through the brainwashed madness
    TML

  • WSH was first distributed in IE4 and is now an optional part of Win98. Theoretically, it allows you to use any scripting language and comes with JScript (MS' version of Javascript) and VBscript built in. There's a version of Perl and I believe, REXX available for WSH.

    Microsoft has never bothered to publicize WSH's existence. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it was because WSH is a lot more complex than what the typical Windows user can handle -- what with the typical Windows user being a danger to him/herself and others when given powerful tools to work with.
  • Look, I come from being a mac graphics guy. Got into programming about 2 years ago. I have been using NT 4 for all that time, constantly installing, uninstalling development software. I saw my FIRST CRASH last week. I was kinda like, "cool, I've seen a BSOD" (incidentally, I was trying to run a COM object sample that I think had some MAJOR problems.

    I don't know about our two main servers (NT), 'cause I don't admin 'em, but our development server (a poor old 100mhz Pentium, that runs our SQL server just fine for the two developers we have hitting it with sample code) has been up for... four months. I can't recall our main ServerOne EVER crashing....

    Sorry, I just haven't seen these crashes. I realize this is emperical, but while I realize NT has problems, I don't think stability is one of them. Maybe poor admins. Now you want these same guys to admin linux boxes, and I see /.'ers talking about lame admins here all the time?
  • MacOS X also has a built in scripting language:

    AppleScript.

    AFAIK, WinNT doesn't have a scripting language on the scope or scale of either this or the scripting system in Unix/Linux.
  • But neither of these are *provided* by the OS, therefore scripting is optional.
  • ..don't pay too much heed to talking heads in the media, consultants get much of their business by sticking their necks out and saying whatever will get them press in the rags...

    ..upper mgt, ie: those who make the 7 figure decisions, honestly wants to know what works given their entire enterprise, when NT (or even Linux or unix ) gets placed where it shouldn't, the fault rests on the sys admins, project mgrs, and app developers who have failed to make their voices heard above the din of the consultants. (who get paid by the hour, so it is usually within their best interests to drag out a project)
    The mgrs usually consult larger think tanks for this, like Gartner group , and other peers for lessons-learned, PCsomething probably has as good credence as Penthouse in large decisions...

    ...the arg of NT or Linux or Unix...each has its place...in many apps I prefer NT just becuase more people can admin/develop on that OS, freeing yours truly to do other, more interesting things,
    whereas it other apps, its pure Unix...

    So, be ready to use whatever OS, where it works,
    and rejoice that most "big-gun" systems still run on Unix.

  • What do you mean you couldn't write to files?
    Windows Scripting Host is based on COM - and unlike applescript is extendable. eg. VBScript and JScript are just two languages - other people like activestate have written activescripting plugins (like perlscript).
    Because WSH is based on com, all scripting languages are required to support creation of COM objects (which they all do - vb, java & perl script). You can do _ANYTHING_ in WSH, basic objects for manipulating the desktop, reading and writing files (duh, that's in the Scripting.* COM DLL)....anything else you need to do just write a COM object in VC++, VB, Perl etc to do it then call it from your windows script.
    for example, i've written a COM object to turn the lights in my room on and off - i just have two scripts i need to run if i quickly want to turn the lights on and off from the desktop.
  • But that wouldn't be fun would it? Plus i'd have to *move* from the computer to the light switch :).
    Having it computerised is good - i'm using SAPI (speech api) from Microsoft so i can have star trek like voice control over the lights.
    Security isn't much of a problem because I'm going thru a linux box which acts as an effective firewall.
  • Although I believe that power point and other so called "productivity apps" are useful. I don't think without a doubt that the biggest need for linux to exceed in more than just a technical market is ease of use and administration. I've worked NT/95/3.1 lans and the majority of users are NOT technically savvy at all. I mean, jeez, we have to teach them pull down menus, etc. Macs are easy, just point and click and no shell. Linux must be able to improve how much the general population can use it.


    -- Moondog

  • ...Corel thinks Linux's future is in the sub $500 computer...no evidence is given for the price cutoff.

    It's economics: if you're pricing a computer at $500 then suddenly the software cost is a large chuck of the total price. Using a free OS is probably going to double your profit margins.

  • MS Unix compatiblity is a JOKE. I don't run Linux because of the applications I can use. Neither do big business's. Linux/UNIX is chosen over Microsoft because of Stability and Security, something NT doesn't have.
    They had better watch out too, if alot of people realise that they can get alot of work done with UNIX products, then next time they get the blue screen of death they might not be so hesitant to blast that Windows partition in favor of Linux or *BSD

  • Might blow up in their face (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If they are adding true Unix/Linux compatibility to their OS, it will be far easier for all the open source projects out there to port to "Interix" instead of the Win32 API, thereby further devaluing the Win32 API. Result: a flood of applications for Interix/Linux; Win32 API dies out.

    I look forward to the first Debian GNU/Interix release. ;-)
  • I can't help but think this type of publicity contributes to the flash-in-the-pan image that Linux seems to be constantly fighting against. I mean, where was the news here? Corel is planning a Linux distro, a la Windows-and-Office. Whee. Nobody's buying NT. Whee. Microsoft is going to ship an X server. Whee.

    It's as if ZDNet has a Linux-article quota to fill; and so we see yet another content-free Linux Is Good (TM) hype text. If we aren't prepared to buy the Microsoft hype, why should anyone be expected to be swayed by this stuff?

    Admittedly, this is a big step beyond "Linux is crud and Unix is dead." Still, maybe the time has come to set the standards for Linux news higher.

  • Prediction:

    Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.

    To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)

    What Microsoft bought has no ability to run binaries for any UNIX-flavored OS; see the "Can I run any of my UNIX applications with INTERIX?" item in the INTERIX FAQ [interix.com], which says:

    INTERIX doesn't allow you to take UNIX binaries (Linux/BSD/SCO/AIX etc.) and run that binary on a Windows NT system. The INTERIX Software Development Kit is a source level tool that allows you to take existing open systems source code and recompile the source code into a native NT binary with little or no effort.
  • My understanding of Interix is that it is not really an emulation layer (UNIX to Win32), but talks directly to the NT kernel (real enough?) independantly of the other subsystems.

    Yup. See this white paper from Softway [interix.com], and the diagram therein.

    This would allow shops with one or two older Unix network apps to running them on an NT box that's presumably capable of running other applications at the same time.

    Yup. The press release on the acquisition [interix.com] says

    "Our acquisition of Softway?s assets is a demonstration of our commitment to provide interoperability for applications and other solutions between UNIX and Windows," said Keith White, Director of Marketing, Business and Enterprise Division at Microsoft. "While we recommend that customers migrate their software solutions to native 32-bit Windows, today's announcement allows certain customers to move rapidly to a Windows NT-based solution during that transition process."

    so your comment

    I have no idea how it would help you port to Win32 other than the convience of being able to run the POSIX app right there.

    seems to sum up Microsoft's thinking - you don't have to port all your apps immediately, you can dump your UNIX boxes and still run your UNIX apps, and then convert them to Win32 over time.

  • Don't forget Bristol's recent Lawsuit against MS:

    http://www.bristol.com/legal/summary_of_proof_re vised.html

    Some years ago, when Microsoft wanted to convince Unix programmers to switch to Windows, they contracted with Bristol to provide a Windows API layer on Unix. In theory, by using this API layer, applications could be developed on less expensive Windows systems, with full confidence that they would run on Unix. Also, use of the API would allow developers to make the choice (*ahem*) to move their apps to Windows later on (when NT inevitably took over). In order to gain developer acceptance, Microsoft made public promises about their ongoing support:

    "Microsoft is committed to providing WISE licensees with future versions of Windows family source code, thereby continuing to maximize application compatibility and performance for today's and tomorrow's applications. Customers can be confident that their investments today will continue to realize benefits well into the future."

    Of course, it wasn't a real commitment:

    "I have heard it said that we want to allow our top 50 ISVs to be able to innovate on Windows as their primary platform, and port back onto their Unix platforms, *** but we don't want it to work too well ***." (emphasis added)

    When Microsoft went back on their promise to supply the source code, Bristol took them to court. Unfortunately for Bristol, Microsoft hadn't made the same promises in their contract as they had to the public, so Bristol lost their case.

    Although the case was lost, it brings into question Microsoft's real intentions behind their current Unix interoperability efforts. Does anyone want to argue that this time Microsoft really, really means it? Do you think desparation will make honest men of them? I'll believe it when I see it.
  • Um. Wouldn't a light switch be easier?
  • StarOffice does a pretty good job with most PowerPoint presentations. The conversion is pretty darn slow, but once you've gotten over that, it does a great job with most simple PPT presentations. I've never tried it with anything more complex than graphics simple slide animations and transitions, and the like. But it does all I need and then some for presentations, and I've been able to run EVERY sales presentation and marketing presentation put together by the MS-using bean counters and yuppies at my place.
  • You left out an important part of the pitch:

    Runs Mac programs, like Photoshop and Office

    Mac OS X Server, and eventually, Mac OS X, could do a lot for Apple, a lot for Linux, and really really hurt Microsoft. You want to run Linux non-gui stuff? No problem. You want to run what is widely considered the best gui as well? Go nuts.

    In comparison, NT isn't as gui as the Mac, and isn't as non-gui as Linux. What's NT good for, anyway?

    Mike
  • (score: -2, illegal)

    I just don't get it. Why do you need their permission to install Linux if you have free disk space, and why would you work for a company that disrespects you to the point that they won't let you decide for yourself what tools you need to get your job done? Maybe I'm just spoiled, working for a reasonably progressive silicon valley company that I can't mention here by name (Netscape), but it seems to me that the general shortage of skilled high-tech workers these days means that you don't have to put up with that kind of crap, and you'll probably do better elsewhere if that's the kind of place you work for.
  • I think that they are responding to a different threat. Apple is shipping Mac OS X that is based on the Mach kernel and BSD 4.4 and does not have any client access license limitations, i.e. unlimited users for free. Now if you have ever priced out a Windows NT solution you know that the server is peanuts, the CAL costs are serious dough.

    This is scary stuff for Microsoft since Apple is likely to make serious inroads with the pitch of:

    Solid, dependable technology,
    1 user interface,
    Much less expensive than NT,
    Open source (darwin http://www.apple.com/darwin),
    Controlled development that doesn't allow for fragmentation.

    From an IT perspective, it's attractive. It also gives Unix advocates one more variant that might get the suits of their NT everywhere jihad.

    TML

  • Mmm. Intelligent discourse. A nice change from the usual responses I've gotten (not all of them, but enough for me to have altered my threshold ;).

    "Lil' secret here: I don't think they are courting the hardcore Debian guys or Slackers. I bet if you looked at the number of people dual booting there would be a big difference by distribution. Corel is going after that crowd. . .the ones now using RH and Mandrake."

    I concur wholeheartedly. I was simply responding to the article itself, not any intelligent thoughts that may have lain between the lines. ;) I think that would be the most insightful course of action they could possibly take. Something they might be able to succeed at as well..

    "I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). . .the thing most people use computers for."

    Possibly.. I'm a little skeptical. Even Joe Public likes all the bells and whistles every once in a while.. Not that I'm saying there wouldn't be a market for such a thing, just that I don't think it's likely to consume the market, either.

    "Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple."

    I tip my hat off to you. Hopefully someone who came here looking for ideas in this arena is taking some notes.. ;)

    "Again. . .think future. The impression is what Linux could excel at, even Dominate the World with. Sure, the happy hackers will still be using vi et. al. on Linux for the foreseeable future, but this is about what Joe Computeranxiety wants. Remember, setting your VCR's clock is too complex for the majority of the population. . .Keep It Simple Stupid!"

    I don't think that there's too much that it /couldn't/ excel at within the next few years. Once it gets all the way to the point where Joe Whatthehellisthisshellthingie can point and click his way through Linux and the hacker-types can still get at the computer (i.e., no MacOS-style crap ;), I'll be a little happier. However, I'll grant that Joe Public probably doesn't care about nor necessarily need powerful, advanced editors, compilers, etc. :)

  • You need to change your approach (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 26, 1999 @02:52AM (#1659345)
    You're discussing implementations and task-specific tools with your boss. This is always a waste of time and is certain to take the joy out of any job.

    When my boss started in on how office B down the street did a wonderful job using WinNT for their email and saved money by centralizing print services and having to buy only 1 laser, 1 inkjet, and 1 dotmatrix, I knew what to do (Pay close attention, bunkie).

    I refocused the conversation to goals. See paragraph one for reasons. I said I can get everybody for this many hours of my time and this many $ of your budget. Did the same thing with print services and internet browsing access. Added this to my performance review, 1 side of 1 sheet of paper. Notice no mention of any specific software.

    Then I went to cheapbytes for a $2 CD, installed it on a box, changed the networking proto on the WinClients to TCP/IP, and the rest, as they say is sweet history.

    It took him about a year to figure out that I wasn't using WinNT. I was ready, he's so easy to anticipate. I just pulled out a current price list of NT Server, Exchange Server, the boxen to run it on, the training and education fees, and all the other rubbish, along with a comparison of what I actually spent.

    He ran down to the bathroom to clean out his shorts and hasn't said anything since. And I have my weekends.

    Just do it.

  • Interoperability, my ass! (Score:3)

    by Kaz Kylheku ( 1484 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @07:32PM (#1659346) Homepage
    Interix (previously OpenNT) is a way for developers to ignore proprietary Windows interfaces and continue developing UNIX and POSIX software. They are not fully in the Windows trap because they can easily get out.

    Microsoft wants all development to take place using its proprietary interfaces. It's obvious that they bought Interix because they want control. They probably want to exert pressure on Interix users to migrate to real Windoze.

    I also predict that Microsoft will maim or kill the project. Whatever the outcome, they have no real incentive to provide a *quality* UNIX layer on NT. They want to be able to tell the customer---look, if you wanna write a real Windoze application that performs and scales, be sensible and use the real thing! Install Visual C++ and start calling Win32!

    Now, a historic observation, for what it may be worth: all UNIX emulation layers in the past have bit the dust. Only real kernels have survived. The appearance of an emulation layer has also historically sounded the death knell of the host platform---recall VMS, Apollo Domain/OS, various mainframe platforms...

  • And ZD's point is? (Score:3)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Sunday September 26, 1999 @04:22AM (#1659347) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it's just too early on Sunday morning for me to understand, but I realy didn't see much analysis in that article. I can sum it up as:

    Unix: a 25 year-old overnight sensation.

    More and more people like Linux because it's cheap and doesn't crash as much as Windows.
    Microsoft is a little bit nervous, but they're nervous about everything. That's why they're so rich.
    So Microsoft bought a better Unix compatibility layer than their old one.
    There's not that many applications for Linux, but more are coming RSN.

    Did I miss anything? That said the same thing as the article, but in four sentences and a title. Whee. Even ZD has done better analysis than that.

    Oh and by the way - to the fellow who could run Linux if only his PowerPoint shows would work - I've tried mine with StarOffice 5.1, and they work fine. There's not quite as many transition effects, that's all I could spot easily.

    -Josh (maybe I won't be as grumpy after I've had some coffee: Must Get Coffee...)

    - -Josh Turiel

  • How to make *nix more popular in education (Score:3)

    by Nagash ( 6945 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @07:04PM (#1659348)
    I'm talking classroom computers here - not network servers run by information departments (for the record).

    At UWO (University of Western Ontario), I administer the computers for use in classrooms. These are computers professors will bring in material and do their presentations on. [aside - we have one class, called "SuperPsych" which has over 1000 students in it every year and we use all sorts of media to present class material - videos, movies, slide shows, etc.]

    To cut a long story short, the primary program, without a doubt, is PowerPoint. This is the only reason I can't convince my boss to move to using Linux on the machines. He's sympathetic to Linux, but they *need* to run PowerPoint Presentations without a problem. (not that Windows does that, but hey - whaddya gonna do? :-) WINE is not something we are looking into. If Windows was on the machine, people would complain Linux was on there. No, really. People are very whiny about things. I have a few stories...

    To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate (CompSci profs ask where the mouse plugs in - regardless of the label that says "Mouse"). I can set it up to boot seamlessly, easy to login to, look pretty, find programs quickly and run Emacs (for the CompSci people). The only thing it can't do is run a PowerPoint presentation.

    I've got 20+ machines that I have to administer. Can't do it remotely with Windows without it being a big pain in the ass. That really sucks, because more machines are coming and the campus is big == lots of running around. Linux would be a dream to run.

    Please get PowerPoint to work on it. Better yet, make a program that can do what PowerPoint does only better and can convert PowerPoint to it's format *extremely* easily. I have time to do such a thing after I graduate (approx. two years).

  • why they are moving to Linux (Score:3)

    by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Sunday September 26, 1999 @04:10AM (#1659349) Journal

    I think the article missed the point of why people are moving from Microsoft and UNIX to Linux. I think it has more to do with cost and performance.

    Linux costs a lot less than any commercial version of UNIX and NT.

    Linux offeres many of the same features that most commericial version of UNIX have: sed/awk/perl/NFS and has many of the same commands as a commercial UNIX chmod, ls, etc, as it was designed originally to be a UNIX like system to run on Intel. Linux however costs less. Alot less. If you went out and bought a Solaris for Intel cdrom, for a commercial server you'd have to pay the commercial price which last I heard was around $500 (??). Yes it would give you a system that would be very stable, but it would also be very expensive. Solaris also does not support all the 'Intel' hardware that Linux does.

    As far as NT goes, if you needed to get NT Workstation the cost is around $300 a copy. again Linux cost less at $50 a copy (or free).

    Each system is about equal in performace. Some are beter in some areas and some in others. One can argue that one system is more stable than another and some can argue about uptimes, and crashes, but the fact is that the more you pay the less you get. A ~$34 dollar SuSE distribution gives you the distro and all the Office tools too, where as Solaris, and NT these office tools are Extra.

    You decide for your self, don't let the FUD get you, just make an intelligent decision.

  • hmmmmm... (Score:3)

    by J. Tang ( 16252 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @06:13PM (#1659350)
    Beilinson also promises that you'll eventually be able to manage your Windows and Unix directories from one terminal, a significant improvement for hard-pressed network administrators.

    That's funny, I've been able to manage all of my files from one terminal. I guess I just take that for granted.

    All right, rant time: If they're trying to make things easier for "hard-pressed" admins, then why does Microsoft insist on using a GUI? Why aren't there any scripting languages? Don't scripts make things *easier* to manage then repetitive point & clicking? And no, batch files do not count as real scripts.

  • Re:How to make *nix more popular in education (Score:3)

    by Vladinator ( 29743 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @07:14PM (#1659351) Homepage Journal
    Well, two things: #1: WINE (WINE Is Not an Emulator) DOESN'T need an existing copy of Windows - It supports the API for windows NATIVELY on Linux/Unix - so you Don't need both Windows and Unix/Linux on the same Box.

    #2: PowerPoint presentations can be save by powerpoint as HTML with FRAMES - and thus can be run from a Web Browser on ANY system in the world.
    "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain

  • Someone please give a Stunner to M$ (Score:3)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @09:44PM (#1659352) Journal
    Similar issues and gripes here at Ryerson...

    I just started work in the audio library for the Radio-Televison Arts, Image Arts and Film students. The computers used to handle studio/equipment booking and file transfers between studios are both Win95, as is a spare computer in the room. On my first day of work, I had the pleasure of watching one computer BSOD once and white-box crash once (I knew M$ ported over tons of legacy code from Win3.1, but this is ridiculous...). As well, the damn thing locked up during a large file transfer. It's a good thing I remembered the files to be transferred, because the studio computers are regularly wiped clean of files; the student would have been justifiably angry. Complaints about the systems are legion.

    The audio production studios all run NT so the students can use SAW, SAWPlus32, and Cakewalk. Students are warned to save often, because some of these computers die at the slightest sneeze from the user. ZIP drives would be lifesavers for those students who have the equipment and software to do some editing work at home. Not allowed. Why? Windows can't handle the parallel port drives being plugged in and used on the fly - it screws up the entire system.

    A 10-terabyte server was brought online this year for the use of third-year students working on projects. It took three years to get this blasted thing working with Windows NT, otherwise I could have used it last year for my first-year projects.

    I'd love to port the entire system over to Linux, BSD, or something else that could handle the load. MS Scheduler is one of the better pieces of M$ bloatware I've seen, but it's likely there's a Linux program that can do the same thing. File transfers would be a lot less dicey, and the 10-TB dream server would probably have been up 2 years ago if the audio crew hadn't had to fight NT.

    So what's stopping me from bringing the revolution to Ryerson?

    1) Windows-only audio software. I don't know about Cakewalk, but I don't know of any audio editing software comparable to the SAW series for Linux. I'm not sure WINE would be an option, since I don't know how it handles programs looking specifically for certain audio drivers. (I might be able to determine this myself soon.)

    2) Familiarity with Windows. Quite frankly, there are a lot of computer illiterate people on this planet, people who are comfortable with a happy little Start button and colourful icons that look familiar to them. StarOffice would be a great replacement for Word and PowerPoint, but I find it likely the "I-just-want-to-do-work" people would freak out not knowing how to handle Linux, BSD, X, whatever. I've seen some comments dumping on fvwm95, but it might be exactly what newbies need to become comfortable with Linux. It provides a similar interface while still having the power of Linux. GNOME might also be an option soon; its style reminds me a lot of Win95 (don't hurt me, please:)

    There's still the stumbling block of the Windows-only programs though. I don't blame anyone for this lack of software; I don't think Linux was ever considered for uses like this until now. I kinda hope these gaps are closed fast, before I have to console first-years who lose major parts of projects thanks to a BSOD crash.

    Windows isn't just an RTA disease; Windows computers are strewn throughout campus. PowerPoint presentations infest classes. Multimedia lecterns were installed a couple years back; the computers, naturally, run NT and PowerPoint. Once again, people are too bloody familiar with Windows, crashes and all; as well, no one considered Linux/BSD/whatever for these purposes until now, just as M$ tries to achieve a final, lasting hammerlock on the computer world. Perhaps someone with far more programming know-how than me can help make Linux a viable option for editing audio, video, and creating presentations (not just showing them:)

    Fortunately, the central server for Ryerson is AIX...seems to be an old version, but I haven't seen it go down yet. At least the admins have the sense to use a real operating system for mission-critical stuff; I have to wonder if the Windows infestation is one of those decisions made by higher-ups who listened to M$ marketing.

    I eagerly await the day when Ryerson can throw off the shackles of BSODs and lockups once and for all. SAW for Linux, anyone?:)

  • Re:How to make *nix more popular in education (Score:3)

    by CJ Hooknose ( 51258 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @08:18PM (#1659353) Homepage
    To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate

    Including the Comp Sci profs? *shrug* Well, one thing I've noticed is that the "computers are easy to use!" hype has been tested, swallowed, and believed by thousands of people... and many thousands more are reaping that whirlwind. Computers are the most complex devices that humanity has invented, and as such, will have problems when their operators are virtually untrained. Maybe we need a "Computers are difficult and arcane! chmod and vi are your friends!" ad campaign :-)

    Getting back to the PowerPoint thing-- tried StarOffice? It seems to handle .ppt files fairly well, though I haven't checked its "slide show" functions out. PowerPoint is, on the whole, a huge time-waster, as people spend hours and hours making their presentations look pretty, and they forget to include any useful information. Or maybe I'm just bitter.

  • Damned with faint praise (Score:3)

    by jflynn ( 61543 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @08:43PM (#1659354)
    It's very interesting that Corel thinks Linux's future is in the sub $500 computer -- it probably reflects how they intend to divide their own attentions between NT and Linux. They are correct in stating that only Linux will scale downwards well, but no evidence is given for the price cutoff. The article also made it sound like Linux is succeeding because of Corel rather than the reverse, or better, succeeding together.

    The Interix thing is sure interesting. Either Microsoft is worried about users wanting Unix, or about developers using Unix to develop for NT, or of course, both. Sure sign that Linux and the high end Unices are scaring them a bit.

  • Same old song and dance (Score:4)

    by shambler snack ( 17630 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @08:32PM (#1659355) Homepage
    The idea that Unix is "resurgent" is laughable. Unix has always been with us. What has happened is that the big applications have always been on Unix, especially database applications built around Oracle. And when you really wanted solid performance, you run it on a mainframe from IBM/Hitachi/Amdahl. With all due respects to Unix, it has its own faults and limitations.

    But then, all of a sudden, we got Windows NT. We were supposed to have a magical Posix layer when Windows NT 3.1 was first introduced. It was supposed to provide an "easy" migration path from Unix to Windows NT. The same Windows NT version that also provided OS/2 1.x support (and that was dropped when NT 4 was introduced).

    Well, we've been working with Windows NT since 1992, and here we are seven years later and reality has finally begun to sink in. And that reality is Windows NT can't scale, can't run 24/7 for arbitrarily long lengths of time, and can't provide seamless interoperability. It's stuck on the desktop where Microsoft marketing shoved it down vendor's throats.

    Microsoft's attempts over the years to move out into server apps has been checkered at best. The fact that it buys technology such as Interix is a tacit admission its in-house Unix efforts are lame and that companies have learned the hard way not to trust critical distributed systems to Windows NT.

    My advice is this: If you want to run an app or system on a Unix-like OS, then run it on Unix. For low-end, non-critical uses evaluate at Windows NT or FreeBSD 3.x. For more critical apps (such as an ISP environment), pay the bucks and use BSDi or Solaris. For truly critical work (a nation-wide system running SAP, for example), then you're looking at very-high-end Unix servers and /or mainframes.

    I don't know about you, but I won't make the mistake of choosing any OS/hardware platform strictly on politics or emotionalism. I'm going to be damn careful what I choose, because whatever it is, I'll have to live with it for a long time. And sometimes the best choice is the conventionally obvious choice.

  • More media flies..? (Score:4)

    by Kitsune Sushi ( 87987 ) on Sunday September 26, 1999 @03:41AM (#1659356)

    I swear these things are more rabid than mosquitoes in the Texas heat. Ugh.. That shall, let the beatings continue!

    "In the latest round of developments, Microsoft is increasing support for Unix and Windows NT interoperability while Corel is entering the desktop operating system market with its own release of an application-oriented version of Linux."

    Hmm. I just can't wait to run my Unix programs on Window NT! It will cost me more, and I'll lose efficiency as well..? That's sooo cool.

    Anyway.. Application-oriented version of Linux? What is that supposed to mean? The only thing they can really do to it is add in some more applications. It's not like they had to write an OS from scratch. I mean, what else would they come out with? A stripped-down version of Linux?

    "In contrast to a similar 1997 survey that didn't produce conclusive results about Linux usage, 13 percent of those surveyed now say they use Linux."

    Does the media have to force this same quote down my throat with almost every single article? Even Joe Public can repeat these figures ad nauseam by now.

    "Linux is seen as a potential competitor to Unix and Windows NT for some server applications, according to Dan Kusnetzky, program director for IDC's Operating Environments and Serverware research programs."

    Some? NT just flat out sucks.. Anyone who actually /wants/ to use that thing, well, for anything (much less as a /server/) probably has no clue what Unix is (and if they do, doesn't think it has a GUI.. yes, still). And most Unices use archaic code since they are direct descendants of the original Unix. GNU/Linux has already come a long way, and before long (at the rate it gets developed), most Unices won't seem so damn slick anymore (especially with that price tag.. ooh.. ouch).

    "Linux is also making inroads in the desktop market because of the increased availability of Linux applications such as Corel WordPerfect 8, Sun's StarOffice, and a host of new offerings promised for the next year."

    Most of this stuff seems aimed toward Joe Public. Is he really buying GNU/Linux like crazy already? Somehow, I just can't see him having a fun time trying to install it, even if it's Red Hat. Maybe others find interest in this stuff, but I'm not particularly excited. Most of what I need is already /in/ GNU/Linux (if it has a shell, a compiler, and a debugger, and all of which /work/, then it is good), and since not many computer companies make GNU/Linux desktops with modems.. Anyone know if Joe Public is actually getting all excited and putting Linux on his desktop..? Otherwise I can't see that comment making much sense, because most people I know of that have Linux are hackers who could care less about WordPerfect..

    "A lot of our customers are interested in moving to the Windows platform from mixed environments that include the Unix platform. This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine," says Craig Beilinson, lead product manager for Windows 2000."

    Straight from the people who say that Linux /will not run/ on a multi-processor system. You saw it here first.. a liar in action.

    " "Lots of users are moving from Windows and Unix to Linux because it has a very particular value proposition: It fits into some specific areas where users are very task-specific, Web-oriented, and in need of performance stability," says Derik Belair, manager for Corel Linux."

    "Some specific areas"? As in.. Linux is only "good for a few things"? Or perhaps, "Linux is a one- or two-trick pony"? I'd like someone to please tell me what Windows has that Linux doesn't (and that you'd actually /want/).

    "According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."

    I wonder where these people get their figures and estimates from.. Who does their intelligence for them? Do they go around calling people who run Linux and interrogate them? Personally, I'd rather have Windows on an entirely different box, if for no better reason than I'd rather it not corrupt the hard drive that Linux is on. ;)

    "Corel believes the future of Linux as an independent operating system is in the sub-$500 PC market and the increased range of Web-connected appliances that will be available to consumers in the near future."

    Corel.. not as smart as they think. I'm all for cheap computers, but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to /use/ for any significant amount of time. Sure, Linux scales down well.. but do you really want to waste it like that? It could do.. so much more.. Personally I'll be all excited when Debian gains support for all of the planned architectures. An almost unrestricted choice of hardware platform makes me one happy camper.

    " "Forty percent of people in the U.S. are not yet in the PC market. The last thing these people want is more complexity. In the long term, Linux makes technology easier to use," says Belair. Since Linux can be pared down to very simple levels with a great degree of stability, it's a very appealing option for people who just want to switch something on and have it work rather than have to deal with operating system complexity."

    What..? Point and click is complex? I.. guess.. Then again, I think someone here mentioned the other day some ad that said "Clicking is hard work" in a serious manner. ;) Why does Corel seem to think that Linux is the epitome of simplicity? "Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.

    In summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability.. Does this mean that most people would /hate/ to have stability for /everything/, and that Linux is not any good for "general computing purposes"!? I'm pretty sure I can send email, browse the Web, and.. well, what else does the average end-user use their computer for, anyway? ;) I guess they think that Joe Public is more addicted to Wincandy's visual attractiveness than a computer that doesn't crash 4-5 times a day.

    Personally, I'm not so sure. My mom, once a diehard Windows supporter, has had the oppurtunity to actually use her computer since I moved out a while back. Before she used to blame anything that went wrong with it on me, but since she bought a new computer, the reality has hit her pretty hard. Now she can't wait for Linux to hit the desktop, easy to use and fully functional.. and stable! Windows 98, despite it's attractive look, apparently doesn't hold too much appeal for her anymore.

    By the way, since I've never actually used CorelDraw, anyone care to explain to me what you can do with it, and why I would bother with it instead of something like the GIMP? Remember, I've not looked into it in the slightest. :)

  • A better Unix than Unix? (Score:4)

    by mr ( 88570 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @06:08PM (#1659357)
    Remember Windows NT 3.1?

    The promise of NT 3.1 was that Micro$oft would ship a better Unix than Unix. ($250 for unlimited users....it WAS a threat to Unix.)

    The KEY from the article was "This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine,"

    Prediction:

    Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.

    To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)

    And because the Linux Standard Bianry movement won't have its act together, the BSD variant, with Micro$oft 'extensions' will become the de-facto Linux compatiblity, only because of the large Windows sales volume.

    Remember: Ya read it here 1st on /. News for Nerds, stuff that makes ya really scared.

  • Comments about UNIX->Windows middleware (Score:4)

    by gblues ( 90260 ) on Saturday September 25, 1999 @06:14PM (#1659358)

    Oh boy, Microsoft is going to add Interix to their product line. Yippie. Pardon me if I don't start doing backflips and cartwheels.

    I've been down the "run native unix apps in Windows!" road before. The results are not pretty.

    The software in question is Cygnus' cygwin32 environment. Now, for what it does, it's actually kind of neat. You get to use bash, run shell scripts, and use the familiar UNIX development environment. You can even use special commandline options to the compiler to produce pure win32 code (read: no cygwin.dll dependencies).

    The ugly part is when you try to do debugging. Debugging under cygwin is a nightmare. You don't get a corefile--you get a foo.exe.core file (where foo.exe is whatever program crashed). This core file contains a stack dump in raw hex addresses. You don't get any variables, function names, nada. In other words, it's pretty useless.

    Running the program through gdb works, sometimes. Othertimes you get a blank call stack. Or the call stack is mangled beyond recognition.

    Meanwhile, take the exact same code, upload it to a UNIX server, compile it, run it, crash it. A quick examination of the core tells you that you're dereferencing a null pointer, you fix the bug, you're done.

    Microsoft wants to make Interix a migration tool to get UNIX programs ported quickly to Windows. In reality, it's likely to make developers realize why they don't develop for windows in the first place and go back from whence they came.

    Nathan

  • Slowly, slowly ... The following doesn't work everywhere, but it's a good strategy.

    1) Get the camel's nose under the tent. This is the hardest part. Get Linux on your own machine. Either ask, mention it offhand, or just do it with the assurance it's hard to fire a good developer.

    2) Be a light unto nations. One day one of your fellow-Dilberts will scream "Gates-ing Windows machine, it crashed on me again!!!". Then smoothly say "Hmm, my machine doesn't crash on me - would you like to try Linux?". Most programmers will try anything new, especially if it comes credibly endorsed as making their life easier. Now if all goes well you have converts.

    3) Be aware of geeks bearing gifts. There will come a meeting where a manager will say "Should we get a web site?" or "How can we set up a server to do widget-processing". Volunteer. Implement it on your Linux box. Hopefully, the disciples you made in step 2 above will help. This establishes the beachhead before the wrong solution is foisted on you. Note - it may seem unpleasant to take on tasks, but trust me, you'll enjoy implementing the right-Linux-way in the first place a lot more than debugging the wrong-Microsoft-way later.

    At this point, you should be well on your way to having Linux take over the world, or at least your portion of it.

    If all else fails, sacrifice a few penguins

    -Seth Finkelstein

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close