Linux -- The New CP/M?
 by Kenneth Broll, in Editorials - Sat, Oct 28th 2000 23:59 UTC

Kenneth Broll brings an historical perspective to the debate over supporting Windows languages and applications under Linux, and offers a warning drawn from his own experience.

[This is a response to Marc Boorshtein's editorial Why are we bringing VB to Linux?, which can be found on our editorials page.]

Let me tell you a story. Long, long ago, in a development environment so far away that it might as well have been a different galaxy, I was a CP/M & MP/M jock. MS DOS (a crude CP/M subset) didn't exist except in Tim Patterson's mind. XENIX (the forerunner of SCO UNIX) hadn't been ported to a x86 environment yet. What ran on Apple IIs was, well, I should be charitable. By 1980 MP/M was multi-user, multi-tasking in its way and suitable for a business environment. There were at least 30 HW manufacturers that built CP/M machines, and most serious applications were being developed for this platform.

Soon the mainstream computer companies started making bids for this emerging market. DEC made a CP/M machine. So did NCR and I believe HP and Sperry-Rand did also. Badly designed and marketed, they were laughed off the market, and promptly discontinued by their respective companies. By late 1980 we had gone 16-bit, with the i8086 and early models of the i80286 CPUs, which were the powerhouses of that day. Then IBM announced the PC.

We looked this thing over, and laughed ourselves sick. Of all the big corporate entries into the microcomputer field, this was undoubtedly far and away the worst. It had an already obsolete 8-bit i8088 CPU, the most benighted memory model any of us had ever seen, a mere 8 HW interrupts, was limited to two serial ports, and didn't even have hard disk support in the HW or in the OS! When we were once again able to stand, we relegated this turkey to the backs of our minds, and went off to work on real computers with real OSs.

About a year later, we couldn't help but notice that, far from disappearing from the market, this gobbler was racking up some big corporate sales, and all of the main CP/M application developers had ported their products to MS-DOS. A year after that, IBM dominated. Another year, and the once mighty CP/M market just didn't exist any more.

I once heard a fellow say about his opinion on some issue, "I'm certain. It may turn out that I'm dead wrong, but I AM certain". Well, I was certain that the PC was no real threat to CP/M, and I was certainly dead wrong. Even my ego feels battered after blowing it that badly, so I took a good look at what had really happened, as opposed to what I had thought was happening.

First, no flavor of CP/M was quite the same. Each HW manufacturer sold a customized version modified to conform to his own HW configuration. Most manufacturers had slightly different diskette formats and several other small items (i.e. serial ports tended to have different addresses and different interrupts from machine to machine). No two printers were compatible, using different command sets and different interpretations of serial and parallel ports, requiring a custom cable for every new device. Stores had to stock a half dozen different versions of the same application on their shelves, and developers had to support all these permutations. Second, there was hardly any support for software developers by manufacturers, no SDKs.

IBM provided, first, an absolutely uniform HW and SW environment for developers, and second, partnering and strong support for these folks, often including bundling and IBM support. The fact that we had the best HW and OS on the market, and they had the worst, simply didn't matter. And third, and possibly the most important, they provided a solid corporate migration path for those companies who already had strong investments in CP/M, by supporting all the major CP/M applications on the PC, and by helping with conversions to the MS-DOS environment. That's why they won, and we lost. And looking back on all this from a 20-year vantage point, we richly deserved to have our butts kicked. We were arrogant fools.

Now, back to the present. I believe strongly that the key to large-scale acceptance of Linux, especially in corporate and government environments, depends on support of existing applications in those environments (which are 95% Windows) in Linux, a solid support environment for Windows application vendors (including Microsoft, especially if MS is indeed split), and an acceptable transition path for corporations changing over.

As a veteran of some rather large rollouts (MS Exchange to 150,000 desktops in Lockheed in a single month, NT to 40,000 discrete locations with perhaps 400,000 computers for the USPS, and NT and applications to 3000 Gap stores via VSAT satellite, no less), I'm quite familiar with the problems of deployment and support on this scale, and with the people who make the decisions in these environments. These folks are not wedded to Windows, or to anything else but the bottom line. I hope someday to direct the deployment of Linux on such a scale, but it's not quite there yet.

Finally back to the main point: I don't dispute anything Mr. Boorshtein says technically. I disagree strongly with his conclusions. The strength or weakness of VB from a technical viewpoint is just as irrelevant as the superiority of CP/M and S-100 machines. UNIX advocates have tried to move UNIX to the non-engineer's desktop for the last 20 years. IBM and Microsoft have swept the floor with every flavor and every company that has tried. The few UNIX survivors defend constantly eroding niche markets, mostly because Microsoft and Compaq get better returns elsewhere and need some opposition to show the anti-trust boys anyway. Don't misunderstand my position here: I'm pro-Linux and pro-Open Source. I merely have something bad to say about absolutely everybody.

I think the important path for Linux is to fully support the Windows Office Suite and all other major Windows applications, yesterday if not sooner. Support of the VB environment is crucial to this. Development of freeware and shareware clones for these applications will follow once the Linux market is established. The day someone like me can walk into a CIO's office and show him that his Excel spreadsheets and macros, his PowerPoint presentations, his databases and his groupware work under Linux, cost less to support, look and feel much the same, interact seamlessly with his existing environment, and cost him a fraction of what he's paying today, that's the day we can start replacing Windows with Linux 100,000 machines at a time.

Kenneth Broll (keb@cfcl.com) is a network design consultant in Silicon Valley and veteran of more than 30 years in the industry. He has done work for Sun, The Gap, NASA, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, GE, Honeywell, IBM, Apple, the USPS, Santa Clara County, and Mitre Corporation, among others. He professes to learn by the few mistakes he will admit to.

T-Shirts and Fame!

[Comments are disabled]

Referenced categories Programming Language :: Java Programming Language :: Visual Basic Topic :: System :: Operating System Kernels :: Linux

Referenced projects GNOME Basic - A 100% Visual Basic-compatible language. Linux - The Linux Kernel. Python - A high-level scripting language.

 Comments

[»] Money wins. Technology loses.
by ian807 - Apr 18th 2007 11:11:20

The best technology doesn't win. What costs the least always does.

Low cost ALWAYS means compatible with existing technology. IBM did it with punch cards. Apple didn't do it with anything and they're still going strong with their what, 5% share?

The person making the decisions DOES NOT CARE. He wants his existing Windows apps and the custom VB app at the core of his business to continue to work. Period. He has work to do. He doesn't want to be bothered. He doesn't care about Linux, or Windows, or processors, or thin-client apps, or the internet, other than as a sales channel.'

Think business and money and you know immediately who wins. Money always wins. Think like a programmer and you lose big time.

Just another developer who learned the hard way...

[reply] [top]

[»] Old, rusty machines
by hansen - Jan 8th 2003 13:07:45

I think your very basis here, at quoting CP/M is wrong in all its forms. First of all, if you recall ... when CP/M was about, was at the era when computers were becoming popular as personal computers. The commodore pet, later the cbm became famous and the favorite, before ms dos ever came into the market place. What did commocore have? A basic interpreter, a very simple interface and commands that any user could acquaint him/herself with. The same applied to IBM PC as it came onto the market, it had a basic interpreter built in and users could use it to do simple things without having to learn a lot of hanky panky and god knows what. The same story, applied to the Macintosh when it came out.

And MS-WORD ... it simply killed it's competition, which was mostly the older CP/M originated word perfect. Why? because word perfect was hard to use, hard to get complete control of ... while Word was simple, and easy. In these days, *this* was the key... power combined with ease of use.

Today however, you can't say that about Windows, or Office. Open Office and KOffice are products that give the ease of use, you originally got from MS Word. And Linux is fastly becoming an operating system, that is easy and simple to use as well. While Office and Windows become overly bloated, and highly unstable. Something, if anyone cares to remember, was a thing of CP/M.

Nobody cared, in the old days, no matter how functionally complete Unix was... to spend a lot of time a day, to find out something about a simple error... do a lot of C programming, to make a simple calculation or remember tons of command parameters to start a word processor, which accidentally wasn't available and was one of the key items that that handicapped Unix. Guru meditation, was for amiga users ... and bomb shells was for Atari and Mac users. And although a graphical user interface was created for the Commodore 64 (yes, indeed) ... those programs were not in every computer store shelf, at $9.99 a pieace. But only found in the small print of a computer enthusiasts magazine, and then at the price of $99.99. Which makes a world of a difference, especially at a time when the hype around computers has convinced everyone that Megaherz and Megabytes rule.

Today, who can afford to buy Windows? It's expensive, you might even say that today Windows fills the same role as IBM or Dec, Mainframe O/S'd did. You couldn't buy these OS's, you had lease them at outrageous prices. ... and later, Sun's and other medium sized operating systems. Of course, every person in the office knows Word and Windows. Just like, 15 years ago, every person in the office knew CP/M and Word perfect... and it's only the winner that goes home with the price. Trying to emulate Windows and Office, every hour on the hour, only gives you second place ... as a meager copy, that will never be as good as the original... never do things as accurately as the original, no matter how good the programming team is.

Let's put it differently ... does anyone here, even consider that MS-DOS would have become as popular as it is, if it had tried to be a complete look alike, to CP/M? or does anyone consider that Word would have become so popular, if it had tried to be exactly like Word perfect?

Hardly.

[reply] [top]

[»] Demise of Linux?
by Lepus - Dec 4th 2000 04:11:42

No. Demise of the HYPE.
I think you have got the idea wrong.

Linux was created to be a free, but fully functional UN*X system. I think no one can destroy that. Not Microsoft, not the money-hungry distribution sellers...
If you look at it this way, Linux is far from dead. It is a great alternative for expert users to use on their PCs.

Of course, as you have stated, the hype will eventually collapse. But as long as there are people who think of Linux as it is, as a free UN*X, it will never be dead. Actually, I don't think that we need all the Joe Commons as Linux users... Not any of them anyway, who want to make Linux look like Windows 95... And not any of them who continue using Windows because Gnome is big...

You think of GUIs as the bane of all the greatness of computing... I think you are terribly wrong. GUIs are the way of the future, whether we like it or not... Computers are getting more and more common, and in the future they should be so easy to operate that even preschoolers can use them.
The problem is that some companies (this is mostly typical to Apple, but Microsoft has begun to catch this trend more and more) make OSes that _assume_ the user is at the level of a preschooler.

Having several GUIs for Linux is a GOOD thing. They give the user the freedom of choice. And a well-installed Linux also contains all the utilities needed to work at the command line. It doesn't kill Linux...

And being contaminated by money? RedHat!=Linux!!! I think you should understand that, having used several distros yourself... Having evil people trying to make money of Linux doesn't mean having Linux sold off to evil people. They are as if selling water by the riverside, and strangely enough, they do get costumers. But if you don't like them, all you have to do is walk down to the river and take a bottleful of water...
Of course I know this is a bad thing, I wrote about it at the "Reply to Bill Gates" editorial... It is bad, but not fatal. We still have Debian GNU/Linux, for a final retreat. Linux may have looked like it ruled the world, but it was only a hype... This hype MUST die for the _real_ Linux to prevail and prosper, but it will be a painful death indeed - painful to all connected with Linux. We must realize that the moment of glory enjoyed by Linux as the "savior" of the desktop environment was only an illusion created by those who want to make money out of it.
Linux cannot be a replacement for Windows, and pretending it can is only ruining its name and credibility.

BUT we don't really need users who can only use GUI systems... Anyone who thinks Debian is too hard to install & use shouldn't use Linux. And you should understand that the Linux community being a loosely linked, free society, as long as there is a single programmer devoted to continuing work on Linux for what it is, Linux is alive. We have our shelters from the dark waves of the Linux-, and following Anti-Linux hype... Once everything has cleared, Linux might emerge again to the public, but until then, I am content with it being the OS for a (not-so) small "technological elite" who see its values and contribute to it...

[reply] [top]

[»] The demise of Linux, part 2
by The Master Of Magic - Nov 23rd 2000 19:47:34

Because I agree that things should be done the right way, I must agree with Naiciagam, and say that Linux has died a very bloody and painful death. At the heart of this argument is the fact that the GUIs have won, secondly, the fact that money has corrupted the heart of the Linux movement, and finally that there's nothing to do to save the movement.

Before I say anything else, I must make this known. I've used Linux since it was a "baby", and have been with it until the recent day, getting more and more disgusted lately with the turn that we have been making. I've installed many a Linux computer on many a computer. I've used all of the major distributions and have rolled my own.

The first flaw in the Linux world is that the GUIs have won. If you sit and watch several newsgroups related to Linux, you will see many, many, many problems with GUIs such as Gnome and KDE. The underlying problem here is NOT that GUIs are bad, far from it, but they are the wrong solution to an old problem, a problem of how to get new users to learn to use the computer. As many of you know, the movement in the past five or so years has been to teach new users to the computer using an GUI as a way to "ease" them into "serious" computer usage (many times, using Microsoft Windows). However, in doing this, we have wrongly led these people to believe that the GUI is the silver bullet for the computer. Pretty soon, they wonder why DOS even existed, or even what DOS is. Our problem is that we expect new computer users to do too little, learn even less, and think even less than that. Back to the original point though, GUIs have destroyed the Linux environment. When I learned Linux, and computers in general, I learned at the command line. I learned what goes on behind the scenes, and I learned that there's more to the computer than the pretty programs that do everything for you. I learned what a pipe was, and what it was good for. I learned how to use one command to "feed" another, to "feed" another, and then send the result to a file, or to the printer, or to the screen, or to the network, etc. That's what Linux was meant to be. A UNIX clone. Something that a user could sit down at a simple command prompt and get some work done, without the interruption of a GUI or anything else. I am NOT a GUI basher. If you want, use a GUI, but understand the underlying philosophy of the operating system and where it comes from.

Money has warped our desires as well. Case in point, Red Hat. Red Hat started as just another distribution of Linux, but then it grew, and grew, and grew, and grew, and now it's "The Microsoft Of The Linux World". It's the dummy distribution. It's also the worst distribution IMHO. If anybody here is looking for the people to port VB over, I guarantee that Red Hat will either fund it or take credit for it, or do it themselves. The prime motivator for Red Hat is money. Pure and simple. They have sold out. I'm sure I'm not the first person to make this argument. The underlying philosophy for Red Hat used to be quality, but now it's "converting" new users from Windows, making a profit, and making their stock rise. One can now run Linux, and have it use the look and feel of Windows programs, thanks to Red Hat and crew. I applaud you for being a nail in the coffin for Linux. Linus himself cautioned against Linux being an emulation platform, a comment which Red Hat must have ignored.

The movement is over. Every revolution has a counter-revolution, every movement has a counter-movement, in this case, the belief that closed-source software will run everywhere it says it will and easily. One could argue that Linux was crushed by their counter-movement. Linux tried to become more like Windows; the only problem with this is that each vendor tried DIFFERENT ways of doing it. This in and of itself was a burden, but EVEN worse, when we got a vendor-independent way of doing it (Gnome or KDE, pick your poison) it became bloated. I can install Windows 95 in 50 Megs on my hard drive. I can't install Linux + Gnome in that space because Gnome alone eats up about twice that amount. When the average Joe sees that, he's going to think, "Microsoft has done it cheaper and quicker, therefore it must be 'right'". Unfortunatly, Linux is trying to overcome that mentality, but they're fighting the wrong battle. They should worry more about how to compete based on merits than look, however, we've given up that battle.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: The demise of Linux, part 2
by Steve Nickolas - Mar 17th 2003 09:02:38


> Because I agree that things should be
> done the right way, I must agree with
> Naiciagam, and say that Linux has died a
> very bloody and painful death. At the
> heart of this argument is the fact that
> the GUIs have won, secondly, the fact
> that money has corrupted the heart of
> the Linux movement, and finally that
> there's nothing to do to save the
> movement.
???

(snip)


> The first flaw in the Linux world is
> that the GUIs have won. If you sit and
> watch several newsgroups related to
> Linux, you will see many, many, many
> problems with GUIs such as Gnome and
> KDE. The underlying problem here is NOT
> that GUIs are bad, far from it, but they
> are the wrong solution to an old
> problem, a problem of how to get new
> users to learn to use the computer.
AOL


> As
> many of you know, the movement in the
> past five or so years has been to teach
> new users to the computer using an GUI
> as a way to "ease"
> them into "serious"
> computer usage (many times, using
> Microsoft Windows). However, in doing
> this, we have wrongly led these people
> to believe that the GUI is the silver
> bullet for the computer. Pretty soon,
> they wonder why DOS even existed, or
> even what DOS is. Our problem is that
> we expect new computer users to do too
> little, learn even less, and think even
> less than that.
One should learn IMHO the command line and migrate to the GUI afterwards (as I have - learned DOS/BASIC on ProDOS 8 1.11 in '84 and migrated to the GUI of ProDOS 16 1.3 in '88, or PC DOS 2.1 in 1992 and migrated to Losedoze 3.10 in '95).


> Back to the original
> point though, GUIs have destroyed the
> Linux environment. When I learned
> Linux, and computers in general, I
> learned at the command line. I learned
> what goes on behind the scenes, and I
> learned that there's more to the
> computer than the pretty programs that
> do everything for you. I learned what a
> pipe was, and what it was good for. I
> learned how to use one command to
> "feed" another, to
> "feed" another, and
> then send the result to a file, or to
> the printer, or to the screen, or to the
> network, etc. That's what Linux was
> meant to be. A UNIX clone. Something
> that a user could sit down at a simple
> command prompt and get some work done,
> without the interruption of a GUI or
> anything else. I am NOT a GUI basher.
Me neither, but as they say, if you want Windoze or MacOS, you know where to find it.


> If you want, use a GUI, but understand
> the underlying philosophy of the
> operating system and where it comes
> from.
>
> Money has warped our desires as well.
> Case in point, Red Hat. Red Hat started
> as just another distribution of Linux,
> but then it grew, and grew, and grew,
> and grew, and now it's "The
> Microsoft Of The Linux World".
> It's the dummy distribution. It's also
> the worst distribution IMHO. If anybody
> here is looking for the people to port
> VB over, I guarantee that Red Hat will
> either fund it or take credit for it, or
> do it themselves. The prime motivator
> for Red Hat is money. Pure and simple.
> They have sold out. I'm sure I'm not
> the first person to make this argument.
> The underlying philosophy for Red Hat
> used to be quality, but now it's
> "converting" new users
> from Windows, making a profit, and
> making their stock rise. One can now
> run Linux, and have it use the look and
> feel of Windows programs, thanks to Red
> Hat and crew. I applaud you for being a
> nail in the coffin for Linux. Linus
> himself cautioned against Linux being an
> emulation platform, a comment which Red
> Hat must have ignored.
Hence, the name "Hed Rat".


> The movement is over. Every revolution
> has a counter-revolution, every movement
> has a counter-movement, in this case,
> the belief that closed-source software
> will run everywhere it says it will and
> easily. One could argue that Linux was
> crushed by their counter-movement.
> Linux tried to become more like Windows;
Distros did. Linux didn't.


> the only problem with this is that each
> vendor tried DIFFERENT ways of doing it.
> This in and of itself was a burden, but
> EVEN worse, when we got a
> vendor-independent way of doing it
> (Gnome or KDE, pick your poison) it
> became bloated. I can install Windows
> 95 in 50 Megs on my hard drive. I can't
> install Linux + Gnome in that space
> because Gnome alone eats up about twice
> that amount. When the average Joe sees
> that, he's going to think,
> "Microsoft has done it cheaper
> and quicker, therefore it must be
> 'right'". Unfortunatly, Linux
> is trying to overcome that mentality,
> but they're fighting the wrong battle.
> They should worry more about how to
> compete based on merits than look,
> however, we've given up that battle.
:\

The Apple IIgs had a nice, Mac-like GUI in 800K with room to spare.

Can't this be done on the PC?

-uso.

--
RMF-DOS project coordinator Dapple/NDapple developer SUPPORT FREE/OPEN SOFTWARE

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Free Software
by Nick Lamb - Nov 5th 2000 06:01:46

This is another article about how to (or not to) make Linux a success. All such rants are completely missing the point.
They don't stop to ask "Why do I want Linux roll-outs where I see MS Windows roll-outs?" they just decide that it is _de facto_ a good thing, and they'll do what's necessary to achieve it.

To "win" by running MS proprietary software, MS proprietary APIs, MS proprietary networking, MS proprietary modules everywhere is in fact to lose.
You'll wake up, having completed a major Linux roll-out and see Bill on TV, telling everyone what a great day it is for Microsoft "In the past, many of our customers had to pay for an OS, but now they get the OS free. That means your company has more money to buy MS Office, and we all know that's a good thing."

I'd rather, if I had to choose, see users continue to run MS Windows, but use it to run Gimp, and FreeCiv and Cygwin and so on.
These users are aware of Free Software, they know it stands for high quality software, a community of developers, compatibility and so on.
When you ask these users to switch to GNU/Linux of course they'll still want all the tools they have on Windows, but they'll be receptive to the idea that Free Software tools might do the job for them. They'll care about that, not just whether its very cheap and advertised on TV.

[reply] [top]

[»] History (not) Repeating
by Knight Walker - Nov 1st 2000 00:26:58

I agree with some of the above essay, but not all of it. Yes it would be bad for us to snub everything Windows and we would be less for it. Plenty of OS's that no one can remember had this failing. However, turning Linux into another Windows is not the road to success either. Ask any former OS/2 user how well emulating Windows did them.

No, we should keep an eye on Windows, but not be Windows.

[reply] [top]

[»] The consumer, holds the power...
by hansen - Oct 29th 2000 14:21:37

I totally disagree, as to why MS-DOS and Windows became so popular on the market.

The PC, was a computer that was very simple in the making as you described and yet, right from the start... it made itself into private homes. I remember people having a PC at home, an IBM-PC, a i8088 machine, with no more than 64k of ram. They used the basic interpreter that came with it, to make calculations and simple programs.

The PC was cheap, and it was simple enough for the dumb average person to master it for personal use. This was something, CP/M was not... how many users of commodore 128, ever used CP/M that it was capable of running? For the average user, CP/M was simply too complicated... and that meant, for people who were using their time mainly for different purposes than to work with computers, they neither had the time nor money to master it...

And why did the corporations take in the PC? why not, this computer was powerful enough to do operations the company needed, and the people on the job market already had knowledge on how to operate it, which meant reduction in cost on hw maintenance and building employee skills for the company.

But today, the image is a little different... the constant adding of functionality and adding routines to old programs, makes them larger, more power hungry and more difficult to master. Quite the opposite of what MS-DOS originally introduced... and most of these old programs, need to be completely re-invented, or re-programmed to the very least...

Have you ever thought of the computing power, you need to run a visicalc-equivalent program today? The functionality of programs, have not increased proportionally with the amount of computing power they demand to provide these functions. And windows programs, are the major contestants in this group...

[reply] [top]

[»] Evolution and the Market Place
by Nelson Ingersoll - Oct 29th 2000 09:51:09

Whether or not the purist wishes VB ported to Linux the following appears obvious to me.

A product's survival in the market place is akin to Darwin's theory of evolution. Specifically, survival of the fittest.

The quality of a product is but one aspect of the many properties of a product which contribute to its survival. Linux is, generally, a high quality product. In my opinion, higher than any flavor of Windows. But that alone won't insure its survival.

The best product in the market does not win. Rather the best marketed product wins. Were the opposite true then perhaps CP/M, even AmigaDOS, would be more popular products than anything Microsoft has ever produced. I've seen tool makers choose Windows NT over all other operating systems simply because the tool's users, when surveyed, said they wanted Windows NT. Coincidentally, to most 12 year olds, McDonald's is the best restaurant. Name recognition. Marketing. Nothing more.

In nature, survival is the only game. No other game matters. An organism which excels in several areas can still lose to another organism because it does not compete well in enough areas. An organism may be faster but 'lose' to a slower organism because it can't hide as well. It may have a very efficient gut but only when it eats one thing. An organism very often survives simply because it has the right compromises. It isn't fastest, strongest, or toughest. It is just good enough where it must be. In the same way, a product makes compromises, survives, thrives, or it dies. In the market one feature of a product is not likely to insure the survival of the product. Many features might.

In my experience, a properly set up Linux system is faster, more secure, more flexible, and more reliable than Windows. So what? It still can't compete with Windows 9x/NT because to the butchers, bakers and candle stick makers Windows 9x/NT is, or may simply seem to be, easier to set up and use. It also has a name recognition factor which leads the general public to believe it is easier to use. If adding VB to the mix helps Linux, and the Open Software community of which it is part, win acceptance by helping non-geeks think a little further outside their envelope of comfort, then I personally support it. We shouldn't shy away from VB because it is a buggy, slow, obese language. Rather, let us, the Open Software community, embrace VB and turn a disadvantage into an advantage. Who knows, in the process we might be able to help VB cross the street to become a better product. Or maybe, simply help users find a less painful way to lose it.

The Open Software community with its flagship product Linux has gained a great deal of recognition in the market place. It still has some way to go before the market will think of it first. Within limits, anything which gets us closer to first is probably worth working on.

[reply] [top]

[»] Choices?
by dazk - Oct 29th 2000 09:47:08

Hmm,

I have to admit, there is no way to disagree to the points in the editorial. But I think implementing M$ Stuff in Linux is no problem at all. You (every single individual using Linux) out there can always decide wether to use something or not. As long as VB or other compatibility apps are not tightly connected to the Kernel and there is no way to leave them out, where is the problem. You can always choose wether to use unstable compatibility stuff or run a clean, safe system. But if you Want Office or VB, you choose to maybe make your System less stable. Since Linux is all about choices, why not let people choose from further options. I personally don't use gnome because I don't like it. I probably wouldn't run any VB stuff on my System either just for the same reasons. But having the opportunity to to so if you like doesn't degrade the whole Linux OS to a simple Copy of Windows or to some unstable piece of *#!$. I think being able to to something if you like and not doing it if you don't is the best thing that can happen to anybody. And exactly that sould make Linux more attractive to everybody.

And besides, maybe I will try office on Linux, since I would not have to reboot every #@!+*-@ time, somebody sends me a Word document. Until now, there is no App I know of, that lets you use Word, Excell or other MS Files in an acceptable manner. Something is always different and work has to be done to have it look the same. And there are so many dumb users out there that don't even think twice about sending you proprietary files.

I think Linux is about freedom and freedom is about letting everybody develop what ever one likes. You don't have to use it nor like it. But somebody most definatly will.

Greetings, Richard

[reply] [top]

[»] IBM PC did not run CP/M
by Leon Brooks - Oct 29th 2000 04:24:55

The issue that fired this off is VB on Linux. The IBM PC and QDOS did not support CP/M. What they provided was an easy migration path from CP/M. Linux should not have a VB implementation, Linux should have a translation system which turns VB scripts into Python, Ruby or whatever. It will be crappy Python (Ruby, or whatever) but it will not be VB script.

Let's put it together this way:

• What the beancounters are interested in is ``can we run our stuff on this system with minimal effort (cost) and get better results (benefit)?''
• What Linux, if it can be anthropomorphised for the sake of discussion, is interested in is being all things to all men so that it may spread and achieve world domination
• One area that Microsoft have had big wins in is allowing easy migration from other systems and meanwhile making it hard to migrate to other systems
• What programmers are interested in is creating something new and interesting
• What purists are interested in is migrating people not so much to Linux as to better systems
• What managers are interested in is not so much a better-faster-cheaper VB as a way to make their systems more manageable, predictable, debuggable

But wait! There's more!

Microsoft are promoting .NET, which is basically just the MS rendition of Sun's Java run-anywhere idea. Microsoft, being Microsoft, will fsck it up on the first try and spend the rest of their corporate life layering on the bandaids - but that doesn't matter.

Say for the sake of discussion (again) that we choose Python as a backend for this translater. Not only do we Instantlyhave run-anywhere - courtesy of Python's wide portability, and things like mod_python, mod_snake and Zope - but we can instantly run on .NET, because Python.NET already exists!

It will quickly become obvious that whatever Microsoft's game is, Linux and friends can play it better, faster, cheaper and cleaner. Once sites begin deserting VB for ASP2Python (or whatever), word will spread that:

• Migration is easy
• The migrated code is more manageable and much more truly componentisable
• It's not one-way, not a big jump, because you can run the results on Microsoft platforms without migrating back - indeed, you can migrate your applications in chunks on your existing systems and then simply swap foundations (or not)
• The migrated code can be run entirely Microsoft-free for better security (both digital and corporate) and reliability
• Just because any idiot can throw together a VB app doesn't mean that any idiot should throw one together (oh, hang on, many of them have - alas, too late - figured that one out by now anyway).

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: IBM PC did not run CP/M
by Steve Nickolas - Mar 17th 2003 09:09:54


> The issue that fired this off is VB on
> Linux. The IBM PC and QDOS did not
> support CP/M.
Arguable; the PC did in fact support CP/M-86 and CP/M-86 was an option. Expensive, though; that's why PC DOS (=M$-DOS) at 1/10 the price took hold.


> What they provided was an
> easy migration path from CP/M. Linux
> should not have a VB implementation,
> Linux should have a translation system
> which turns VB scripts into Python, Ruby
> or whatever. It will be crappy Python
> (Ruby, or whatever) but it will not be
> VB script.
Forget Vi$ual Ba$i¢, it's another MFTL, not the way to go. People need to learn *real* programming languages like C or Perl if they ever hope to compete in the real world.


> Let's put it together this way:
> What the beancounters are interested in
> is ``can we run our stuff on this system
> with minimal effort (cost) and get
> better results (benefit)?''
> What Linux, if it can be
> anthropomorphised for the sake of
> discussion, is interested in is being
> all things to all men so that it may
> spread and achieve world domination
Not Linux per se, but the distros, certainly.


> One area that Microsoft have had big
> wins in is allowing easy migration from
> other systems and meanwhile making it
> hard to migrate to other systems
> What programmers are interested in is
> creating something new and interesting
> What purists are interested in is
> migrating people not so much to Linux as
> to better systems
> What managers are interested in is not
> so much a better-faster-cheaper VB as a
> way to make their systems more
> manageable, predictable, debuggable
PERL


> Now, the obvious answer follows. Write a
> translator that eats VB and spits decent
> languages (you are permitted to define a
> ``decent language'' as anything you're
> prepared to write a back-end for. The
> front end has already been done by the
> ASP2PHP project. I say give the T-Shirt
> to Mr Naken!). Use Microsoft's own
> tactics against them, and let's see if
> they complain. (-:
LOL


> But wait! There's more!
> Microsoft are promoting .NET, which is
> basically just the MS rendition of Sun's
> Java run-anywhere idea. Microsoft, being
> Microsoft, will fsck it up on the first
> try and spend the rest of their
> corporate life layering on the bandaids
> - but that doesn't matter.
> Say for the sake of discussion (again)
> that we choose Python as a backend for
> this translater. Not only do we
> Instantlyhave run-anywhere -
Even, BTW, to Messy Dog!

-uso.

--
RMF-DOS project coordinator Dapple/NDapple developer SUPPORT FREE/OPEN SOFTWARE

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Jeff Covey did a very precise anlysis
by Uwe C. Schroeder - Oct 29th 2000 03:12:47

Jeff is absolutely right, but I wouldn't go back that far. I also started with CP/M - moved to MS-DOS (what couldn't stand long on the machine) and finally went for Unix. Since the commercial *nixes were to expensive that days I got hold of the first BSD 4 for x86 on the net. It was buggy, hat some kernel panics a day and was more or less unusable for daily work. That was the time when linux wasn't there yet. Some releases later BSD was getting more stable on the PC platform. It was stable long before Linux was close to be a "real OS". But why isn't BSD the most used x86 Unix today ? In my opinion it's superior to Linux from the sight of a kernel hacker. Did you ever look at the kernel tree ? Everything's where it belongs, there are reasonable comments in it and it's clean and structured. No assembler where not needed. Long years I didn't switch to Linux because every software needing some kernel includes had to be patched for the strange order of includefiles. BUT - what today makes Linux the more popular OS is that Linux meanwhile supports a rather large number of usable applications and it supports hardware BSD didn't support. For me that's been the reasons to switch over to Linux. The Problem with BSD was the same as with other Unix flavours. There where several source trees because the developers couldn't unite to produce software based on the demand. Think of OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD - just to mention three. That's what could give Linux a drawback too. We have several distributions with support for one or another software. But in some details all those distributions differ, so it's _not_ one Linux, there are at least 5 or 6. There again is no standard. Not for technical reasons, but for personal reasons. For a business deployment on a large scale Linux needs to offer a standardized environment. That's what makes Windows a good OS for business. Nobody cares about bugs or technical superior things - at least not those people who decide what to buy. Because those people mostly don't have the knowledge of what's "technical superior". They decide in terms of

• usability (means applications every secretary can handle)
• costs for transition (how much is it to move to this)
• security of investment
• personal reasons

[reply] [top]

[»] good point
by daevt - Oct 29th 2000 01:13:40

thats a very good point. but i don't think that porting VB is a good idea. lets continue to impliment things in C, C++, Perl, and other things decidedly UNIX. we should support the oppositions application formats (untill we've defeated them), but that doesn't nessisarily mean we should port a shitty language (visual basic).

--
I hope that I never have to fall-back onto computer science, everything involved is made of metal and would probably break more than my fall...

[reply] [top]

[»] A 3rd Alternative
by Scribe - Oct 29th 2000 00:11:37

I believe that there may be a 3rd alternative for us to make inroads into the mainstream.

New computing platforms

What we think of as "The Desktop" may not be around in its current incarnations come a few years. New computing applications are rising fast and a "KERNEL" that can fit into a 200K package is a beautiful thing. Linux is making huge inroads in these new computing paradigms.

Here are few cool places linux has been:

Compaq's Itsy project:
http://research.compaq.com/wrl/projects/Itsy/itsy.html
http://www.ipaqlinux.com

EMPEG's car audio player:
http://www.empeg.com

culinux project:
http://www.culinux.org

all kinds of other handhelds:
http://www.handhelds.org

I agree with previous posters regarding the bloat of windowing and desktop frameworks. I believe they will need to grab hold of the vision to produce modular frameworks that allow huge scaling abilities.

It will be a new world soon in our industry and I think we have what it takes to be THE BEST solution in a world in which MS has still not ruined the end user.

-Troy A. Griffitts
The SWORD Project

[reply] [top]

[»] The demise of Linux
by Naicigam - Oct 28th 2000 22:36:21

Linux is dead! (Waiting for the booing to die down...) Microsoft has won without even raising a finger. LOOK AT YOURSELVES!!! KDE and GNOME are HUGE!!! What a travesty to burden a real OS with Windows-wannabe GUIs... And now let me mention that there are so many different wiget sets and librarys and script languages that it is almost impossible to make anything work,

I love Linux! I am using it now while my wife and children are in the other room clicking away in the land of 9x. Scoring the systems in a family of 5? 4 MS users won't touch Linux unless I start it with KDE or Gnome.

The worst thing that ever happened to Linux was the scent of money. People, albeit open-source, wanted and needed to earn a living from Linux. To make Linux accessible to the masses they made it look, feel and work like Windows. All the complaints ever registered about MS are now coming true about Linux. Incompatible programs, rushed to "market" - over extended and lacking proper QC.

Do not compete with Windows. Linux is great by itself. A tiny, by comparison, windows technology is more that sufficient. Try a copy of FVWM - before it tried to be Win95. Focus on making the great software that runs correctly the first time it is compiled. Compiled without dependency on eleven-de-seven different librarys and feature sets. Linux used to work great because it was a minimalist OS. Try making it so again. Continue to do it right not Microsoft.

Flame me directly, if you must.

[reply] [top]

[»] It Wont Work - Its already been tried
by Gazza - Oct 28th 2000 21:05:36

Jeff, et el. IBM tried about 3 years back to wrestle windows mainstream applications over to OS/2 by cleverly installing the WIN API into the OS/2 kernel. Guess What - didn't make one ounce of difference. Having been a highly paid OS/2 consultant in the past working for BIG corporate names, I can tell you that what you propose wont work. Firstly - Any platform that is put on Linux to support windows apps will be a VERY HARD proposition. IBM conceeded that their effort was as good as anyone outside MS could do - given that MS does hide some of the API's that their applications call ... possible to get eventually find a workaround but very difficult. Secondly - You really have to look at the corporate incentive to switch to a different OS. What do they really get switching to a new OS ? the support nightware and cost$$ of ensuring Windows based apps run on this non-native OS will be high.... does this outweigh the fact that Linux is free and Windows costs $50/seat ?? probably not. Its direct Vs indirect costs. Hey ... I'm as bitter as everyone else here .. why do you think I'm hanging around the Linux world these days ? OS/2 has been given the death knell by IBM in 2006. Linux has to stand on its own merits of which it has many.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: why
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 20:34:27

"Why is everyone so interested in making linux mainstream?"

Everyone isn't.

"I like linux as it is. There is an active user-community. It is improving at a good rate (and it is very ok by now, thanks)."

Good. Who said anything about changing Linux. I thought we were talking about whether it's worthwhile for someone to work on Windows portability to Linux, and porting VB in particular. How would doing this make the active user-community any less active? Has working on WINE made Linux any less active?

"I just don't see why we need to worry about how to get gazillions of new users."

You don't, we don't and I didn't think we were. Kenneth makes some good points about how things are accepted. And I'd like to run certain MS apps on Linux. Others would too. I'd like to see Linux move to the desktop so I can eventually get rid of Windows, and so others can experience the benefits of a system that doesn't crash. You choose to not be involved, that's fine. I hope others choose to do this work.

"Don't worry about linux. It is doing just fine, thank you!"

I highly doubt Linux's survival is at stake. HA! Good Lord, no. But having larger acceptance to me is a good thing. Like I said, let's not blow this out of proportion.

/s.

[reply] [top]

[»] Linux != CP/m
by ComputerJunkie - Oct 28th 2000 20:20:52

While the author makes some great points that he's learned from his own history, he's missing points from other peoples' history.

An example of this would be OS/2. Granted IBM couldn't market OS/2 and it's debatable whether they actually tried or not, but WIN-OS/2 was one of the biggest drawbacks to OS/2. Supporting Windows applications in OS/2 was precisely why most vendors elected not to write native applications.

Consider this scenario under Linux. Most people still run Windows, and Linux can handle Windows apps in Wine, Vmware, whatever. Why should I write native apps for something that has such a small percentage of the market?

[reply] [top]

[»] why
by joto - Oct 28th 2000 20:14:06

Why is everyone so interested in making linux mainstream? I like linux as it is. There is an active user-community. It is improving at a good rate (and it is very ok by now, thanks).

I just don't see why we need to worry about how to get gazillions of new users. If linux continues to improve, they will come. There is now reason to go to all kinds of awful lengths to make them come faster. And, personally, I don't mind much if no one except me and other developers use linux. The important thing is to keep linux an attractive OS for developers, it will continue to improve. If linux is attractive for other users, fine, but not a big deal. It doesn't relate to my user-experience anyway.

And if people will want to bring VB to linux --- fine with me. I will probably not use it very much, but so what. There are plenty of other apps for linux I don't use. No need to protest.

Don't worry about linux. It is doing just fine, thank you!

[reply] [top]

[»] CPM, VB & Linux
by daniello - Oct 28th 2000 19:15:12

While Mr. Brolls analysis of the past seems logical and rings true, his attempt to extrapolate much of it to this case and the future fails for one reason: Bill Gates and Microsoft's competitive behavior. Judging from past Microsoft responses to competitive threats which, by their definition include supporting Microsoft technologies on a non-Mocrosoft platform, they will simply change their APIs for the Office suite and the Visual Basic language enough to break it each and every time while pressuring the distribution channel. They will threaten volume producers of Windows systems with excommunication if they support Linux versions of Microsft tools. Watch what happens to Wine if it ever starts to get popular. Since every volume producer of desktops is a largely-Windows-based platform producer and relies on the Windows-based product revenue stream for the majority of its desktop sales, this will guarrantee compliance with Microsoft's intent just as it did in the browser wars. This kind of pressure wielded by Microsoft also persuaded Intel to stop innovation in graphics--see the details in the DOJ trial transcripts for the complete sotry and the patterm will emerge. Linux will never out-Microsoft Microsoft. In sum: to embrace proprietary technologies except as a temporary bridge to freedom for one-platform applications, is a capitulation that ultimately will lead to vanquishment. The answer then is to embrace open technologies that work, are secure, and are not controlled solely by one vendor. And to provides migration paths. Sun is slowly (albeit grudgingly) letting go of Java but Microsoft will never let go of VB. And they will destroy anyone who suports it outside of Microsoft if the support proves popular. Migration is the only strategy viable in the long term. Finally, the recent break-in at Microsoft may be a watershed event for it underscores just how weak and poorly designed the Microsoft architecture is. A simple kiddie script gave someone three months access to Microsft's crown jewels. Their broken model of low level trusted code exchange is irreparably broken and is a disaster for enterprise computing. Now it has hit them in their own home. How many IT organizations are going to re-think they degree of Windows commitment after fully realizing the longer term implications of this. Change will not come over night, but I sense a shift in the tectonic plates of enterprise computing platforms coming from this. The perpetrators now have source to examine to find more vulnerabilities in Windows making it less secure than ever. The Java architecture is looking smarter and smarter all the time. The Linux community might go so far as to translate VB and migrate it, but should never ever consider supporting Active-X and the other hacks Microsoft has foisted upon the market as innovation. In conclusion, support and adoption are two different things. The Linux community should only provide the former and be wary of the slippery slope that stance places them on towards the latter.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Adrian...
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 19:09:38

Agreed -- a Linux box that crashes as much as Windows wouldn't be any use to me.

But to be more specific, back to the VB port, I doubt any kernel issues would be involved. I haven't seen any plans and I'm certainly not a VB expert, but I'd expect any port to use at most a loadable kernel module, and even that might not be necessary. I mean, I don't have to load a 'gcc' kernel module, right?

So I'm not advocating watering down the kernel, and whatever Linus and Alan are doing to make Linux more user-friendly, frankly I'd be surprised if they made any compromises that would truly affect the competency of the kernel.

If someone can port VB, and it works towards getting Office to run on Linux, without making any technical sacrifices within Linux, then I'm all for it.

/s.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: What's the target?
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 19:00:40

"The irony of this war of attrition is that during the process Linux would lose the rationality and and most importantly transparency of storage and tagging methods that are available today..."

Doubtful. Whoever takes on these challenges is only going to be a small part of the entire Linux developer community. To think that going in this direction means that every Linux developer must be a part of this, or even that Linux development halt to do these things is off the mark.

I would move Linux to my desktop if I could run MS Office, and maybe Outlook. But the target is going to be decided by whoever takes on this effort, and it may turn out to be a whole slew of disparate efforts. Samba is already 'done'. That's a piece. There are other pieces; VB is just one of them.

MS can do whatever it likes with their file formats. They'll make it more difficult, but not impossible. And eventually they'll have to move to XML. Sure, they can choose a different schema than whatever standard exists, but we'll adapt.

What bothers me about this discussion is that it appears some of you think it's an all-or-nothing approach -- that if VB is ported, it's going to take up all of the open source/Linux resources, and that just isn't so. Ok, it's a waste of time for you to port MS stuff, and you may think it's a waste of other's time. Thankfully none of us can dictate how someone else's time and resources are going to be spent. But you're in the minority of users if you're not running Office and Windows on the desktop, and if we had the ability to run sucky MS apps on the desktop, you'd be seeing a large influx of Linux system destined for those desktops. Let's not make this issue more than it is -- and porting VB is just a piece of the puzzle that I hope someone can fit in.

And heck, building any software is iterative. Upgrading your MS software is iterative -- you're always having to do something to convert etc.

"At any given time a small fraction of the available user base will continue to be attracted to the advantages of not relinquishing ownership of data to a private sector entity, and very few who recognize and act on this will go back to the old way."

And that's certainly their choice. Heck, Linux will never be 100% of the solution, nor should it. That's what MS tries to be, it keeps striving for that last few % and it's not worth it. I just want enough of the pieces there so I can move Linux to the desktop yet still run MS Office for compatibility. Once Linux is underneath, the shift to other products will happen over time, and we can all start moving away from apps that suck.

When Linux can boast that it can run MS Office on it, and Linux is a cheaper solution, that's when it'll appeal to the business bottom line. And hey, this isn't a religious thing for me, I just want to run the best on my desk. But I'm not an island: I realize that most others are running MS stuff, and that I have to be able to interact with them.

/s.

[reply] [top]

[»] re: scott's disagreement with David Harr disagreeing with Re: [scott] disagreein
by L. Adrian Griffis - Oct 28th 2000 18:44:47

From a previous post:

"So, for a net gain in compatibility, you have a net loss of quality." There is no "net" loss here, only a net gain. There would be a net loss if in doing this effort we had to water down the kernel or C libes and make them act buggy like Windows -- do you really think that's going to happen? Think Linus or Alan are going to accept patches to the kernel to make it buggy so Linux will support Windows apps?

I agree with the original author's premise that we must have compatability and user friendliness to succeed in the desktop business. At the same time, those people who are arguing with the author have an important point to raise, even when that point is not always put in clear terms. There is a danger that, in our zeal to try to make Linux more appropriate for non-technical users, we may sacrifice some important things that make Linux better for us than MS's so called operating systems. This is not a matter of incompatability between the goals that David Harr advocates and the more traditional goals of the linux community. Rather it is a matter of target fixation. Both sides of this debate tend to become consumed with the specific issues that they feel are under-appreciated.

To me, Linux's most important feature is the fact that it is technically sound. I never want to see this technical soundness sacrificed for user friendliness or MS compatibility. But those of us who are my side of the debate need to stop being snobs about this issue. And the reason we need to stop being snobs isn't even so much because of the importance of the other side's issues to Linux's success. Rather it is because we can't afford to let the work of making Linux more user friendly and MS compatible be dominated by people who don't understand the importance of technical soundness. Everytime I install RedHat Linux on yet another machine, I find myself cursing at some of the stupid defaults and limittations that are built into GNOME and RedHat Linux. Those problems are there because there has not been enough participation by those of us who have written enough code and shot ourselves in the foot often enough to understand the meaning and importance of technical soundness.

Adrian

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: What we need is marketers, not ports
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 17:39:26

Why not both?

"But a port of VB to linux? Frankly, VB is crap, regardless of how many windows developers use it."

I guess that would be up to individual developers if they wanted to develop with VB on Linux. I agree, VB is crap, and I don't see the point of using it as a development platform. But there are a lot of businesses running applications that use it; just think of all those desktops running Linux if only these businesses' current apps would run there.

Sure there is better software out there that could be ported, but that isn't the point. I'm assuming the purpose of these VB on Linux authors is to be able to run current VB apps on Linux so Linux can make inroads to the desktop. Does anyone here find that purpose not worthy?

And even if we market the hell out of Linux, we'll only make marginal progress until we can make a case for replacing what most businesses are using today with minimal to no impact on their bottom line, meaning no retraining, porting their current processes to something new, etc. Since most businesses are running MS Windows/Office, that should be the target if the purpose is to make inroads on the desktop

We should be debating whether gaining the desktop is a worthy purpose, not on whether some developers might use VB on Linux as a development platform, or whether there are better ports to make. The bottom line is most businesses will be much more likely to move if their current apps are supported on it. Porting other apps that they don't use, or telling them to switch to Linux but that they'll have retrain to use other apps isn't going to make much of a business case to them.

Just to make myself very clear: VB stinks, it should die a horrible death...but it's here, people on the desktop use it along with their Windows apps (whether they realize that or not), and that's just the way it is. These people just want to get their jobs done; they don't care what they're running, unless they're already familiar with a particular product, which they are.

The best path to desktop 'domination' (if that really matters anyway) is to support those pathetic Windows/Office apps on Linux, let businesses switch over, and over time move these businesses over to the 'better' software written for Unix/Linux. Eventually, fewer and fewer organizations will use the Windows apps because they're crap.

None of this excludes doing marketing and porting other applications. It's a win-win situation.

It's a moot point anyway, debating whether it should be done or not. They (whoever decides or has decided) will do it regardless of what we say in this forum.

Democracy is cool.

/s.

[reply] [top]

[»] What we need is marketers, not ports
by Goony Bird - Oct 28th 2000 17:15:47

To a certain extent you're right. But a port of VB to linux? Frankly, VB is crap, regardless of how many windows developers use it. VC is better, and Office is Ok, but but there is definatly better software out there that could be ported to linux. Working at a University that caters to professionals working on persuing more education, and helping students learn computers, i've discovered that a massive portion of of even this group are totally illiterate in computers. If Linux advocates could work on actually advocating Linux in the right places and the right ways, we could maintain a decent OS and software base without stooping to software and development tools that gear themselves to the lowest common demominator. We should be spending much more time teaching people about linux and how to use it than porting Office or Visual Basic.

[reply] [top]

[»] better vs. better
by Christian Schildwaechter - Oct 28th 2000 16:31:59

I think there is a big misunderstanding of what is better in terms of user experience. Linux being better than Windows can be shown easily by some technical facts, but how could KOffice or StarOffice be so much better than MS Office to get people to switch? Maybe we should replace _better_ with _less painful_.
Yes, there is a great number of VB macros and files which will only work under MS Office, but there is an even bigger number of users who never use any "advanced features" that would break in any other office suite. So why don't they switch if there's a technical superior solution? Because it took them so long to get used to the even most basic functions of MS Word and they're not willing to go through this again.

I've been working for some time at an institute for german literature, where people were doing nothing but creating enormous amounts of texts, all with MS Word. You'd expect these people to know how to create an index automatically or at least how to insert a foot note, but many of them didn't. Close to nobody there understood the difference between a word processor and a typewriter. And how could they? There was no formal training and when you start any word processor it tries to emulate a typewriter. So they started based on their former knowledge and worked around the parts they didn't understand. That's what most people do in areas they do not really understand. The help function is not your friend, it's a way to make you feel like an idiot.

How to convince these people to use StarOffice? Well, you could give them intensive training and a good helpdesk. But usually this wont happen, because it's ways to expensive. Most employers simply will expect you to know how to handle MS Office. In theory it might be sufficent to give them a good manual or a "better than miserable" help function. But this simply does not work. People will stay with the ways they know (and have had lots of pain to learn about in the first place), and these ways are based on MS Office.

Getting MS Office to run under Linux is just saying "Well, we cannot create usable software either (although ours would be technically superior), so we'll stick with the crap people have learned to cope with." If you're trying to get people to move to Linux on the desktop you should concentrate on finding a way to create some apps that will not only be compatible, but easy (not just easier). man pages, HOWTOs, FAQs or even "for dummies" are not the way. Generally Linux apps suck heavily in the area of newbie friendly documentation. Documentation as a concept for learning something suck heavily by itself.

How about that: take StarOffice and create a version with no menus and only three buttons "Print", "Quit", "Learn more". Also create about 100,000 good step by step tutorials plus a non brain dead help system. You want to save? "Learn more" to find out how to activate this (and to understand that there is more than the "my files" folder and how to create new subfolders). Maybe next week you'll be allowed to change the font, but you'll first have to understand what styles/templates are. But don't worry: it's easy and we'll show you how they work.


If steep learning curves where acceptable for users, they'd all use emacs (vi, jed, whatever) and TEX. Support people on their way to learn something and they might give it a try. If it's better, they might even stay. Any other approach will fail.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: David Harr disagreeing with Re: me disagreeing with him
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 14:47:38

Good points, but...

Apache has code in it so that it can interoperate with MSIE and Netscape bugs; so does Apache with mod_ssl. Doesn't Linux have code in it to deal with bugs in BIOs, ethernet cards etc.?

I think it's a given that everyone wants to write technically superior software, but sometimes we have to take what already exists in order to build something useful. Are you going to design and build a much better telephone that uses a non-standard jack that won't work with telephone company equipment? I bet you could, but if your purpose were to sells these to the mass consumer market you'd not be successful.

It all comes down to the purpose of the effort, which serves as the context for making decisions about what actions to take: if the purpose of the author(s) of these VB Linux efforts is to make Linux a more viable desktop platform for those users and businesses that currently run "buggy" VB apps, then their success will be judged by how well they duplicate the behavior of VB such that those Windows apps work at least as well on Linux as they do on Windows.

Who knows, maybe they'll even be able to create code that recognizes these bugs and does the right thing to keep the apps from crashing. Then these apps would run better on Linux than on Windows -- wow, that would be a huge selling point to businesses especially.

So, "if MSOffice doesn't do something The Right Way, should we re-produce it here?" Yes, because the purpose of these authors is to replicate VB's behavior on Linux so that VB apps will run on Linux unchanged. Remember, these authors aren't writing an Office Application Suite, they're trying to get an already-existing MSOffice suite running on Linux (at least the VB part). They're being given lemons, so they're making lemonade.

Of course the ideal solution would be to fix the bugs in VB and then port to Linux, but the code authors have no control over that.

"But you know it isn't right." Again, 'right' in this context is determined by the purpose of the effort (and by the fact that the authors aren't violating your rights in the process). In this case, it is 'right', because

the purpose of the authors is to get VB running on Linux, not to fix the bugs in VB.

"So, for a net gain in compatibility, you have a net loss of quality." There is no "net" loss here, only a net gain. There would be a net loss if in doing this effort we had to water down the kernel or C libes and make them act buggy like Windows -- do you really think that's going to happen? Think Linus or Alan are going to accept patches to the kernel to make it buggy so Linux will support Windows apps?

The net gain is that we can run Linux as it is today, a fast, stable system, *AND* if we choose (individually), we will also be able to run Windows VB apps on top of Linux without any hassle.

I think you're assuming that the Linux system is going to have to be compromised to make this happen -OR- you hold an idealist notion that programmers should only create technically superior code that has no bugs. But that's what these authors will do -- the code will be superior because it fits it purpose so well, and I'll bet that these VB Linux authors will write this technically superior code in such a way that it handles the bugs that exist in VB in a graceful way.

/s.

[reply] [top]

[»] You are right ...
by Andreas Scherf - Oct 28th 2000 14:28:11

Kenneth, could i have your T-Shirt please ?
I think you have written a very good article on this scope ..
Keep on ..

[reply] [top]

[»] Not one single reason
by Dag Wieers - Oct 28th 2000 14:22:08

The reason that Linux will succeed is not a single one. It's because all sorts of people want it for all sorts of different things. Some like to have Windows applications on Linux so people help on the Wine-project. Some think it is important to standardize distributions and help there. Others think that documentation is important and contribute to the LDP or Gnome documentation project. And there are thousand reasons why people use or consider Linux and every single reason adds up to the pool. And there are millions of people and thousands of companies contributing in one or the other way, and because they can (Keep it Open Source, stupid!), Linux will succeed one way or the other. So it makes sense to discuss these reasons, but please don't pretend that there is only one and ignore those other convincing arguments ;)

[reply] [top]

[»] I see two paths
by Erik Greenwald - Oct 28th 2000 13:58:16

I think there're two big directions the interoperability thing can go. Either the different underlaying components will become identical to the application (porting vb to linux, perfecting wine, etc) or the overlaying layer will migrate to a compatible form (cross platform api's, migration in windos land from vb to ruby or something). The big distinction is do we try to 'fix' things on the aggressor side or the defender side? We can either add support for crappy software on linux or support for good software (portable) on windows. I personally think the evolution of gtk+ for windows and the mass adoption of SDL by windows developers a more significant step than vb on linux (but it is good to have a two pronged attack, ms may get scared and start 'innovating' obfuscated routines to fail on cross platform solutions).

-Erik [http://math.smsu.edu/~br0ke/]

[reply] [top]

[»] Do it Better
by Sasquatch - Oct 28th 2000 13:54:10

The whole secret of Linux from day one has been overcoming challenges with solutions which improve on the original. The kernel came about because Linus wanted to have a pc unix that didn't cost much. In the end, it resulted in an improvement on Minix (and, in some cases, UNIX in general - depending on who you talk to). There are lots of other examples of terrific work done on the Linux platform which improves on the original. mySQL is definitely better than the Micro$oft product, LessTif made great strides at replacing Motif, and WINE is getting better and better day after day. So when you are looking at improving portability between a machine running Microsoft Office and Linux, however you are doing it, you simply plan on improving on the original. Heaven knows, it couldn't be hard.

[reply] [top]

[»] Interesting
by David Leimbach - Oct 28th 2000 13:07:07

There are most obviously two ways for linux to enter the market. 1) Support all the apps that have the greatest market share. 2) Create new apps to steal market share. #1 is an easier road . If we can be 100% compatible and offer other goodies with it we may be able to persuade more people to join the linux community. #2 is more difficult because we need to grab people's attention to our new and not historically proven apps. I think #2 and #1 can coexist. If we support what M$ already has and develop our own super apps we can say, "Hey you can do what you are doing in Windows on Linux". Once we show them that it works add, "And if you use this new program you can do this too." I doubt we could have a better scenario than that. Any thoughts? Dave Leimbach

[reply] [top]

[»] I disagree with David Harrs
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 13:01:44

Just because VB might be made to work on Linux doesn't mean that the rest of Linux or any of the other applications supported on it would become any less stable or buggy. Heck, we can map Windows shares to Linux and that doesn't make everything else in Linux any less than the best.

There are a lot of software packages you can run on Linux today that are extremely buggy, that suck, that are terrifically worse than MS apps; but that has no effect on Linux as a system. These packages and Linux as a system are essentially orthoganal -- I would expect any VB port to be the same.

[reply] [top]

[»] Excellent analysis
by Scott G - Oct 28th 2000 12:54:22

The point that Kenneth makes is crucial if Linux is to make its way to the desktop. IBM and MSDOS succeeded because of the uniformity of the environment, in effect reducing the cost and hassle of writing and using code.

The biggest reason Unix didn't make much headway into the desktop market years ago was precisely that each flavor was different; what worked on one vendor's system didn't necessary work on another.

In the hardware arena, AMD's chips have to be compatible with the x86 architecture or no one will buy them. Motorola's 68k chips were superior to Intel's x86, but didn't have the MS OS on it, and so they "failed".

Right now most people run Microsoft Office on a Windows PC. I'm running Windows and MS Office on the desktop PCs at work and at home because I need to be able to seamlessly interoperate with all of the others out there using the same products, despite the fact that I don't like MS software.

If Linux is to make it to the desktop and actually replace Windows, it will be *required* to run MS applications as if they were running on a Windows system, period. MS owns the desktop, and taking it away will mean total, transparent interoperability with it and its applications. Only then will Linux make large inroads into the already-established desktop market.

As an aside:

MS holds this monopoly power now because they own the source code that most people run on their desktops. They don't want open standards, they don't want to do anything that will open up their software to competition; they don't want to give you a choice, despite all of their rhetoric to the contrary. They fought to bring their own networking protocols on the net and make them dominate; they lost because there was an accepted standard already in place. They've used a reserved field in their Kerberos implementation and won't say what or why; the reason? More than likely so you have to use NT to implement Kerberos that'll work with your Windows desktop OS.

I'm not saying what they're doing is right or wrong -- it's business. But I do want those of you who believe what MS says otherwise to stop deceiving yourselves -- this isn't a company that is committed to open standards, and the only time they will use them is when they are forced to in order to compete.

[reply] [top]

[»] Possible
by Jesse Burt - Oct 28th 2000 12:02:34

I think that's at least almost possible... I mean look at all the support linux already has for other platforms...it reads and writes tons of different filesystems...can execute binaries from other OS's...The emulator (or alternate API in the case of wine) scene is also very strong on Linux. I see your point and believe it could be A Good Thing. I'm sure a lot of us (myself included) feel that reluctance to support MS stuff but way in the back of our minds know that there is that upside to it (read: domination ;]). Cheers

[reply] [top]

[»] politics shmolitics
by oCeLoT - Feb 27th 2002 17:53:53

politics shmolitics. what about "WHAT WORKS"??? 1) GUI's extend the range of what is possible with the command line. just try editing audio files by command line. capiche? GUI's are not just training wheels- they are necessary for some tasks. period. graphics are a case in point- no GUI, no graphics. got it? thanks 2)some people actually need every cpu cycle available. some people do more with a computer than just web related tasks. some people do 3D graphics, pro audio, video, etc... recommending solutions based on politics wont help. dont assume someone uses linux for the same reasons you do. i have some pretty simple requests: 1)roll the low latency patches into the kernal (audio people NEED low latency. hello!?) 2)bitch to hardware manufacturers to include linux drivers for their devices when shipping. 3)open the mind to accept other people using linux and for different reasons. linux is attracting users and YOU cannot control why they are attracted nor what their needs are. and do NOT assume we are all windows idiots. Thanks!

[reply] [top]

---