From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) Subject: Re: Is this becoming comp.linux.advocacy? Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 03:47:44 GMT
In article <WAYNE.93Aug7143825@backbone.uucp>
wayne@backbone.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes:
>> No matter how big the Linux installed base gets, its users will be
>> perceived as those who aren't interested in paying for software, and
>> resist software supplied without source. So commercial vendors will
>> have little interest in these users, no matter what their numbers.
>Well, _you_ may think it is reasonable to assume that people who use
>Linux (or 386bsd) may not be willing to pay for software, but there
>are companies out there who disagree. Just look at the number of
>different companies that _sell_ Linux on floppies and CD-ROMS.
There's a big difference between companies selling Linux (actually,
they're not selling Linux, they're selling a distribution service)
and companies selling auxilliary software *for* Linux.
>> For someone whose interest in Unix doesn't include commercial software,
>> Linux is a fantasic environment.
>
>Linux is also good if the commercial software runs in it's DOS
>emulator.
What this is saying is that Linux is better at running commercial MS-DOS
software than it is at running commercial Unix software.
Aren't some priorities screwed up here?
>In 6 months to a year, I am sure you will also be able to
>use ELF and MS Windows software.
Which is neat, except that the bulk of portably-written software in the
Intel Unix world is in neither of these formats. If it can't run COFF it
can't run SCO binaries. And, like it or not folks, SCO still has the
largest Intel Unix installed base right now and the most Intel Unix
commercial software ports.
>Maybe not all of it, and not all the
>important stuff,
It's important for a reason. Allowing to Linux to run only trivial
UNIX software is hardly a capability at all to a business user who
*does* need the important stuff.
>but reaching a supply of commercial software seems to
>be an active area of development.
By your descriptions above, this seems hardly the case.
>For all practical purposes, DOS is "free" and there are is no shortage
>of commercial software for it. If there is a large install base, the
>commercial apps will follow, or at least they have for every other OS,
>and there is no reason to believe that this wont be true for Linux
>also, when/if it has a large install base.
I love it when Linux boosterism takes these occasional leaps into the
Twilight Zone. Like suggesting that Linux will have an installed base
similar to MS-DOS or making other comparisons between Linux and MS-DOS.
If you added up every Unixoid system ever installed, whether commercial,
dirt cheap (Minix, Coherent, BSD4.2 to universities) or free (Linux), they
wouldn't come close to the MS-DOS installed base. And even if there were
as many Linux sites out there as, say, SCO, there's still no reason for
commercial software vendors to believe that Linux users will pay for
applications the way that SCO users would.
>* Linux is changing and addressing its weaknesses. There is every
> reason to believe that Linux will be able to overcome it's
> weaknesses before SVR4 can match Linux's strengths. (I.e., you
> won't see a complete SVR4 available for under $100, with source code
> any time in the near future, if ever.)
This really amazes me. Considering all the costs of a Unix system,
including the design, hardware, applications, documentation, systems
software, networking, installation, administration and especially
training, the cost savings of Linux (as opposed to, say, SCO) is
proportionally very small, maybe a few percent of the total. If the
lower cost of Linux is balanced by higher administration costs, inability
to find Linux training courses, poor documentation, smaller choice of
hardware and other issues, the cost savings may be even less.
I believe that many people underestimate the cost of free software.
>There is still lots of time and opportunity for the Linux community to
>self destruct
In an environment in which Linux development is nobody's full-time job,
people can burn out. Or want to rediscover their families. Or lose
Internet access. Or change careers. Or be instructed by their *real*
employer to shift priorities. The loss of a small number of significant
developers could be a substantial blow to specific R&D projects, even
though the community can self-sustain for decades in matters of support.
Commercial systems, for all their faults, provide a very strong
incentive to those who work on them -- paychecks and/or profits.
>anyone running a business would be a fool to count Linux out
>in the long run.
In the long run? A year from now, Linux will be a very different thing
than it is now. So will Univel, SCO, and the others. While Linux will
be guiding its basic networking and binary compatibilities through
infancy, commercial products will (and some already do) support
internationalization, enhanced security, NetWare, multiple processors,
multi-threaded processes, enhanced filesystems, and Pentium-optimized
compilers. The performance improvements alone may enough to justify the
cost differences between Linux and commercial systems. And there's still
no guarantee that Linux documentation will be at a level acceptable for
commercial consumption. But that's long-term.
For the foreseeable future, anyone running a business, and needing a
multi-user system to run their business, would be a fool to consider
Linux. None of the major database vendors (Oracle, Informix, Progress,
etc.) even know what Linux is, let alone have any porting plans. And
that means that none of the thousands of vertical-market packages that
VARs have developed for Unix (not to mention all the custom apps
written on these 4GLs) will run on Linux. Even if Linux can develop the
technical capability to run these apps, they won't be supported on Linux.
*That's* why most businesses run Unix, because Unix runs their
businesses. Talking them into trusting Linux will be a far harder
sell than Usenet cheerleading. And anyone installing Linux at a
client site without fully disclosing where it comes from and who
supports it, had better take out a decent liability policy.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
"It costs a lot of money to look as cheap as I do" -- Dolly Parton