From: wayne@backbone.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) Subject: Re: Is this becoming comp.linux.advocacy? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:34:50 GMT
In article <CBH3w0.3Bt@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
> In article <WAYNE.93Aug7143825@backbone.uucp> wayne@backbone.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes:
> > In article <CBCGxz.4I8@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
yes.
>
> Aren't some priorities screwed up here?
No. They are just different priorities that you appear to have.
(This is neither good nor bad, in my opinion, just different)
> >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.
Yes, but not everyone is as interested in running Unix apps as they
are in running Windows Apps. (In particular, the people who are doing
the development make the choices of what they want to develop. It
appears that they have different priorities that you have.)
> >but reaching a supply of commercial software seems to
> >be an active area of development.
>
> By your descriptions above, this seems hardly the case.
No, it is the case. It just isn't what you want.
> >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.
Let's see, you say that no commercial software developer will _ever_
be interested in Linux because they don't pay for the OS. I give a
counter example of MS-DOS and other OS's. You miss the point and
think I am saying that Linux will have an install base the size of
MS-DOS.
No, I don't think the Linux will ever have an install base the size of
MS-DOS, but even much smaller operating systems have commercial apps.
In time, there is no reason why Linux will not also of commercial
apps.
> 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.
well, yes, anyone who buy's SCO _must_ be willing to pay big bucks,
but I really don't think that is such a huge advantage... :->
>
> >* 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.
Hmmm.... maybe the folks who are involved in Linux aren't interested
in the AS/400 type market... maybe they are more interested in the
DOS type market where the system might cost $1500, and the owner's
high school aged kind is the one who spends the time to install and
administer the system.
No, I don't think Linux will compete very well in the market that you
describe, but then, the market you describe is not the only market in
the world. (and not even the biggest market to boot...)
>
> In an environment in which Linux development is nobody's full-time job,
> people can burn out. Or want to rediscover their families. Or [ ... ]
But there _are_ people who make a living off of Linux. And more
people are getting interested in the commercial possibilities every
day.
There are lots of other free software systems that have survived for
years, and there isn't any reason why Linux won't also..
> >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.
hmmm... Let's see. In the last year, the things I can remember SCO
doing are:
* having it's Chairman resign
* releasing it's "version 4 Unix" and getting flamed heavily for it
* Finally getting around to supplying an filesystem that allows for
>14 character file names and symbolic links.
Univel has:
* come out with it's product, done next to no advertising and had to
drop it's price in half.
* USL sued BSDI and as a result, they may show that 32V didn't have a
valid copyright.
* USL was sold to Novel and Univel is going to be merged back into
USL/Novel
Dell has:
* released issue 2.1
* started to sell SCO, hiting at selling Solaries and maybe 4.2, but
who knows. In general, it's hard to say what they have been doing.
Esix has:
* been sold off because it's parent went bankrupt
I _really_ hope that next year is more productive for these companies
than last year. Really. Other strong, healthy competitors are good
for the market.
-wayne
--
The Average Person's Axioms of First Order Predicate Logic:
(A => B) => (B => A)
(There exists) x A(x) => (For all) x A(x)
(A => C) & (B => C) => (A => B) --Warren Vonroeschlaub