From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: Is this becoming comp.linux.advocacy? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:25:41 GMT
wayne@backbone.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes:
>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:
>>
>> 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.)
I would have to say that both COFF and WABI are important to the Linux
community. Right now, I would have to say I want both of them equally as
much.
>> >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.
>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.
>> 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.
I think most of you are in the twilight zone on this commercial software
issue. Again, most software companies will likely never have interest in
porting to Linux. In theory, at least, *WHO CARES* once Linux has full
COFF (and ELF to a much lesser extent) compatibility *YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
RUN THE COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE*. Who wants to wait for "porting"- just slip
right into the main role of buying SCO ODT (except for some other things
SCO has like real documentation and multiprocessing/multithreading and such).
>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... :->
It is when you need the features SCO has to offer which Linux does not.
>>
>> >* 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.
Which I have said in the past. On a large system such as ours at work, the
OS is less than 1% of all Computer Services costs- no big issue. But yet,
if you have a distributed system with lots of nodes and need Unix running on
each node, the OS cost can go rather high.
>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.
Linux can and will have a chance in "regular businesses" when it can do most
of what SCO can do (COFF, documentation). I think it WILL happen. It still
most have ANY chance of running on our big machine, but there are countless
numbers more of small machines in the business world than big machines.
Besides, both can work together.
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/