From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 04:56:04 GMT
[I've crossposted to comp.os.linux.misc, and set followups there.]
In article <24eddtINNk4b@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> ksh@prl.ufl.edu (Kevin S Ho) writes:
>In article <CBHG3y.2tH@frobozz.sccsi.com>, kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>|> >: : Man, what do you want from *FREE* software?
>|> >: : Linux has the disadvantage that it's TOO GOOD. It looks too much like
>|> >: : commercial software; so, when people see it, they get upset that it
>|> >: : doesn't look *more* like commercial software.
>
>Well, no one I have seen ever bitches about Linux'es capabilities. They go down in
>flames over "ease of use" (more later)
To some extent, "ease of use" is a valid gripe. As someone else pointed out,
Linux has gotten to the point where non-computer types want to use it *because*
it is as capable as it is. These people, unfortunately, don't know Unix or
their hardware the way they might need to in order to do the installation.
Furthermore, they might not be able to learn Unix (lack of resources) until
they've got Linux up and running. Chicken and egg problem.
I'm not at all saying that this is an easy problem. Hardware configurations
are so variable in the PC-clone world that coping with a particular
configuration is essentially a shot in the dark.
So I understand the frustration of people who have problems installing
Linux on their system. But help is on the way. I plan on getting into
installing Linux for a fee, providing tutorial services, etc., to anyone
in the area that's willing to pay me for it.
>|> >Don't complain about SLS or MCC Linux installs. They may not be pretty, but
>|> >they work "as advertised" with few surprises. The most difficult thing for
>|> >me was to figure out how to correctly partition my hard drives to get
>|> >everything to work together.
>
>Well, that's a good point, but take a total idiot and tell him to install
>linux.......
Which is precisely the problem...
>|> Yup. Linux is really great stuff. Highest quality stuff *I've* ever seen.
>
>I agree, if you're willing to put in a few minutes of work for every program
>(except ones with precomp-binaries), because you are usually *porting to linux*
>and having to put up with the mutantness of linux (SYSV with some BSD with
>some hell if Iknow)
Having ported a number of things to System Vr4, I can tell you flat out that
porting to Linux is *easier* than porting to "the Real Thing".
I've even played with BSDI some, and found porting things to it to be
comparable to porting things to Linux.
>|> However, I also agree that if a user is having problems installing the
>|> software, then (to a point) the installation process could be better. It's
>|> a hard problem, though.
>
>One word: SLS
Some people seem to be having problems even with that. I've never played with
it myself, so I have no idea how easy it is to deal with.
>|> Microsloth doesn't know how to delete code, only how to add code. Code that
>|> is buggy and slow.
>
>EXACTLY
Which is why I run DOS for one, and only one, thing: games.
>|> >It literally has prolonged the
>|> >life of my machine. I don't use X, as I don't have quite the memory for it,
>|> >but if I got 8MB instead of 4, I'd be all set.
>
>I have 8 megs, I'm choking back the tears. Try running X, emacs, a compile
>or 2 and Xtank and watch it swap!
Obviously if you run enough CPU-intensive things, your system will bog. But
you should try doing all those things under System Vr4. You might be lucky
if your system doesn't crash on you under those conditions.
>|> 386 to a 33 MHz 486). Even so, Linux hauls, *especially* on a 486. And it
>|> is as stable as a rock. I haven't managed to crash it *once* while doing
>
>Me too, I haven't been able to crash linux, and I think it would take a few
>minutes of work even if I TRIED
Yup. Some things will just bring any Unix box down, e.g.
"while ( 1 ) fork();", but that's not something particular to Linux.
>|> normal Unix things. The only time it locked up on me was when I was playing
>|> with Dosemu (word of warning: don't try bringing up Jetfighter II under it.
>|> :-). I'm posting this from my Linux box. No problems. Most things
>|> compile right out of the box. A few things (BSD things, in particular)
>|> need a little coaxing, but it's not bad. Not bad at all.
>
>Well, usually it's just symlinking some #includes in from /usr/include/linux,
Or using -I/usr/include/bsd...
>but tell
>a secretary to do that. Linux is for those who want power and are willing
>to pay in sweat
I agree. But how many secretaries are going to be compiling things? Most
of them will want to run word processors and the like.
Such applications, if written properly, should be easier to use (and faster,
and more efficient, etc.) under Linux than under DOS or Windoze, if only
because Linux is a *real* operating system, not some kludge put together
by MicroSloth.
> KsH (no sig yet)
--
Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
Any questions?