Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!
sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!news.echonyc.com!echonyc!phiber
From: phiber@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Mark Abene)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Date: 18 Jan 1995 08:45:44 GMT
Organization: ECHO BBS & Public Access Internet Site, NYC
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3fikfo$3i3@subway.echonyc.com>
References: <3femlb$olk@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> <3feviq$sk4@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>
<D2K51E.HoI@nntpa.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: echonyc.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: And now for the other side of the coin.
: UW has come a long way since version 1.0. In its current
: form it is ROCK stable and has a vastly improved hardware
: compatibility list, including all the latest and greatest
: video hardware. Version 2.0 has been announced and should
: be available for GA in March.
: --Corey
"ROCK stable"? Let's not exaggerate. Sure, more stable than 1.0.
Question: Why are the out-of-the-box tuneable parameters so unrealistically
tiny? And so poorly documented? Two of the most important types of
tuneables, i/o buffer and inode cache, are so poorly documented
that it makes me wonder. It would help if we were told what units we
were dealing with. Cubits? Widgets?
I don't appreciate having to look for clues in include files, I'm busy
enough. And then, that only gets one so far.
And right now, I'm dealing with mysterious i/o glitches causing hangs,
after upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1.2 + ptf's. I'm pissed and tired.
Is there a DEFINITIVE and highly DETAILED technical description of the
tuneable parameters, from either AT&T or Novell? And I don't mean the
terse and useless descriptions in "Advanced System Administration", or
"System Performance Tuning". I mean the REAL DEAL.
--
Mark Abene - SysAdmin of Echo BBS and Public Access Internet Site, NYC
phi...@echonyc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!
gw1.att.com!csn!ncar!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Message-ID: <D2vDM3.G8p@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <3feviq$sk4@s-cwis.unomaha.edu> <D2K51E.HoI@nntpa.cb.att.com>
<3fikfo$3i3@subway.echonyc.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:51:38 GMT
Lines: 23
In article <3fikfo$...@subway.echonyc.com> phiber@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE
(Mark Abene) writes:
[Re unixware]
>Question: Why are the out-of-the-box tuneable parameters so unrealistically
>tiny? And so poorly documented? Two of the most important types of
>tuneables, i/o buffer and inode cache, are so poorly documented
>that it makes me wonder. It would help if we were told what units we
>were dealing with. Cubits? Widgets?
More to the point WTF aren't they dynamic. Kernels shouldn't need tuning
and shouldn't have static settings anyway because whats right in the middle
of a busy day is sure wrong when everyone is reading news in the evening.
>And right now, I'm dealing with mysterious i/o glitches causing hangs,
>after upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1.2 + ptf's. I'm pissed and tired.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`--[Anti Kibozing Signature]-'`----------------------------''
One two three: Kibo, Lawyer, Refugee :: Green card, Compaq come read me...
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!wizard.pn.com!satisfied.elf.com!
news.mathworks.com!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
scipio.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
From: c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 1 Feb 1995 15:54:49 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <3gp709INNgp7@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com>
<3fiku6INNjjs@python.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3fkocl$2uo@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
<D2wp1r.2MJ@info.swan.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
Let me pose this question: why should anyone use UnixWare instead of
Linux? What does UnixWare have that Linux doesn't, beside the USL and
a price tag?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!esoc!linuxed1!peernews.demon.co.uk!btnet!uknet!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 20:54:37 GMT
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com>
<3fiku6INNjjs@python.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3fkocl$2uo@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
<D2wp1r.2MJ@info.swan.ac.uk> <3gp709INNgp7@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
Organization: Novell Europe
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 16
Kazimir Kylheku (c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
: Let me pose this question: why should anyone use UnixWare instead of
: Linux? What does UnixWare have that Linux doesn't, beside the USL and
: a price tag?
Me.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
PS. Didn't you always know that I really *am* an arrogant bastard?
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!esoc!linuxed1!peernews.demon.co.uk!uknet!yama.mcc.ac.uk!
cs.man.ac.uk!fellowsd
From: fello...@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 6 Feb 1995 10:09:27 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <3h4sgn$d3o@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <D2wp1r.2MJ@info.swan.ac.uk>
<3gp709INNgp7@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: r8h.cs.man.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-User: 8028
Keywords: Linux UnixWare cost-effective
In article <D3E4r1....@novell.co.uk>,
Martin Sohnius <msohn...@novell.co.uk> wrote:
>Kazimir Kylheku (c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: Let me pose this question: why should anyone use UnixWare instead of
>: Linux? What does UnixWare have that Linux doesn't, beside the USL and
>: a price tag?
>
>Me.
>
That's really very sweet, but what we really wanted to know was what
advantages in terms of features/power/etc. does UW have as a bonus
over Linux? I'm quite willing to accept that it is a reasonable OS
(after all, it _is_ a UNIX) but why should I pay however much to get
it (and I hardly ever use support if I can fix it myself instead)
I would suggest that for companies (there is little point for
individuals to be buying however much of OS when they can get
virtually the same for free, IMHO), provided they get support from
someone (and AFAIK such companies exist), there is little difference
between the two.
In short, why is UW cost-effective?
>PS. Didn't you always know that I really *am* an arrogant bastard?
So? Aren't we all? :)
Donal. (who wonders why there is now a local Linux newsgroup here, but
not a local UW group... :)
--
Donal K. Fellows, A.K.A. ``I'll get a life when I can find the FTP site...''
--
Dept. of Computer Science, | 6, Randall Place, Heaton,
University of Manchester | Bradford, BD9 4AE
U.K. Tel: ++44-161-275-6137 | U.K. Tel: ++44-1274-401017
fello...@cs.man.ac.uk (preferred) | do...@ugglan.demon.co.uk (if you must)
--
Please do not quote this .signature, it isn't worth it! :)
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!esoc!linuxed1!peernews.demon.co.uk!news.sprintlink.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!
news.luth.se!sunic!ugle.unit.no!trane.uninett.no!astfgl.edb.tih.no!endrew
From: end...@edb.tih.no (Endre Witzoe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Date: 10 Feb 1995 11:36:38 GMT
Organization: Alice in Wonderland
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3hfj46$pg5@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <D2wp1r.2MJ@info.swan.ac.uk>
<3gp709INNgp7@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
<3h4sgn$d3o@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oversoul.edb.tih.no
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Donal K. Fellows (fello...@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
: Donal. (who wonders why there is now a local Linux newsgroup here, but
: not a local UW group... :)
Cause Linux is a preferred environment among students. It's free, and most
students aren't willing to pay the prize of a real _UNIX_ system.
(Besides: Most students won't be using it intensively. They just want to
get their hands on a UNIX-like system, to see what it is. Afterwards they'll
skip back to plain old DOS/Windows or OS/2.)
--
Endre Witzoe end...@colargol.idb.hist.no
Sverresgt. 8, B-21
N-7013 Trondheim, Norway
+47 73 53 49 63
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!esoc!linuxed1!peernews.demon.co.uk!news.sprintlink.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!msunews!news.mtu.edu!
news.mtu.edu!not-for-mail
From: kmzoe...@mtu.edu (Nigel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 10 Feb 1995 15:31:57 -0500
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
<3h4sgn$d3o@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <3hfj46$pg5@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxwell11.ee.mtu.edu
In article <3hfj46$...@astfgl.edb.tih.no>,
Endre Witzoe <end...@edb.tih.no> wrote:
>Donal K. Fellows (fello...@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Donal. (who wonders why there is now a local Linux newsgroup here, but
>: not a local UW group... :)
>
>Cause Linux is a preferred environment among students. It's free, and most
>students aren't willing to pay the prize of a real _UNIX_ system.
>(Besides: Most students won't be using it intensively. They just want to
>get their hands on a UNIX-like system, to see what it is. Afterwards they'll
>skip back to plain old DOS/Windows or OS/2.)
>
Pardon my languages here, but.....
Bullshit.
Linux is not just some passing fad among college students. It has nearly
all the capbilities of a commercail UNIX (and even a few they don't have),
As for usage, I use Linux almost exclusively for everything (lab reports,
netnews, www, etc...). Once I get dosemu and Wine working, I'll never go
back to DOS again if I can possibly avoid it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Kris Zoerhoff d...@freenet.grfn.org |
| http://www.grfn.org/~dust/ |
------------------------------------------------------------
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!udel!
news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!
news.luth.se!sunic!trane.uninett.no!astfgl.edb.tih.no!endrew
From: end...@edb.tih.no (Endre Witzoe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Date: 14 Feb 1995 18:58:29 GMT
Organization: Alice in Wonderland
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <3hqugl$s3t@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
<3h4sgn$d3o@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <3hfj46$pg5@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
<3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oversoul.edb.tih.no
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Nigel (kmzoe...@mtu.edu) wrote:
: In article <3hfj46$...@astfgl.edb.tih.no>,
: Endre Witzoe <end...@edb.tih.no> wrote:
: >Donal K. Fellows (fello...@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: Donal. (who wonders why there is now a local Linux newsgroup here, but
: >: not a local UW group... :)
: >
: >Cause Linux is a preferred environment among students. It's free, and most
: >students aren't willing to pay the prize of a real _UNIX_ system.
: >(Besides: Most students won't be using it intensively. They just want to
: >get their hands on a UNIX-like system, to see what it is. Afterwards they'll
: >skip back to plain old DOS/Windows or OS/2.)
: >
: Pardon my languages here, but.....
: Bullshit.
: Linux is not just some passing fad among college students. It has nearly
: all the capbilities of a commercail UNIX (and even a few they don't have),
: As for usage, I use Linux almost exclusively for everything (lab reports,
: netnews, www, etc...). Once I get dosemu and Wine working, I'll never go
: back to DOS again if I can possibly avoid it.
I've never even insinuated that Linux is 'some passing fad among college
students'. (Those were your words :->.) All I did was pointing out
a few possible reasons why there was a local Linux group, and not a UW one.
You can't deny however, that Linux (and free UN*X'es in general for that
matter) is mostly used in educational and research institutions or by people
employed by or attending such institutions.
--
Endre Witzoe end...@colargol.idb.hist.no
Sverresgt. 8, B-21
N-7013 Trondheim, Norway
+47 73 53 49 63
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!
uni-duisburg.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!hookup!nic.hookup.net!
xenitec!uplink!not-for-mail
From: cale...@uplink.UUCP (Craig A. Lemon [Admin])
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 20 Feb 1995 23:32:55 -0500
Organization: Uplink Communications
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <3ibqdn$q1@uplink.net3.io.org>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <D3E4r1.467@novell.co.uk>
<3h4sgn$d3o@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <3hfj46$pg5@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
<3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee> <3hqugl$s3t@astfgl.edb.tih.no>
Reply-To: calemon%upl...@xenitec.on.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.uucp
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Endre Witzoe (end...@edb.tih.no) wrote:
: : Linux is not just some passing fad among college students. It has nearly
: : all the capbilities of a commercail UNIX (and even a few they don't have),
: : As for usage, I use Linux almost exclusively for everything (lab reports,
: : netnews, www, etc...). Once I get dosemu and Wine working, I'll never go
: : back to DOS again if I can possibly avoid it.
Uh no. I will never take DOS/Windoze over UNIX, unless given no
choice.
: I've never even insinuated that Linux is 'some passing fad among college
: students'. (Those were your words :->.) All I did was pointing out
: a few possible reasons why there was a local Linux group, and not a UW one.
: You can't deny however, that Linux (and free UN*X'es in general for that
: matter) is mostly used in educational and research institutions or by people
: employed by or attending such institutions.
Uhhh, that would be because these are the majority of institutions which
o have Internet access to get linux/freeBSD
o have "leading edge" people who are into what's new, and what works,
not what Bill Gates says is good, or what some computer course
taken 5 years ago was good. Once removed from the Internet/educational
institution loop, far too many people (net admins etc...) fall into
DOS/Windoze ruts.
: --
: Endre Witzoe end...@colargol.idb.hist.no
: Sverresgt. 8, B-21
: N-7013 Trondheim, Norway
: +47 73 53 49 63
--
Craig A. Lemon VE3XCL (Advanced) | http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~calemon
3A UWaterloo Electrical Engineering | AX.25: ve3xcl@ve3uow.#swon.on.can.na
calemon%upl...@xenitec.on.ca (home) | Co-Op: Scientific-Atlanta Canada
cale...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (school) | Digital Video Systems R&D, Toronto
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!
uni-duisburg.de!zib-berlin.de!Germany.EU.net!wizard.pn.com!satisfied.elf.com!
news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!world!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: g...@gwe486.cb.att.com ()
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Message-ID: <D4Kzor.s@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: n...@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: gwe486.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T GBCS/Bell Labs
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<3hqugl$s3t@astfgl.edb.tih.no> <3ibqdn$q1@uplink.net3.io.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:22:03 GMT
Lines: 52
In article <3ibqdn...@uplink.net3.io.org>,
Craig A. Lemon [Admin] <calemon%upl...@xenitec.on.ca> wrote:
>
> o have Internet access to get linux/freeBSD
> o have "leading edge" people who are into what's new, and what works,
> not what Bill Gates says is good, or what some computer course
> taken 5 years ago was good. Once removed from the Internet/educational
> institution loop, far too many people (net admins etc...) fall into
> DOS/Windoze ruts.
> Craig A. Lemon VE3XCL (Advanced) | http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~calemon
> 3A UWaterloo Electrical Engineering | AX.25: ve3xcl@ve3uow.#swon.on.can.na
> calemon%upl...@xenitec.on.ca (home) | Co-Op: Scientific-Atlanta Canada
> cale...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (school) | Digital Video Systems R&D, Toronto
I happen to be in a leading edge group that uses Linux instead of UNIXWARE.
The product that my organization develops is SVR3 and has recently
migrated to UNIXWARE since SVR3 is unsupported. When the discussions
were held to decided what to replace SVR3 with, the only considerations
were SCO, UNIXWARE and SOLARIS. At the time, (almost 2 years ago) UNIXWARE
was the natural choice because some prototyping had already been done using
an AT&T release of SVR4.
What you are missing here is a view of what our customers want. They want
systems that they can turn on, locked away in an equipment room, and
forget about them. Our product is is a voice response system for
automating telephone calls. Customers don't care if it is running LINUX
or not. The trouble resolution team that field customer trouble calls
cares what OS the product runs on. They want a responsible corporate
entity that will field trouble reports when our customers have OS
related problems.
Now, my group works on speech processing and text-to-speech software.
We have the need to use the latest and greatest hardware to develop
algorithms that will recognize speech. We have found Linux to be a
speedy alternative to UNIXWARE. This may change if SMP UNIXWARE
can truly distribute multithreaded code across processors. We went
to Linux initially because of extensive PCI board support, but UNIXWARE
is catching up. We appreciate all of the net efforts that make Linux
possible and we continue to be amazed at the contributions being
made around the world. Please keep up the great work, but I think
that most commercial systems developers, that do the kind of things
that we do, will be looking for the kind of backing that UNIXWARE or
SOLARIS has. I do realise that nothing precludes someone from building
an organization the do this, but the free distribution of source
code tends to take the wind out of their sails.
--
George Erhart
AT&T Bell Labs/GBCS
6200 E. Broad St. Rm. 2B310
Columbus, OH 43213
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!
gmi!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!
wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au!news.tansu.com.au!picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au!newshost!chrisb
From: chr...@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 1 Mar 95 10:37:54
Organization: Telecom Australia
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <CHRISB.95Mar1103754@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<3hqugl$s3t@astfgl.edb.tih.no> <3ibqdn$q1@uplink.net3.io.org>
<D4Kzor.s@nntpa.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au
In-reply-to: gwe@gwe486.cb.att.com's message of Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:22:03 GMT
In article <D4Kzo...@nntpa.cb.att.com> g...@gwe486.cb.att.com () writes:
>made around the world. Please keep up the great work, but I think
>that most commercial systems developers, that do the kind of things
>that we do, will be looking for the kind of backing that UNIXWARE or
>SOLARIS has. I do realise that nothing precludes someone from building
>an organization the do this, but the free distribution of source
>code tends to take the wind out of their sails.
Why don't you first go to one of the organisations that offers Linux
support and pay for it. *Then* you can pass an opinion as to whether it is
adequate or not.
--
Chris Bitmead
chr...@ind.tansu.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!udel!
news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!
godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp.et.byu.edu!
news.provo.novell.com!usg!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D4rB8C.uE@novell.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:17:00 GMT
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<CHRISB.95Mar1103754@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>
Organization: Novell Europe
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 25
Chris Bitmead (chr...@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au) wrote:
: In article <D4Kzo...@nntpa.cb.att.com> g...@gwe486.cb.att.com () writes:
: >made around the world. Please keep up the great work, but I think
: >that most commercial systems developers, that do the kind of things
: >that we do, will be looking for the kind of backing that UNIXWARE or
: >SOLARIS has. I do realise that nothing precludes someone from building
: >an organization the do this, but the free distribution of source
: >code tends to take the wind out of their sails.
: Why don't you first go to one of the organisations that offers Linux
: support and pay for it. *Then* you can pass an opinion as to whether it is
: adequate or not.
His point was not whether they are adequate or not, but rather whether in
the long run they would be commercially viable on the scale that would
instill the confidence of major corporate customers.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!
Germany.EU.net!EU.net!CERN.ch!rscernix!danpop
From: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ues5.cern.ch
Message-ID: <danpop.794150035@rscernix>
Sender: n...@news.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #9 (NOV)
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<CHRISB.95Mar1103754@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <D4rB8C.uE@novell.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:13:55 GMT
Lines: 32
In <D4rB8C...@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
>Chris Bitmead (chr...@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au) wrote:
>: In article <D4Kzo...@nntpa.cb.att.com> g...@gwe486.cb.att.com () writes:
>
>: >made around the world. Please keep up the great work, but I think
>: >that most commercial systems developers, that do the kind of things
>: >that we do, will be looking for the kind of backing that UNIXWARE or
>: >SOLARIS has. I do realise that nothing precludes someone from building
>: >an organization the do this, but the free distribution of source
>: >code tends to take the wind out of their sails.
>
>: Why don't you first go to one of the organisations that offers Linux
>: support and pay for it. *Then* you can pass an opinion as to whether it is
>: adequate or not.
>
>His point was not whether they are adequate or not, but rather whether in
>the long run they would be commercially viable on the scale that would
>instill the confidence of major corporate customers.
The same question applies to UnixWare. Are you willing to swear that
Novell won't decide, next year, that UW doesn't bring enough profit and
drop the ball?
Those who emphasize this aspect go with Microsoft and use their junk :-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!bt!btnet!uknet!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D514Io.AF0@novell.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 17:28:00 GMT
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<CHRISB.95Mar1103754@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <D4rB8C.uE@novell.co.uk>
<danpop.794150035@rscernix>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 31
Dan Pop (dan...@cernapo.cern.ch) wrote:
: In <D4rB8C...@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
: >Chris Bitmead (chr...@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au) wrote:
: >
: >: Why don't you first go to one of the organisations that offers Linux
: >: support and pay for it. *Then* you can pass an opinion as to whether it is
: >: adequate or not.
: >
: >His point was not whether they are adequate or not, but rather whether in
: >the long run they would be commercially viable on the scale that would
: >instill the confidence of major corporate customers.
: The same question applies to UnixWare. Are you willing to swear that
: Novell won't decide, next year, that UW doesn't bring enough profit and
: drop the ball?
As far as I can read the entrails, Novell did not acquire USL for its
profitability, but rather for its technology base, and the skill set of
its staff (mind you, I was never one of them!). It would be unlikely for
them to "drop the ball" just because the bean counters say so. UnixWare
is a strategic product, and its viability is not entirely determined by
its being a profit center.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!
netnews.summit.novell.com!netnews.summit.novell.com!sfgfd!gfd
From: g...@summit.novell.com (George F Demarest)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 8 Mar 1995 16:05:17 GMT
Organization: Novell
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <3jkkjt$mgp@bird.summit.novell.com>
References: <1995Jan17.113906.2536@dlpinc00.com> <3hgift$51l@maxwell11.ee>
<CHRISB.95Mar1103754@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <D4rB8C.uE@novell.co.uk>
<danpop.794150035@rscernix> <D514Io.AF0@novell.co.uk>
Reply-To: g...@summit.novell.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sfgfd.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Regarding profit centers and long term commitment, etc.
Novell has gained a healthy profit center from USG source-code
sales/royalties, (an item that is expanding, not receeding).
So no need to worry about USG as a profit center. We are, of
course, interested in increasing our binary revenues, but not
at the expense of source sales. It wasn't like Novell bought
a company operating at a huge loss. If Novell had not come
around, USL was looking very healthy financially.
It is, of course, nice for Novell to have the technology base, but we
realize profits *right now* from USG, between source sales, royalties,
UnixWare binaries, Tuxedo licenses, et al. USG and UnixWare will endure.
Much to the chagrin of our friends in Santa Cruz. ;-)
gfd
Martin Sohnius (msohn...@novell.co.uk) wrote:
: Dan Pop (dan...@cernapo.cern.ch) wrote:
: : In <D4rB8C...@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
: : The same question applies to UnixWare. Are you willing to swear that
: : Novell won't decide, next year, that UW doesn't bring enough profit and
: : drop the ball?
: As far as I can read the entrails, Novell did not acquire USL for its
: profitability, but rather for its technology base, and the skill set of
: its staff (mind you, I was never one of them!). It would be unlikely for
: them to "drop the ball" just because the bean counters say so. UnixWare
: is a strategic product, and its viability is not entirely determined by
: its being a profit center.
: --
: +----------------------------------+
: Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
--
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
George Demarest g...@summit.novell.com
UnixWare Prod. Mktg. Mgr. (908) 522-6363
Novell, Inc.
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!prologic!sar
From: s...@plc.com (Steve Rago)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Message-ID: <D56IF4.CL2@plc.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 15:16:16 GMT
References: <danpop.794150035@rscernix> <D514Io.AF0@novell.co.uk>
<3jkkjt$mgp@bird.summit.novell.com>
Organization: Programmed Logic Corporation
Lines: 25
In article <3jkkjt$...@bird.summit.novell.com> g...@summit.novell.com writes:
>
>Novell has gained a healthy profit center from USG source-code
>sales/royalties, (an item that is expanding, not receeding).
>So no need to worry about USG as a profit center. We are, of
>course, interested in increasing our binary revenues, but not
>at the expense of source sales. It wasn't like Novell bought
>a company operating at a huge loss. If Novell had not come
>around, USL was looking very healthy financially.
How much of the source-code sales is a blip from the Sun buyout?
It was my impression that when Novell bought USL, they were
de-emphasizing source sales and emphasizing (if you can call it
that) binary sales.
>It is, of course, nice for Novell to have the technology base, but we
>realize profits *right now* from USG, between source sales, royalties,
>UnixWare binaries, Tuxedo licenses, et al. USG and UnixWare will endure.
>
>Much to the chagrin of our friends in Santa Cruz. ;-)
I doubt it. Didn't SCO recently license your C compilation system?
Steve Rago
s...@plc.com
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
aix11.hrz.uni-oldenburg.de!nordwest.pop.de!informatik.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!
xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.summit.novell.com!
netnews.summit.novell.com!sfwksh!pend
From: p...@usl.com (J. Stephen Pendergrast)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Date: 10 Mar 1995 17:54:15 GMT
Organization: Novell
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <3jq3o7$8dn@bird.summit.novell.com>
References: <D56IF4.CL2@plc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sfwksh.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Steve Rago (s...@plc.com) wrote:
: In article <3jkkjt$...@bird.summit.novell.com> g...@summit.novell.com writes:
: >
: >Novell has gained a healthy profit center from USG source-code
: >sales/royalties, (an item that is expanding, not receeding).
: >So no need to worry about USG as a profit center. We are, of
: >course, interested in increasing our binary revenues, but not
: >at the expense of source sales. It wasn't like Novell bought
: >a company operating at a huge loss. If Novell had not come
: >around, USL was looking very healthy financially.
: How much of the source-code sales is a blip from the Sun buyout?
: It was my impression that when Novell bought USL, they were
: de-emphasizing source sales and emphasizing (if you can call it
: that) binary sales.
The sun buyout was merely a net-present value transaction in which
they prepaid a certain number of years projected royalties.
From USG's perspective, it mattered not whether that deal went through.
The financial results are the same either way.
: >It is, of course, nice for Novell to have the technology base, but we
: >realize profits *right now* from USG, between source sales, royalties,
: >UnixWare binaries, Tuxedo licenses, et al. USG and UnixWare will endure.
: >
: >Much to the chagrin of our friends in Santa Cruz. ;-)
: I doubt it. Didn't SCO recently license your C compilation system?
SCO apparently recognizes quality source code products. Doesn't your
"point" simply confirm George's assertion that our source business is
alive and well and we don't just depend on binary sales?
: Steve Rago
: s...@plc.com
-Steve P.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!delos.stgt.sub.org!delos.stgt.sub.org!news.maz.net!pipex!
howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!digex.net!plc.com!prologic!sar
From: s...@plc.com (Steve Rago)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Message-ID: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 18:53:55 GMT
References: <D56IF4.CL2@plc.com> <3jq3o7$8dn@bird.summit.novell.com>
Organization: Programmed Logic Corporation
Lines: 34
In article <3jq3o7$...@bird.summit.novell.com> p...@usl.com
(J. Stephen Pendergrast) writes:
>Steve Rago (s...@plc.com) wrote:
>
>: How much of the source-code sales is a blip from the Sun buyout?
>: It was my impression that when Novell bought USL, they were
>: de-emphasizing source sales and emphasizing (if you can call it
>: that) binary sales.
>
>The sun buyout was merely a net-present value transaction in which
>they prepaid a certain number of years projected royalties.
>From USG's perspective, it mattered not whether that deal went through.
>The financial results are the same either way.
From what you're saying, I assume then that the buyout only involved
binary royalties, and they didn't buy any future technology.
>: >It is, of course, nice for Novell to have the technology base, but we
>: >realize profits *right now* from USG, between source sales, royalties,
>: >UnixWare binaries, Tuxedo licenses, et al. USG and UnixWare will endure.
>: >
>: >Much to the chagrin of our friends in Santa Cruz. ;-)
>
>: I doubt it. Didn't SCO recently license your C compilation system?
>
>SCO apparently recognizes quality source code products. Doesn't your
>"point" simply confirm George's assertion that our source business is
>alive and well and we don't just depend on binary sales?
No, my point is that SCO doesn't lose any sleep over the fact that
USG survives. You're just another supplier of technology. I'm actually
much happier now that I have a decent CCS on my SCO systems.
Steve Rago
s...@plc.com
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!
netnews.summit.novell.com!netnews.summit.novell.com!sfwksh!pend
From: p...@usl.com (J. Stephen Pendergrast)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Date: 14 Mar 1995 14:03:40 GMT
Organization: Novell
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sfwksh.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Steve Rago (s...@plc.com) wrote:
: From what you're saying, I assume then that the buyout only involved
: binary royalties, and they didn't buy any future technology.
I believe that is the case. The press report at the time went into some
detail on what technology was involved.
: No, my point is that SCO doesn't lose any sleep over the fact that
: USG survives. You're just another supplier of technology. I'm actually
: much happier now that I have a decent CCS on my SCO systems.
Thanks for the compliment! The compiler guys here must be smiling now...
However, I think some advertising campaigns by SCO over the last year
or so clearly show that they view us as a competitive threat. For example,
there were some adds that mentioned us by name; some other references
were thinly veiled. The fact that they buy some technology from us
doesn't mean they don't feel we are a threat. These days you have
all kinds of strange bedfellows in techology; that's why Norda coined the
term "co-opetition" (a combination of cooperation and competition).
I think we're pretty far off-thread now.
: Steve Rago
: s...@plc.com
-Steve P.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!ccsdec1.ufsia.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!
idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!
Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!
news.provo.novell.com!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 19:32:59 GMT
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 18
J. Stephen Pendergrast (p...@usl.com) wrote:
[...]
: These days you have
: all kinds of strange bedfellows in techology; that's why Noorda coined the
: term "co-opetition" (a combination of cooperation and competition).
: I think we're pretty far off-thread now.
Do you mean to say by this last sentence that Linux provides neither
cooperation nor competition to UnixWare? ;=)
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!
in1.uu.net!pipex!warwick!not-for-mail
From: xu...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Daniel Barlow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 15 Mar 1995 10:53:39 -0000
Organization: University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
<D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holly-fddi.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In article <D5G3Mz....@novell.co.uk>,
msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
>J. Stephen Pendergrast (p...@usl.com) wrote:
>[...]
>: These days you have
>: all kinds of strange bedfellows in techology; that's why Noorda coined the
>: term "co-opetition" (a combination of cooperation and competition).
>
>: I think we're pretty far off-thread now.
>
>Do you mean to say by this last sentence that Linux provides neither
>cooperation nor competition to UnixWare? ;=)
I assume not, because that would be Wrong. Offhand I can think of
FIPS (non-destructive DOS partition resizer) which has been
recommended on this group (c.u.uw), and the VoxWare sound driver which
I'm pretty sure was originally Linux-only. Certainly wasn't a UW
original, that much is clear.
Also, even as I write there are people hacking away at gcc ELF/i386
stuff for linux, which will doubtless be useful for other like systems.
I won't argue the `competition' aspect, because I've never seen a UW
box running around here so couldn't speak with much knowledge :-)
(ok, so when has that ever stopped anyone ... )
Daniel
--
xu...@csv.warwick.ac.uk // Daniel Barlow // daniel.bar...@sjc.ox.ac.uk
I was also the guy shouting "No, don't do it, you'll be toast by the
time it finishes an fsck on hard disks those size".
-- Derek Tearne on Jurassic Park
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:58:43 GMT
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
<D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk> <3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 47
Daniel Barlow (xu...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <D5G3Mz....@novell.co.uk>,
: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
: >J. Stephen Pendergrast (p...@usl.com) wrote:
: >[...]
: >: These days you have
: >: all kinds of strange bedfellows in techology; that's why Noorda coined the
: >: term "co-opetition" (a combination of cooperation and competition).
: >
: >: I think we're pretty far off-thread now.
: >
: >Do you mean to say by this last sentence that Linux provides neither
: >cooperation nor competition to UnixWare? ;=)
: I assume not, because that would be Wrong. Offhand I can think of
: FIPS (non-destructive DOS partition resizer) which has been
: recommended on this group (c.u.uw), and the VoxWare sound driver which
: I'm pretty sure was originally Linux-only. Certainly wasn't a UW
: original, that much is clear.
: Also, even as I write there are people hacking away at gcc ELF/i386
: stuff for linux, which will doubtless be useful for other like systems.
: I won't argue the `competition' aspect, because I've never seen a UW
: box running around here so couldn't speak with much knowledge :-)
: (ok, so when has that ever stopped anyone ... )
Well, now we definitely *are* back on-thread! Actually, there is a
whole library of free software available for UnixWare which, as time
goes by, includes more and more Linux-originated stuff.
As far as co-operaton goes, I see only one really serious problem: the
commercial Unix community has reacted very positive to the "Spec1170"
initiative, and Linux has not. The obvious problem is money, and it would
be difficult to imagine a scenario where anyone could try to put Linux
through the motions of having it certified as "Unix" by X/Open. But, just
for a start, it would help if the interfaces defined in XPG4.2
("Spec1170") were taken as "standard" in the Linux community as well. The
last thing we need is a further, fundamentally different, flavour of *x.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!uunet!illuminati.io.com!pentagon.io.com!async
From: as...@pentagon.io.com (Felix Sebastian Gallo)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 16 Mar 1995 17:24:57 -0600
Organization: Illuminati Online
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <async.795395489@pentagon.io.com>
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
<D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk> <3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
<D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pentagon.io.com
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV)
msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
>As far as co-operaton goes, I see only one really serious problem: the
>commercial Unix community has reacted very positive to the "Spec1170"
>initiative, and Linux has not.
Well, of course it hasn't. Linux is software. A Unix-like kernel, to be
specific.
However, many (many) people have reacted very strongly and positively
towards the idea of making Linux POSIX-compliant and Single Unix compliant.
I suspect that Linux will be the first free OS granted X/Open certification
as a Unix.
> [it would]
>be difficult to imagine a scenario where anyone could try to put Linux
>through the motions of having it certified as "Unix" by X/Open.
Why? Because it costs a gross amount of money? The Single Unix specification
is available now in softcover with an annotated CD-ROM for $70.00 US; I very
nearly bought one and fedexed it to finland yesterday, but I didn't have ready
cash. Regardless, very soon hundreds if not thousands of Linux hackers will
grab that spec and begin to implement any missing functionality Linux doesn't
have. When they're done -- and they will, soon enough, finish -- then either
the Linux community will convince X/Open to test it for a lower cost due to
special circumstances, or the community will open its wallets. The market
will decide, and I suspect that the market is willing to jump on that one.
> But, just
>for a start, it would help if the interfaces defined in XPG4.2
>("Spec1170") were taken as "standard" in the Linux community as well. The
>last thing we need is a further, fundamentally different, flavour of *x.
I'd be willing to bet that Linux is far more compliant with the spirit
and letter of the Single Unix spec (formerly Spec 1170) than many commercially
available packages which aspire to comply. For instance, MVS, Microsoft
Windows NT, and so on. You do the community injustice by implying wrongly
that Linux development is not strongly tied to standards.
--
Felix Gallo as...@io.com
"stabbing someone is a direct result of several factors." - Kevin Lord
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D5L2FH.4Ds@novell.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:54:52 GMT
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <3k47nt$cii@bird.summit.novell.com>
<D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk> <3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
<D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk> <async.795395489@pentagon.io.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 83
Felix Sebastian Gallo (as...@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
: >As far as co-operaton goes, I see only one really serious problem: the
: >commercial Unix community has reacted very positive to the "Spec1170"
: >initiative, and Linux has not.
: Well, of course it hasn't. Linux is software. A Unix-like kernel, to be
: specific.
You know exactly what I meant, and this comment is silly.
: However, many (many) people have reacted very strongly and positively
: towards the idea of making Linux POSIX-compliant and Single Unix compliant.
: I suspect that Linux will be the first free OS granted X/Open certification
: as a Unix.
That's not saying very much. The problem, as I wrote before, is money.
For *any* free OS. And, of course, product stability. Meaning: by the
time you've gone through certification, your product won't resemble the
tested version any more.
Actually, I don;t know how this is handled for commercial products, either.
But I could well imagine that software vendors commit themselves to certain
procedures to ensure that future updates don't invalidate the existing
certification. I doubt that the Linux development philosophy and method
renders itself to such commitments.
: > [it would]
: >be difficult to imagine a scenario where anyone could try to put Linux
: >through the motions of having it certified as "Unix" by X/Open.
: Why? Because it costs a gross amount of money? The Single Unix specification
: is available now in softcover with an annotated CD-ROM for $70.00 US; I very
: nearly bought one and fedexed it to finland yesterday, but I didn't have ready
: cash. Regardless, very soon hundreds if not thousands of Linux hackers will
: grab that spec and begin to implement any missing functionality Linux doesn't
: have.
Fine. It's when we start about *taking out* non-conformant functionality
that I see heckles rise.
: When they're done -- and they will, soon enough, finish -- then either
: the Linux community will convince X/Open to test it for a lower cost due to
: special circumstances, or the community will open its wallets. The market
: will decide, and I suspect that the market is willing to jump on that one.
I'll see the day. X/Open has not so far been know for its generosity.
But I agree that bringing Linux into the Unix fold would be A Good Thing.
I could probably even make a case for the rationale of commercial UNIX
vendors sponsoring such a move!
: > But, just
: >for a start, it would help if the interfaces defined in XPG4.2
: >("Spec1170") were taken as "standard" in the Linux community as well. The
: >last thing we need is a further, fundamentally different, flavour of *x.
: I'd be willing to bet that Linux is far more compliant with the spirit
: and letter of the Single Unix spec (formerly Spec 1170) than many commercially
: available packages which aspire to comply.
Well, you say "many", and on that I must agree.
: For instance, MVS, Microsoft
: Windows NT, and so on.
I don't believe these are trying for XPG/4.2. They are into the weakest
form of POSIX comppliance, effectively to bypass US Government rules about
tendering.
: You do the community injustice by implying wrongly
: that Linux development is not strongly tied to standards.
How many of the "developers" of Linux own even a copy of those standards?
Schildt's ANSI-C rip-off, probably, but I'd guess that's pretty much it.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!
news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.tele.fi!news.funet.fi!
news.csc.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail
From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 19 Mar 1995 13:42:51 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 75
Sender: torva...@cc.helsinki.fi
Message-ID: <3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi>
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk>
<3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: klaava.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[ more self-satisfied rumblings here: this is posted on an advocacy
group, and unixware non-advocacy people please ignore ]
In article <D5JG9v....@novell.co.uk>,
Martin Sohnius <msohn...@novell.co.uk> wrote:
>
>As far as co-operaton goes, I see only one really serious problem: the
>commercial Unix community has reacted very positive to the "Spec1170"
>initiative, and Linux has not. The obvious problem is money, and it would
>be difficult to imagine a scenario where anyone could try to put Linux
>through the motions of having it certified as "Unix" by X/Open. But, just
>for a start, it would help if the interfaces defined in XPG4.2
>("Spec1170") were taken as "standard" in the Linux community as well. The
>last thing we need is a further, fundamentally different, flavour of *x.
I'd love to be able to say Linux is 1170 compliant, and being able to
say Linux is officially "unix". However, there are a few problems, and
money is just one of them (although perhaps the largest from a purely
technical viewpoint). But:
- the unix world is in my opinion getting too much of these
"standards". Spec1170 is ok per se, but there are some very broken
ideas behind it all. Windows certainly didn't follow any standards,
and look where it got them (hint: it's not exactly dying away).
Point: standards are a nice idea, but what matters is applications,
not standards. And applications go after volume, not any "source
compatibility". Besides, I don't see standards succeeding very well
in a dynamic marketplace except as a minimum requirement, which means
that either the unix market stagnates or then all vendors will still
have their platform-specific enhancements to make them stand out.
I think the Unix community would be better off trying to encourage
application software development directly. Yes, I do see that a
standard is meant to do that indirectly by making it easier for a
developer to do cross-platform development, but frankly,
cross-platform doesn't even matter before you have an application at
all..
Advice to unix vendors (look who's talking ;-): stop spending time on
operating system features, concentrate on getting end-user *mass*
applications. Go write a "Word for Windows" clone that actually
works, make it cheap, and *then* you'll *really* have something for
your workstation market.
Forget the administration utilities: the admin will put up with
whatever (most will probably actually prefer a command line): it's
the user that counts (if you have more admins than users on your
system, you may cater for the admin, but I suspect not..)
Forget the standardisation stuff for a moment: the programmer will
put up with whatever (most will still prefer whatever environment
they came from): it's the application and the user that counts.
I'm afraid most unix vendors have already given up on the workstation
market and are doing mainly "server" stuff. I think it's a losing
position in the long run: if the workstations are running Windows,
most places would chose Windows NT as the server just because it's
more of the same. Ignoring or mishandling the low-end market got
IBM/DEC/whatever into trouble, and the same thing might happen to
unix in the software market.
So: start funnelling the money directly to application writers
instead of standards bodies. The rest will follow.
Ok, so the great oracle Linus has spoken.. If I'm so clever, why ain't
I rich?
Oh, well.. Anyway, I like standards as well, and I'll make my best to
make linux adher to them. But standards should be free, and they should
make sense. Spec1170 at least makes sense (from what I've heard of it),
but even so there are more important things to worry about than
standards..
Linus
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Message-ID: <D5r2yt.C9A@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk> <async.795395489@pentagon.io.com>
<D5L2FH.4Ds@novell.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:52:04 GMT
Lines: 61
In article <D5L2FH....@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
>Fine. It's when we start about *taking out* non-conformant functionality
>that I see heckles rise.
Which isn't an issue anyway. Linux supports binary personalities so it can
be Linux and XPG at the same time if it wishes. My machine has Wyse, Xenix,
Xenix286, SCO and FreeBSD binary support already, and a development Minix
module.
>How many of the "developers" of Linux own even a copy of those standards?
>Schildt's ANSI-C rip-off, probably, but I'd guess that's pretty much it.
How many of those standards bodies make fools of themselves by trying to
become fat on fake open standards. Why if Motif is open is the toolkit so
expensive. Why are so many standards documents written in bad legalese and
even when you get a copy make reference to 10,000 other expensive documents
written in legalese and incomplete. Has anyone made sure the standards in
question are patent free, exportable without ITAR certificates etc.
Free software plays to different standards. The what people want, and what
people expect standard. Thats not to say POSIX and other conformance isn't
important - its just too many so called 'standards bodies' don't do a good
job of it.
Take some good examples:
Sun RPC - source code and documents free in general, a couple
escaped.
Internet RFC's - all free, written in English. Some abysmal
references to CACM articles that should have been documented
in RFC's tho.
And a typical bad one
iBCS compatibility specification 2.
Seems to contradict itself on a file layout issue
Requires you also have
80386 programmers reference manual
POSIX.1 IEEE P1003.1
X window system Version 11, Release 4 interface
specification
System 5 Interface definition Issue 2
Not an impressive book. Not a cheap book. Not a complete book.
It would indeed be unfortunate if the free Unixes set an alternative
standard. But as OSF have already proved with Motif, closed standards cause
alternatives not progress.
On my shelf I have a lot of RPC, BSD API and related documents, all the
RFC's from about 700 upwards. If Posix.x were freely ftpable, XPG/x was
and the CCITT network protocol docs were (as well as readable in their
case) they would be on my shelf too.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`--[Anti Kibozing Signature]-'`----------------------------''
One two three: Kibo, Lawyer, Refugee :: Green card, Compaq come read me...
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!
news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!
uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.byu.edu!news.provo.novell.com!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D5r6F7.1pr@novell.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:06:42 GMT
References: <D58n5w.vs@plc.com> <D5G3Mz.Kw6@novell.co.uk>
<3k6gvj$c0r@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk>
<3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 74
Linus Torvalds (torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: [ more self-satisfied rumblings here: this is posted on an advocacy
: group, and unixware non-advocacy people please ignore ]
And I don't want to start arguing at all! Linus gave a very reasoned
argument in favour of application development, where the money should go
instead of standardising effort. I would love to agree with him, and to
some extent I do. On theother hand, I just read that Novell's CEO has
mentioned a figure 1.2 million annual Unix sales (since most commercial
Unixes pay some licence or other to Novell, he probably knows). Now, that
is a very sizabe market for software developers, *if* these 1.2m copies could
all run the same code, or at least code compiled from the same source.
Hence, the emphasis on standards.
: Advice to unix vendors (look who's talking ;-): stop spending time on
: operating system features, concentrate on getting end-user *mass*
: applications. Go write a "Word for Windows" clone that actually
: works, make it cheap, and *then* you'll *really* have something for
: your workstation market.
Try WordPerfect 6.0, native on UnixWare. It's impressive!
: Forget the administration utilities: the admin will put up with
: whatever (most will probably actually prefer a command line): it's
: the user that counts (if you have more admins than users on your
: system, you may cater for the admin, but I suspect not..)
That may well be the case, actually. Users see the applications whose
development you so much prioritise. In a server-client environment you
may very well have far more admins than users on the server. The
best-selling server-only OS so far, NetWare, has no users at all! The
users use Windows, DOS, Apple Macintoshes, or, indeed, UnixWare or some
other Unix.
: Forget the standardisation stuff for a moment: the programmer will
: put up with whatever (most will still prefer whatever environment
: they came from): it's the application and the user that counts.
Not true. The programmer may put up with it, the programmer's boss
counts man-months and won't. You want applications, the first thing
you do is produce a really good debugger.
: Ok, so the great oracle Linus has spoken.. If I'm so clever, why ain't
: I rich?
Don't worry, you will be! You are already famous....
: Oh, well.. Anyway, I like standards as well, and I'll make my best to
: make linux adher to them.
Thank you!
: But standards should be free, and they should
: make sense.
I am tempted to agree. Actually, X/Open is a not-for-profit organisation,
a very narrowly interpreted term in the UK. If their stuff is so expensive,
it's because that is what it costs to run the place.
: Spec1170 at least makes sense (from what I've heard of it),
So thought I. Until we discovered a couple of days ago that some wally
did the great char * -> const char * change in the prototypes for most
of the curses(3curses) functions. And because apparently said wally knows
less about C than the average newbie in comp.lang.c, it all came out as
char *const. In a prototype! Ughhh...
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!
news.mathworks.com!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Message-ID: <D5rzHK.AI3@byteware.com>
Sender: vl...@byteware.com (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
References: <3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 05:34:31 GMT
Lines: 42
Linus Torvalds writes
> Advice to unix vendors [...]
> Forget the administration utilities: the admin will put up with
> whatever (most will probably actually prefer a command line): it's
> the user that counts (if you have more admins than users on your
> system, you may cater for the admin, but I suspect not..)
It's quite a shock - tragic, really - to see that someone who has
contributed so much to the UNIX community is so profoundly wrong on a
topic such as this.
The administration of a computer system ends up, over the life of that
system, costing its user far more than the initial hardware cost. Any
UNIX user in a commercial setting is abundantly familiar with this
fact.
Probably _the_ most common remark I read in ComputerWorld, when some
IS manager discusses why NT was chosen over UNIX, is that it was determined
that staff could be trained in on NT administration a good deal more
quickly than on UNIX administration. Why? Because the tools are all
GUI, whereas much of UNIX administration is all-CLI at worst, or a
hybrid at best.
Sure, the command line interface is unparalleled for sheer power.
Yes, I wouldn't care to do without one. There's always the Gnu tools
compiled for NT.
I sell UNIX workstations (along with Windows workstations) loaded with
my application. Even Sun's admintool, which could use a good deal of
fleshing out, has made it possible for my coworker to perform Solaris
installations and sysadmin. My customers are also able to perform
occasional system administration tasks using admintool, something
they'd never be able to do using command line utilities.
Please, Linus, tell me you're joking on this one. Forgoing the
graphical admin utilities would be a monumentally stupid idea.
--
Jim Vlcek I came,
vl...@byteware.com I saw,
The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
Beautiful downtown St. Paul
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!
uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Message-ID: <D5sEGM.5y@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk> <3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi>
<D5r6F7.1pr@novell.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:57:58 GMT
Lines: 23
In article <D5r6F7....@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
>Try WordPerfect 6.0, native on UnixWare. It's impressive!
Been there seen it done it (under Linux & SCO). Got some funny colour
problems, memory usage problems (hey its Word for windows compatible there)
and went back to 5.1 text mode WP.
>I am tempted to agree. Actually, X/Open is a not-for-profit organisation,
>a very narrowly interpreted term in the UK. If their stuff is so expensive,
>it's because that is what it costs to run the place.
Not-for-profit organisation has no legal meaning in the UK akin to in the USA.
Many not for profit organisations are corporate money sinks. Do X/Open
meetings occur in big hotels with expensive lunches and speakers flown in
from the USA ? If so they aren't the only expensively run not for profit
organisation.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`--[Anti Kibozing Signature]-'`----------------------------''
One two three: Kibo, Lawyer, Refugee :: Green card, Compaq come read me...
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!ccsdec1.ufsia.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!
idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!uknet!uel!msohnius
From: msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius)
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Sender: n...@novell.co.uk
Message-ID: <D5sJCH.2Cn@novell.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 12:43:29 GMT
References: <D5JG9v.KGv@novell.co.uk> <3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi>
<D5r6F7.1pr@novell.co.uk> <D5sEGM.5y@info.swan.ac.uk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stubai.ukb.novell.com
Organization: Novell UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Lines: 35
Alan Cox (iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <D5r6F7....@novell.co.uk> msohn...@novell.co.uk (Martin Sohnius) writes:
: >Try WordPerfect 6.0, native on UnixWare. It's impressive!
: Been there seen it done it (under Linux & SCO). Got some funny colour
: problems, memory usage problems (hey its Word for windows compatible there)
: and went back to 5.1 text mode WP.
No, you haven't been there. I am talking about WP 6.0 *for UnixWare*.
ELF-format, got it?
: >I am tempted to agree. Actually, X/Open is a not-for-profit organisation,
: >a very narrowly interpreted term in the UK. If their stuff is so expensive,
: >it's because that is what it costs to run the place.
: Not-for-profit organisation has no legal meaning in the UK akin to in the USA.
So you disagree with me on a point of law. Am I safe in the assumption that
you are no more a Member of the Bar than I am? (BTW, "not-for-profit" is
indeed different from "charitable".)
: Many not for profit organisations are corporate money sinks. Do X/Open
: meetings occur in big hotels with expensive lunches and speakers flown in
: from the USA ? If so they aren't the only expensively run not for profit
: organisation.
You are getting very close to libel here, my friend. Watch your language.
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Path: nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!ccsdec1.ufsia.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!
idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!
Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!
news.funet.fi!news.csc.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail
From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Linux .vs. Novell's unixwares
Date: 22 Mar 1995 13:27:46 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 91
Sender: torva...@cc.helsinki.fi
Message-ID: <3kp1ji$rmf@klaava.helsinki.fi>
References: <3kh5br$lti@klaava.helsinki.fi> <D5rzHK.AI3@byteware.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: klaava.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In article <D5rzHK....@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
>Linus Torvalds writes
>> Advice to unix vendors [...]
>> Forget the administration utilities: the admin will put up with
>> whatever (most will probably actually prefer a command line): it's
>> the user that counts (if you have more admins than users on your
>> system, you may cater for the admin, but I suspect not..)
>
>It's quite a shock - tragic, really - to see that someone who has
>contributed so much to the UNIX community is so profoundly wrong on a
>topic such as this.
>
>The administration of a computer system ends up, over the life of that
>system, costing its user far more than the initial hardware cost. Any
>UNIX user in a commercial setting is abundantly familiar with this
>fact.
I'm not talking about the cost of the system here: I agree with you that
administering it is going to be much more expensive than actually buying
the hardware. And as such the admin tools definitely make sense.
I think you took that comment a bit out of context, in that my main
point wasn't that command lines are better: the point was that even if
admin tools are good, *real applications* are what sells a system.
>Please, Linus, tell me you're joking on this one. Forgoing the
>graphical admin utilities would be a monumentally stupid idea.
No, I'm not joking. Having the flashiest admin tool on the planet
doesn't help you if you don't have anything to administrate.. I still
say that applications are #1, admin tools definitely come in as #2 on
most setups.
Of course, it all depends on what you want to do with the machine. If
you want the unix machine to work mainly as a file server etc, then
administration *is* the application, and as such obviously is the most
important thing.
Similarly, if the unix machine is going to be used for development, the
compiler etc are the application, and as such is critical.
BUT (and this was the ultimate point): most Unix vendors seem to be a
bit too fixated towards just file servers and technical research. I
think end-user applications are missing in many cases, and that
definitely makes most unixes today a niche market.
It's easy to say that file serving and technical applications is what
Unix has traditionally been used for, but being locked into that kind of
mindset means that you give up the low-end market to others, notably
Microsoft.
This may come as a horrible surprise to some unix vendors, but I suspect
95%+ of the marketplace doesn't even *care* about floating point
performance or about great fortran compilers. Does it make sense for
all the unix vendors to concentrate on the 5% of the market that does?
Now, think of a small but expanding business, what kind of computer
setup would they buy? They don't worry about administration (yet), they
worry about getting their work done, so they need a spreadsheet and a
simple visual word-processing system (and if you think LaTeX is even
close to "good enough" for most people, you're full of sh*t). Now,
would they buy a unix machine?
Right. No they wouldn't. They'd buy a PC, and run windows. And when
they need to expand, they'd buy more of them. And when they'd need a
small file server after having noticed that it's not fun moving files
around between 4 different windows machines, do you think they'd buy
unix even then? Nope, they'd buy a Novell server or a WinNT machine. A
unix server might technically make more sense, but when they already
have started using Microsoft Windows it doesn't really make sense from
any other viewpoint.
In short: unix needs the low-end applications to get people even
interested. GAMES, even (oh, the horror). Certainly CHEAP and usable
programs that are obvious to the normal user. Without the end-user
market, unix will lose the mid-range server market as well.. And
eventually end up as a niche system with no real future.
With the solid unix network connectivity and the increased interest in
the "information superhighway" and generally better knowledge of the
importance of communications, unix would be a very good small-business
system, I do believe. And yes, there are comanies out there using unix
every day, but just concentrating on the traditional strengths of the
system is a very bad approach in the long run and will not appeal to
those companies that need what Windows currently offer them:
*** APPLICATIONS ***
Oh, well..
Linus