Re: Fw: [Hampshire] Killer Apps for Linux

On Friday 08 December 2006 21:45, luis wrote:

I shall assume you are not a sad little troll.

> Dr Trickett, why do you think that 96% of computers users in the world
> use Windows?

This is factually incorrect. Most servers that do all the things that are
important like run power stations, run the telephone network and Internet,
run banks, keep satelites and aeroplanes from colliding and so on, DO NOT RUN
Windows. Most of the important jobs trusted to computers run on old style
mainframes, Unix operating systems of some sorts and are now starting to run
Linux. Almost nothing that is important runs on Windows. That's a fact.

In the non-important sector, I agree that most desktop PC systems run Windows
of some sort. It's almost impossible to buy a PC without Windows coming
pre-installed, and as a result Microsoft claims 95-99% market share, but we
all know that this figure is misleading. The actual Windows desktop market
share is hard to estimate, but it's probably between 80-90%, with somewhere
between 5-10% Macintosh and 5-10% Linux, and a few other oddments. Because
Linux is often installed on machines without any registration process it is
always going to be hard to know how many Linux systems are out there.

Even in the non-important sector Windows only accounts for about 50% of the
server market, and in this sector Linux is the fastest growing as it is
replacing almost all the older Unix system and some Windows servers. At the
moment it's Unix, then Windows and finally Linux, but in about 5 years Linux
will have probably over taken both Windows and Unix.

For example about 60% of all web sites run on the Apache web server, and the
vast majority of those run on Linux. Which means even with all the best will
in the world and maximum spin Windows trails Linux pitifully in the web
server stakes.

> I think I have got the answer, "it does exactly what it says on the
> tin".

If you mean Windows does what it says on the tin, then this is the most
patetic and meaningless statement I've ever seen. I can think of lots of
reasons that Microsoft will tell you that Windows is good, that isn't one of
them. Windows is one of the most awkward, deceitful, and plain broken
operating system I've ever had the misfortune to work with. Microsoft
products are notorious for claiming to support standard X and blatantly
ignoring it.

We can argue that a given standard is stupid or not all day, but if you claim
to support it, then you either do or you don't. Microsoft claim to support
lots of standards that they don't or don't even try to. If you ever have the
pain and suffering of having to develop a web site that will be used by IE,
then you will know the pain. Microsoft are on the various W3C committees that
create the standards, they have had years to work towards supporting the
standards, and the still officially claim to support them, yet IE7 is now
about as standard complainant as Opera 5. For a multi-billion dollar
corporation that is utterly pathetic.

Even their own standards are so badly implemented that it's a joke. Trying to
get different versions of Windows to talk to ether other over a network is
painful in the extreme. Unix/Linux systems running Samba are better Windows
servers than Windows. Even Microsoft staff use the Samba documentation as a
reference because the internal documentation that Microsoft have is so poor.

> I am a new Linux user, I do like to try the different distros but I will
> say that Linux will never be a replacement for Windows, as long as Linux
> remains non user friendly.

What is your definition of friendly? Until I know what you mean I can't argue
with you on that.

I've used Computers for over two decades. In that time I've used a small range
of the possibles: 8-bit systems; DOS and all versions of Windows; commercial
Unix (AIX/Solaris/Irix) and most recently Linux systems.

Of those the easiest to use was by a clear margin the Commodore 64, you
switched it on and it worked. After that I'd have to say that the commercial
Unix system are pretty good - in that the hardware and software are specially
combined and everything just works perfectly, I'm told that the current Macs
are like this.

By far the most awkward to use is anything running on a PC. You have a
flexible semi-open hardware architecture and lots of random poorly specified
and documented hardware.

Comparing Windows (3.x, 95, 98, NT4, 2K) and Linux (Debian Woody/Sarge/Etch
and RedHat 6-ES3) I'd have to say on balance Windows is the more awkward to
install. I've had all sorts of driver problems with Windows, up to and
including Windows 2K. Early Linux systems were awkward to configure if you
wanted sound and fancy graphics, but it's years since that's been a problem.
I've never had the misfortune of installing Windows XP, but I'm told that for
a very long time it couldn't be installed on SATA harddisks because of driver
problems.

Looking at Windows, I'd say that once you get use to the Windows 95 interface
and Office 95, they aren't that bad as a GUI interface. There were some minor
improvements in Windows 98 and Office 2K, but overall it was at the zenith of
the design. Ever since then, Windows has being going downhill, the automation
is aways wrong, XP is forever wanting to do annoying and stupid things.

Looking at the underlying design, the NT kernel was good but had minimal
hardware support at the time of NT3.51, and is architecturally weaker ever
since NT4 (part of the reason why NT4/2K and XP are so unstable). On a
performance analysis, Windows 95 worked pretty well on a Pentium 200 with
128Mb of RAM, to get the same performance today with XP you need a P4 2GHz
and 1Gb of RAM.

Looking at Linux, the kernel got a lot better when the 2.6 came out, driver
support improved a lot, it's quick and Linux runs on far more hardware than
Windows can ever think off. User space tools on Linux have always been
superior to Windows being most from the already mature Unix family, HOWEVER I
agree that until recently there have been no good office type applications or
games. The Linux GUI has gradually evolved constantly improving from the
early and hard to install and configure XFree/Motif-like days to a modern
x.org/KDE or x.org/GNOME desktop.

There is now a wealth of high quality free and open applications that run on a
wide range of platforms, including both Windows and Linux. While OpenOffice 2
may not be as good as Microsoft Office XYZ, it costs £600 less which is a big
saving in my books!

Comparing the two I'd say that Microsoft came up with a pretty GUI over a
decade ago, and have been adding bloat and annoying features to it ever
since. In the same time Linux distributions have been gradually improving
from a primitive GUI to one which has I think overtaken Windows in the past
12-18 months, and will be so far a head of Windows Vista+1 that it's going to
be very painful for Microsoft.

Don't even get me talking about all the Windows viruses, spyware, and other
assorted nasties...

> I want an OS which it will work for me, without having to spend to much
> time "in terminal mode", trying to find drivers etc etc ...........

I like the command line, but you don't need to use it you don't want.

On a Windows system I don't like having to tinker with the registry and
spending half an hour to find an option buried many levels down in an
advanced > options > extras > expert mode just to turn something on or off
that should have been set correctly in the first place.

> In your opinion is there anything in the Linux development horizon which
> will come close to match Vista's capabilities?. If there is please would
> you share it with us.

Windows Vista will just about drag Microsoft's 7 year old and very antique
looking Windows XP just about level to where a good Linux distro is now. To
compare Windows XP with Debian Potato (released about the same time), you
would have to conclude that Windows XP offered a far richer desktop
environment. Comparing Debian Etch with Windows Vista, you'd have to conclude
that Vista just about draws level with Etch in some areas, is ahead in
others, and far behind in others. In 18 months time Debian Lenny will be so
far ahead of Vista it's going to be really funny.

Windows Vista will have, assuming you have a modern PC, fancy graphics. Linux
has that already, and it works on older lower spec machines.

Windows Vista has an improved security model over Windows XP. Most Linux
distros have been more secure for years, and today are still vastly more
secure out of the box than Vista.

Windows Vista doesn't have the fancy new file system promised, it used the old
NTFS and that is not even fully journaled. Linux will have the new ext4
system, and also has several alternatives from other Unix platforms. While
NTFS is better than the old style FAT it replaced it is in many respects
inferior to ext3, and even more ironically many of the features it does have
are not accessible from Windows anyway - you have to use command line third
party tools to take advantage of them.

Windows Vista is simply Windows XP done better, it offers by all comments only
marginal user improvements over Windows XP. It is probably a lot better
interally, but after $10bn, 7 years and two re-writes it should be better.

> So far the closest I have been is by using Novell Suse Linux Enterprise
> desktop 10.1

I've not used SUSE so I can't comment on it all. I know others use it and like
it.

> I know my views may sound controversial as I am speaking in a Linux user
> group, but we are still a minority and will stay this way forever.

Linux isn't the minority you think it is, it's far more common that you think.

For a desktop system it is less common than Windows, but it is growing market
share, Microsoft Windows is losing share. Large scale roll outs in government
and large companies go unnoticed by home users. Every year Linux
distributions improve in many different ways. Window remains static, then
after over a $1bn a year development a new marginally "improved" version
appears. Even Microsoft can't afford to keep developing at the sluggish rate
they are, they will simply run out of money.

Linux will within the next 5 years become the dominant server operatinting
system for servers as people swap Unix and some Windows systems for Linux.
Linux is already the dominant operating system for new embedded systems (GPS
navigation units, TV set top boxes etc), and will become the dominant
embedded system displacing older legacy systems. In the desktop market both
at home and work I expect that Linux systems will continue grow, but I don't
expect Linux distros to overtake Windows Vista, Linux will overtake Vista+1,
assuming Microsoft ever release it.

Nearly 100% of all the worlds super-computers run and will continue to run
Linux.

If you want games and viruses then install Windows. If you want a secure and
productive office platform then install something else - anything else.

> Luis
>
> P.S I am writing this mail from my new Ubuntu 6.10 installation.

Congratulations on installing Linux. Pleas play with it long enough to get a
feel for it. I do not claim that it is perfect, it's pretty good, and
remember it cost you NOTHING. Take a look at Microsoft Windows XP (£90),
Microsoft Office Pro (£600), Adobe stuff (£1000), Anti-virus/spyware (£100).
Linux distros are pretty good really and do costs a lot less.

In many areas (like the ones I use) Linux distros are VASTLY superior to
Windows, and still cost less.

As the French say:

Linux - there are alternatives but they cost more and do less...


--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
    -- Napoleon Bonaparte