Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:10:27 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <31732BC3.D4A2E7C@lambert.org>
References: <4ki055$60l@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <jdd.829261293@cdf.toronto.edu>
<yfglok14n5r.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <31702487.420C2193@lambert.org>
<yfg3f67giw7.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <31718ED3.555EB900@lambert.org> <yfgd959fo96.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:21392 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:594 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3204 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3014 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17363 comp.os.linux.advocacy:45522
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
] In article <31718ED3.555EB900@lambert.org> Terry Lambert
<terry@lambert.org> writes:
]
] [How to let developers generate Motif binaries]
]
] The easiest approach would be to establish a link server, where
] you package up objects and local libaries, send them off to
] someone with a license, and recieve linked images back. You
]
] I'm sure glad I haven't had breakfast yet, that's all I can say. What
] an unbelievably byzantine suggestion! Even assuming that a _usable_
] infrastructure for this could be set up, what about the adverse impact
] that this would have on the compile-edit-test cycle? For a final
] production binary I could almost see being willing to go through such
] a process, but for the development "hmmm, move this widget a little
] more to the right" stages, it'd be utter horror and a turn-off of the
] first magnitude. Since I doubt we'd be getting a copy of UIM/X free
] with this either, you're also talking a lot of hand-coded interfaces
] or a project-before-the-project where a UI builder is written.
>GASP<! You're right! What am I thinking! Engineers would
have to *engineer* instead of just sitting down and using the
time-honored "why type it correctly when the linker will
complain?" approach to coding.
8-) 8-) 8-).
] Sorry, but this whole Motif scenario just won't cut it. It'd be like
] demanding that your runners all run in leg irons and pass a piano
] instead of a baton.
Well, the alternative, I suppose, would be to use Visual C++ under
Windows95.
Which is more like Houdini's "cabinet of death"...
] I do *NOT* know that. I *design* before I code. The *one*
]
] And your resulting product therefore has no bugs? A (cough)
] impressive achievement!
I made no such claim. I *do* claim, however, that design-before-code
results in better code than just hacking away.
] FVWM is not a control panel app in the same way that Win95's is (and
] that WAS the basis of my comparison). There are no global font
] selectors or background wallpaper editors or color scheme selectors or
] any of those things. FVWM is a *window manager*, not a session
] manager.
You and I both know that session management is dependent on
Motif-based-applications using the resource names given in the
style guide -- which is part of the interface. If you do that,
then an interned atom from Xrm is indistinguishable from one
interned by a control panel (and modified for the next run of
Xrm), as far as an application is concerned.
] If you'd ever used MAPI... you wouldn't be trying to sell it as a
] "must have" checkbox line item.
]
] I never did! I simply said that Windows had all of these various
] standards for which UNIX had no clear counterparts. I stand by that
] assertion, but I don't necessarily say that we have to implement the
] same braindead standards, simply that ours would do well to be so damn
] ubiquitous.
I agree with this. But I'd point out that MAPI was ill-chosen
for an example... it assumes a flawed implementation layering
that precludes a lot of services that will be more and more
desirable as time goes on.
] So what are you planning on charging them, now that the credit
] balance on their souls is dangerously low?
]
] Nothing - my best advice would be that they simply file for spiritual
] bankruptcy at this point. :-)
Or moral bankruptcy. 8-).
] is eating Novell. Because it's a lost cause, and there is no
] room in the market for anyone but Microsoft, so we all might
] as well atttend their developer conferences and let them tell us
] what software the deign beneath their dignity to write.
]
] Sorry, but Fuedal lordship went out in the middle ages, and I'll
] be damned if I'll play serf or grant Microsoft ownership of the
] table.
]
] And if you'd really studied your Feudal history you'd see that people
] picked their battles carefully if they wished to continue to hold sway
] over certain areas of the landscape. You'd accomplish nothing by
] running 300 naked Picts against a line of massed archers, for example,
] though you might do better training them in insurrectional warfare and
] sending small groups into the cities during the day to worry and
] harass the enemy, forcing him to garrison valuable troops in static
] positions.
This is true. However, try to find a Feudal state battling
successfully with a capitolistic state today. Times change.
] There's very little to be gained by taking on Microsoft in the areas
] in which it's strongest, though perhaps a considerable amount to be
] won by going for their achilles heels. The drubbing they've taken in
] the networking arena is an object lesson. Those who attempted to
] field competing desktop standards were crushed, while those that ran
] around the side with a whole new paradigm that Bill was too busy or
] blind to see have made a mint.
There is a lot to be gained, actually. You can erode their
economic base. Novell was doing that with the cheap pricing
on DR-DOS vs. MS-DOS. Microsoft eventually reacted by
obsoleting competition in that area by making DOS intergral
to the purchace of Windows. If you want Windows, you can no
longer buy DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 (cutting off the MS-DOS
royalty stream), and successfully compete with Windows95.
Microsoft has cut off Novell's DR-DOS revenue, at the cost
of a combine MS-DOS + MS-Windows revenue in Windows95 that
is less than the seperate revenue streams.
] Don't try and convince me to charge into the cannons here just because
] you don't like the idea of losing this *particular* battle!
It's the war, not the battle, that I'm concerned with. I'm
not suicidal enough to lead the charge of the Light Brigade
(or any other losing battle, for that matter).
] I think if I were a Microsoft empoyee, and I saw something
] stupid happening, I'd be *obligated* to yell "Hey! Something
] stupid is happening! Come see the stupidity inherent in the
] system!".
]
] You'd only be branded a trouble-maker and booted out. Now if you
] yelled "Hey! I have a stupid idea! Come see the stupidity inherent
] in my idea!" they'd make you management.
Funny, yet apropos. 8-). I think we'd all like to believe the
universe is malevolent and blame our failures on that instead of
blaming ourselves, or working to change ourselves to prevent
repeat occurances. It's not eveloutionarily smart to do that,
however.
] Novell has always operated via shotgun -- at least under Ray
] Noorda -- shoot a lot of bullets in a direction, and market the
] one that hits the target.
]
] That must be why they've been forced to sell so many of his
] experiments off at a loss.. :-)
For instance? He didn't start USL -- he didn't start WordPerfect.
I think the WordPerfect purchase was ill-motivated by an
attempt to make AppWare successful... but that's really
the fault of WordPerfect attempting to jack up its value
in the fundamental measure Novell was using to gauge value:
Profit Per Employee, not that Ray's idea was fundamentally
flawed (it wasn't, as the success of OCX's and Visual BASIC prove).
] In any case I agree with Mary. Opportunity exists, even if the
] free (or even the commercial) UNIX implementations refuse to
] recognize it as such.
]
] I'm not unconvinced of this, I'm simply not quite in agreement with
] you as to where those opportunities lie.
Well, we can agree to disagree. 8-). I think the fundamental
strengths of a "Free UNIX Clone" are:
1) Ability to make design decisions on the basis of
technical merit instead of marketing expediency.
2) Ability to take "the long view".
These boil down to not having to pay homage to the financial
motivations that turn most startups into failures after an
initial period of success.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.