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!news.cis.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.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: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:05:16 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <3175954C.6C4F0365@lambert.org>
References: <4ki055$60l@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <jdd.829261293@cdf.toronto.edu> <yfglok14n5r.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <31702487.420C2193@lambert.org> <4l2a9h$6mp@sidhe.memra.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:21776 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:690 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3323 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3163 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17674 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46267
Michael Dillon wrote:
] >5) The editor is that dumb program that acts like the
] > Netscape editor when you click on text files (or you
] > can run it by picking "create new text file" from the
] > "start" menu).
]
] I don't see why a FreeBSD or Linux editor needs to support
] wierd Ctrl-key combo's for their commands when every
] FreeBSD/Linux box has a PC keyboard.
] Those who need terminal support already have their *WIDE*
] choice of UNIX editors so lets make one simple text editor
] that follows the IBM CUA standard interface used by MS
] Windows, OS/2 and Motif.
The important point here was a "notepad/wordpad"-like program
which operated along the principles of cut/paste/modeless
style do that once you knew how to use the interface, you
could use the editor.
Key bindings are more annoying than anything else in this regard;
the point is to stop the initial learning curve flat to "trick"
users into liking it.
[ ... on developing a standard other than Motif ... ]
Why bother? Motif is already there, it's already standard, it
already does what needs to be done, and does it as fast or
faster than Windows on the same hardware. And Windows training
is transportable to Motif.
(Remember what a screwup "Moolit" was before you pen a response).
] >Hmmmmmmm... Ray Noorda left after that statement, and less than
] >a month later the group that later broke away to become Caldera
] >came into existance... hmmmmmmmm.
]
] So you're the guy who started that, eh? ;-D
It was Brian Sparks, not me. I just pushed management buttons
when I saw something that I thought was going wrong. I'll
probably always do that. Everyone should do that. It keeps
down AI ("Artificial Importance" -- Ed Lane).
] >With due respect, anyone who portrays a technical market as
] >"impenetrable" or "already won by the competition" is a jackass
] >who is going to drive your product into the toilet.
]
] Exactly. If you have an excellent technology it is never too
] late to dust it off, bring it up to date, and do great things
] with it.
Whoa. Stop. This is not what I said. Beta will never take over
for VHS.
Any technical market (whether or not it is for a technical
product is irrelevant) is not static. This means that the
top player can always be displaced (Word: a better Word Perfect
than Word Perfect; Excel: a better 1-2-3 than 1-2-3; etc.).
This only involves technical merit if all other aspects of
the product are equal (for what it's worth: mindshare is a
bogus word losers use to describe why they are losing and
winners use to describe why they are winning when they do
not understand the real causes. Mindshare is *not* an apsect
of a product).
] >"Microsoft's problems" is another way of saying "competitor's
] >opportunities".
]
] yeah. MS has gotten fat and sassy and overly dependent on
] programmers, architects and management who are more into
] "control" than "serving the customer".
Again, not what I said.
I mean that you never own your competitions problems. You have
your own problems. Anyone who believes that because they will
have problems in a market because their competition has problems
in the same market is missing the boat.
If the problems are techincal, then any advantage you have
will disappear in the next release following your release
(the "second to market" principle).
The real opportunities come from problem definition (angle
of attack). It's a lot easier to pick a better angle than
it is to beat someone else on the same angle... that only
works in mature markets, like word processing, where every
sale you make is a sale your competitor doesn't. I don't
think the desktop OS market is mature... there hasn't been
any real "second to market" yet (OS/2 Warp: a better Windows
than Windows; Windows 95: a better Warp than Warp; same
angle -- advantage: none).
My opinions,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.