Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!news.iac.net!news.misty.com!accesscom.com!not-for-mail From: Alexander Hvostov <shvostov@accesscom.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:24:35 -0700 Organization: Access Internet Communications, Inc. Lines: 76 Message-ID: <33555FB3.115BFB56@accesscom.com> References: <33322E84.42877E5C@FreeBSD.org> <859945273snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> <33427370.680B@sap-ag.de> <01bc43a8$5006c940$8934e3cc@rx_jearl> <860525372snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> <Pine.GSO.3.96.970413001438.2323A-100000@cdc3.cdc.net> <bnelsonE8K92z.34r@netcom.com> <3351536E.5F49@ibm.net> <5is26g$fe9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <geoffrey-ya023380001604971223310001@news.netins.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user11.accesscom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 16 Apr 1997 23:32:36 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i586) To: geoffrey alexander <geoffrey@netins.net> Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:170165 comp.os.linux.advocacy:93195 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2994 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:172466 geoffrey alexander wrote: > > In article <5is26g$fe9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, haszlaki@students.uiuc.edu > (eric richard haszlakiewicz) wrote: > > > John Bianco (analogkid@ibm.net) wrote: > > : That will NEVER happen. Cant wait to install linux myself, but all the > > : masses want in a computer is a system easy to use, and linux is still > > : not the that easy to use still. So unless SUN has the balls to make > > : their own version of linux to comepte against MS in the desktop > > : enviroment, linux cant compete agains MS. People like brand names. > > Just wondering, but what do you mean by Sun making their "own > > version of linux"? Last I heard they had their own version of unix > > called Solaris which they are still quite happily selling. > > Yes, and the same observation applies to Digital, IBM, etc. Further he > should note that, well, here's an OS for example which is effectively > platform-independent, with enough advantages to persuade mission-critical > users to purchase commercial implementations for whatever advantages, even > though an industrial-strength version (the *BSD's, for example) can be had > for free. And buying it shrinkwrapped doesn't make it easier to use -- it's > a matter of how integrally comprehensive a package can had, with > accompanying support. > > Conversely, does anyone think that if NT were released as freeware that, > even then, it would be more popular than the various flavors of Unix? > > There's another point, and maybe a niggling one. Unix is not hard to use, > per se. It is hard -- or more correctly, difficult -- to >administer<. It > takes some training, skill, patience, and experience to do it wel -- and > >using< Unix is only as hard as the administrator of the system wishes to > make it. A little skill goes a long way towards making the system easy to > use AND administer. > > It isn't necessarily a bad thing that this requires a fairly comprehensive > understanding of the technology itself. And all of these factors together > contribute to the refinement and development of the system -- a process the > closed, proprietary model of software development obviates by locking-in > the design and development of a system to a core team of in-house > developers (whose efforts are guided as much by marketing concerns as by > technological issues) and by limiting the user-implementation options to a > small set of off-the-shelf solutions. > > Geoffrey Alexander > __________________________________________________________ > > If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can > create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered... > Stanley Kubrick > __________________________________________________________ > > The Kubrick Site @ http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja Hi... Two words: SHRINKWRAPPING SUCKS. No, I don't mean the shrinkwrap itself, but the fact that it's applied only to commercial products. Let's face it, if it's not freeware, it tends to, well, suck. If NT were made freeware, M$ would really be broke. (too bad they aren't already...hmm, where's my stock ticker? :) NT demands hella more hardware than Linux. (hell, Linux only demands a lot of disk space...NT demands that, plus CPU, plus memory, and probably even more disk space ;) But, if NT were made freeware, at least we'd have a slightly easy-to-use server and client that actually works. NT demands a lot, but, from what I hear, at least it runs better. (case in point: where the @&%#$!^ is the 32-bit code M$ claimed was in 95???!!!!!) Hyper-Eye