Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

CNN's anti-FUD on Linux experience 65

Posted by Hemos from the embrace-the-new dept.
PowrSurge writes "CNN as a nice article on Linux's Desktop experience not being the Windows experience. It's worth reading. " It's Nick Petreley writing, which explains the fact that they actually have a clue as to what theya re talking about. But it's always a good thing to explain in a mainstream audience why networked computing is good, and why X is good.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN's anti-FUD on Linux experience More

CNN's anti-FUD on Linux experience

Comments Filter:

  • Um, no Nick. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What's the minimum specs of a Linux intel client you can buy these days? Celeron? PII?

    I think it's ridiculous to run applications like Netscape or SO on the server and waste all the computing power on the client side.

    I can still easily have all my data, netscape bookmarks, documents, preferences, etc centralised. The solution is to have your stuff on an NFS server. You can even store the binaries (ie, netscape, so) on the server side but IMHO, it makes more sense to run them on the client itself instead of letting all that computing power go to waste.

  • Absurd (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    First of all, this is clearly labeled as an "Opinion" piece.

    Secondly, all he seems to have done is told us that the we all ought to be buying X-terminals.
    And we all know how successful they've been in
    the marketplace. There's nothing there that
    argues that Linux ought to be used as the client -- in fact it argues against it (compared to the cost/simplicity of an X-terminal).

    Linux is improving faster than any competing OS product.

    Analgous to this statement is people's (mistaken) belief that hot water freezes faster than cold water.

    This is one reason why its rate of adoption in the corporate market at the server end is nothing
    short of phenomenal.

    Precisely. Linux (Unix, actually) makes one hell of a server OS. Sure has a long way to go toward being the top choice on the client side. (Hence the statement that it's "improving faster").

    Overall, a ridiculous analysis.
  • When all the MIS guys read about this and realize that Linux IS the Zero cost way to do centralized thin client computing, Microsoft will be in really deep shit in the corporate world.

    Yes, the X-Windows technology has been around for a long time, but it hard to justify paying $1000 for a SCO or Solaris to replace a $50 Win9x just for running X-Windows. With Linux for free, that's a different story.

    Of course there is Hummingbird Xceed for Windows, but that is a very expensive solution as well.

    Sure, MS has its own thin client technology, but because all MS OS are designed to be single user, FAT client OS, all the application are hobbled
    by things like installing into /windows/system32, registry, etc. That's just too messy. A powerful Unix server with Linux clients is definitely the wave of the future in corporate environments.

    ST

  • Remote Admin (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One other thing that most people seem to be glazing over is the remote admin ability that X gives you. How many stupid implimenations of remote admin do all of the NT products have. If you need a graphical admin program that runs local to the server you are screwed on NT. You have to have a console on it. To remote admin a Linux box, even graphicaly, you don't need to be at the console. This Was apples biggest screw up. They reinvented the wheel (X11) for OSX and they didn't make it networkable. All of there great GUI config tools have gone to waste if you want to admin remotely.

    As for using clients off of a server its a great idea. How many of you actualy use the full processing power of your PIII? Think about it. As I am reading web pages the machien is practicaly idle. And the comment about the minimum linux box being a celeron is a joke. I happily ran a P166 until this winter. I only upgraded because I wanted faster compiles. I still use my P-75 Libretto all the time. If I am near a network I plug in and run netscape off of my desktop because it is much faster. I don't need a powerhouse on the road but its nice to get speed when I get home. I think NFS mounted home directories are better if you have the power on the local machine. This brings up another wonderful UNIXism. The concept of the home directory is so multi user that its not even funny. Because of home directories I can simply mount my home directory and run netscape... viola! all of my settings. Netscape was designed to run with the concept of home directories.

  • Re:Um, yes ac (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    >If you want to have dumb terminals, so be it. In that case Linux on the client is a complete waste of time and resources.

    No it isn't. It has a much tinier footprint than most. There are several micro-linux installations
    that can give a working X window System off two floppies, let alone a small harddrive - linux is excellent for cheap just-a-little-smarter-than-completely-braindead X termminals.
    In theory it could be burned into a few eproms, too.

    A standard linux distribution contains a world of tools, much more than anything you get from MS, but if you cut away all that, the core system is really quite small ( smaller than WinCE (wince))

    A smaller footprint that isn't hopeless is
    QNX, can go off one floppy (with its own GUI), linux two floppies, with X. Not bad all the same, though.

    Our university department signed that fscking "all servers will be NT, all clients MS" deal with mickeysoft, "popular" in britain, so I routinely carry around a few floppies to reboot the clients into a decent OS, and login to my personal server to get some work done. I'm trying to fight their teaching undergrads the MS-drool way, since when they're final-year undergrads or postgrads, they'll have to use a UNIX anyway. Unfortunately, money talks much louder than me.

    And MS's plan is obviously to control the youth of today, the professionals of tomorrow. Tossers.




  • Yeah, the trick is to use something like ssh. For instance, I have a windowmaker menu item which runs mathematica on a school solaris server. The menu shortcut runs xterm -e somescript where somescript does an ssh foohost 'mathematica > /dev/null 2>&1' And then convince your windowmanager to automatically minimize the xterm. For all this to happen automatically, set up RSA authentication for ssh.
  • ...when folks are running on high-end hardware (such as your $150,000 server). In the far more common case of using a two-way SMP system for jobs that really don't require that much CPU power (web, FTP and SMB serving, for instance), however, linux does quite well.

    Maybe this unsuitability very high hardware end does make Linux a "hacker wannabe OS". If so, however, it's a damn good one and I'm glad to use it.
  • It probably wouldn't be that tough to make a linuxconf module that would read hardware info out of the /proc structure, adjust isapnp.conf and the like.

    Through your X server's configuration in there, too, and you've pretty much got it.

    Since linuxconf isn't strictly graphical (but also allows modification via a web browser, a text interface and the like), this kind of solution would make the remote-administration folks happy and you as well.

    Do you program? If so, I urge 'ya to give this a shot!
  • The author's solution, of always running the clients on one machine and using X windows to put the display on where-ever he's logged in, seems sub-optimal to me. I'd much rather run the clients locally, and use NFS mounted /home and /var/spool/mail so that my documents and mail are on any machine I'm on. Since you spend a lot more time editing without saving, I think my solution is considerably faster, too.
  • The idea is "install once, run anywhere". He also wants to run the same apps, regardless of the client platform.

    Admittedly, there are other solutions such as export the apps via NFS and/or Samba and still run them on clients, but there is still another benefit to his centralized model. Only one box needs to be big, fast, expensive. He doesn't a mutli-gigabyte drive on every client along with 64MB of RAM and a fast proc.
  • Because Windows is increasingly more closed, there's just no way Microsoft can make it all things to all people. Not just that, but if your "thing" doesn't blip on their radar map (say, you're affected by MIDI bugs introduced in Win95) your up The Creek as they say.

    What you want to do is trade in some control of the system for automation, and that's perfectly legitimate. Don't let this keep you away from following Linux, and don't let anyone tell you you're wrong and Linux is just not for you.

    The fact that Linux does not do this well NOW does not mean it will never do it... there just needs to be a critical mass of people who absolutely require an easier interface. I know UNIX fairly well (not a guru), but administering Linux is so much different than running an X display to a Solaris box down the hall, and I get stuck trying to filter information from a myriad of README files, info pages, abandoned man pages and so on. Linux documentation is generally not very professional (which is fair, since most of it is volunteer based).

    I like Gnome and AfterStep more, but perhaps KDE is what you need?

    If World Domination(tm) is a goal then more user friendly pieces will develop and make it into the Linux distributions.
  • Talk about bad "user interfaces". The god forsaken thing is "un-navigable", I've never seen such a confusing bunch of drivel in my life. I can't believe anyone would want to look at it.

    "Chaos Manor" is right. What a load.
  • If I'm running my window manager and desktop locally, but an app, say, netscape, remotely, is there an easy way (in Xfree) to have a menu item or desktop short cut that points to this app? Or am I stuck with telneting in and launching it from the command line?

    Exceeed can do this ...
  • Finally some concrete reasoning to combat the "But it doesn't work like Windows" FUD. I am forwarding this one to Jerry Pournelle who seems to hold himself as Authority Supreme in judging the IT world.

    If we could get Jerry to retire (or at least stop visiting Redmond so often) we would get more people converted sooner.

    See what I am talking about at
    http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
  • When all the MIS guys read about this and realize that Linux IS the Zero cost way to do centralized thin client computing, Microsoft will be in really deep shit in the corporate world.

    How many personal users have their own MIS team? Did you notice the focus of this guys post is corporate users?

    A powerful Unix server with Linux clients is definitely the wave of the future in corporate environments.

    Read that above statement and then think about your comment about running linux on the server. Why the hell are you arguing about something you both agree on?

    Read before you flame.
    ---------------------------------------
    The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
    ... and missing.
  • isn't this a reprint of petreley's linuxworld article on caldera 2.2?
  • If you can stand the limited hardware support, try the BeOS. It has a very nice device manager. Also, if you like imaginative software created by tiny companies, BeOS is heaven. Try it before it all gets overrun by the big guys.

    D

    ----
  • It's worth remembering that CNN has a deal with IDG that allows CNN to beef up their tech coverage. The good news is that IDG seems to have good coverage of Linux.

    I'm not so sure it's the case that you have a Linux advocate within CNN as much as it is that Linux is interesting right now, and like any media outlet, CNN tries to make itself interesting to its readers.

    So, yes - I agree that it's good that CNN brings this coverage out to a mainstream audience, but the real credit for these articles should go back to IDG, Linux World, and the writers.
  • However, you will need high end servers with lots of RAM, multiple CPUs, and a 100Mbps network to handle running multiple bloated office suites remotely via X.

    Not strictly speaking true: Running two instances of a 16MB program does not necessarily require 32MB - take the hardware requirements of WordPerfect Server for Linux (see http://linux.corel.com/linux8/sysreq.htm [corel.com]):

    • 9 MB memory for first instance of Corel WordPerfect
    • 2.5 MB memory for each additional instance of Corel WordPerfect (running concurrently)
    And I'd be surprised if Corel were the only software company to write programs that take advantage of that perk (I think the Linux kernel does code sharing, but I'm not 100% sure)

    Of course you could farm out different tasks to different machines, letting one run your favourite WP, another one the favourite Browser. These "servers" could even be sitting on your desktop. Of course you'd have to nail these machines down hard and take away the reset button, but IMHO that's a "good thing"(tm). Now try doing that with Windows...

    btw: Linus has stayed out of the KDE/GNOME battle. If he'd demonstrated a few machines running KDE or GNOME, then no doubt proponents of the other desktop environment would have flamed him (and everyone else) bitterly - Despite that I think Linus could probably have done Linux more justice, but hey - he's a coder, not a PR guy.

  • Sorry, I don't mean to be a nag - but threads are a good thing and often make more sense than forking a process. The difference is that on Unix/Linux threads behave just like another process except that they share the heap with the parent thread (ie the child thread may have been called using clone() with flags that tell the cloned process to use the same memory space but different stack - much faster than IPC). This means that UNIX/Linux may have many hundreds of threads in a single process (many DCE services do this to lessen the connection and init time as multiple requests arive). However, windows threads usually never exceed 32 for performace and sync problems.
  • Actually, how water does tend to freeze faster than cold water, at least in some places. Hot water allows certain gasses to escape more quickly than cold water (I think that chlorine is one of the main ones) and thus can freeze at a higher temperature. At least that's what my earth science teacher tought me back in the eigth grade. I don't know if it's true or not, but something about certain saturation diagrams I saw in chemistry seem to point to that conclusion.

    Just a side note.

    Oh, btw, Xterminals were and are a good idea, but they're virtually unavailable nowadays. Besides, can you get any that have great acceleration for 1024x768 at 24 or 32 bpp and have 10/100 support for full duplex ethernet?
  • NFS is viable on trusted networks when you are root on the main computer. We use it in our computer lab, and it works quite well. On the other hand, I don't want to have to set up nfs exports to edit a computers /etc/hosts file, or something like that. And remote display works especially well for debugging X apps that work on your computer but not someone else's. As well, when you just need a quick and dirty solution to get something done without having the time to set up NFS and then take it down again, remote display is quite useful.

    As well, remote display is good for thin clients, so that you can have a good graphics card and a cheap CPU.

    On other big benefit, is that you can run other people's binaries. For example, I'm posting this comment from my Linux/Alpha box, in a netscape which is remotely displaying from my comp. sci. server (Dual PPro 200 Linux box). Quite convenient, really.

    So yes, NFS can be advantageous in some circumstances, but remote display can be quite advantageous in others. It largely depends on the circumstances and what you want to do.
  • I use remote display to see visual admin apps
    on my servers(gmemusage on an Origin or gr_osview)
    Basically I only use it to do stuff on headless
    machines.

    NFS is great for centralizing data! So many of
    my users are happy because every machine they log
    into /home/mylogin is the exact same now.

    my .02
  • I've used many diffrent OS's, 9x,NT, OS/2, many forms of unix. I would have to say the 9x interface is the nicest I have used.. I can change hardware from there, check problems, change monitor setting with ease...I'm not saying that it's the best os, i'm just saying it has the best interface...
    I hope I'm on the topic.. I haven't a clue wtf i'm doing this morning..*falls on keyboard and sleeps*
    "The pen is mighter than the sword... But what if you can't write?"
  • This is the second or third time I'm aware of that CNN reprinted a pro-linux article from a Linux orented publication. (In this case Linux World.)

    Although you would expect anything Linux World wrote about Linux to be pro-linux (DUH!), the fact that CNN is reprinting these pro-Linux articles indicates that we have a Linux advocate within their ranks.

    Having a main stream news outlet that has at least one Linux advocate reporter, who obviously isn't fooled by MS FUD, is a wonderful thing for the Linux community.

    The majority of main stream media reports about Linux run from the "It's user interface wasn't identical to Windows so the verdict is: 'it's too hard to use'", all the way to regurgitated MicroSoft FUD.

    This is nice to see.

    Thanks CNN!
  • Except that's not quite the way X works. The client application isn't sending a series of bitmaps to the X server (the display) but rather instructions for creating the graphics. Which isn't to say that X isn't overly large, complex, and a resource hog (Plan 9's window manager is an interesting and lightweight alternative) but at least computers have gotten fast enough over the years that it doesn't bring systems to their knees any more.

  • Great Job (Score:3)

    by javac ( 21689 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @08:29AM (#1910925) Homepage

    CNN does what Linus, Alan, and Eric have failed to do.

    Linus had a perfect opportunity to tell about all of the wonderful ways Linux is different, ie better, than windows. The unbelievable benifits that are a result of true multitasking.

    I haven't heard this often enough, I hope we will sell the world that Linux is different than microsoft windows, better People want different, they have stuck with the junk from Redmond too long. We need to advocate the ways we are better. We don't need to tell people "Windows Sucks" because everyone already knows that.

    We should tell them that we don't need threads, we have true multitasking. We don't need a stupid "Task Manager," we have ps. Almost all of the functionality of NT is more complicated than UNIX. We have a superior product let's let it win on its own merits

  • Precisely. One powerful reason for choosing Linux (or *BSD or Solaris or VMS or...) is that it is *not* MS Windows and doesn't work the same way. I chose these alternatives because they work *my* way. I do not work Bill's way, and I never will.

    After all, if I like MS Windows, why would I want another one? And if I DISlike MS Windows, why would I want another one?
  • The point is that with X you get a choice, and with MS Windows you don't. If my application works better one way and your application works better the other way, we can both be happy.
  • This is a reprint of an earlier Linux world article, but appearing on CNN does mean that more people gets to read it.

    His points on running X may be debatable, but the point is that Linx (and other unixs) give you that option when needed.

    Well done.
  • I was involved in a project where we needed to stick X servers anywhere. Base Pentium with 16 MB RAM. We even had them running diskless, but I wouldn't go that far in the average office.

    If you want to go completely server-centric, you build client boxen with that sort of power (I might go to 32 MB RAM today--RAM is cheap). Invest heavily in the video card and the monitor. All that processing power you don't need on the desktop can become usable video real estate.

    This sort of a setup requires heavy server resources and heavy network resources.

    The alternative is to let the desktop boxen work as "cycle servers". They use NFS to mount the major disks and home directories. In this case, you want to get the processor just behind the bleeding edge, where the cost per MIPS drops off. I'm running an AMD K6-2/350 at home and it is rarely the limiting factor. I am usually limited by the speed of my hard drives. This will save some network bandwidth, and some server-side processing resources. However, those NFS-mounted drives must be fast and redundant. Consider RAID (when your desktop drive fails, you go down; when an NFS drive fails, the operation goes down), and feed your NFS servers RAM like mad--properly configured, the most popular files will be cached into memory without spinning the drives.

    Finally, two of the overlooked advantages to Linux on the corporate desktop: your desktop follows you. The first good thing is that you can access your desktop, or just your files, from any computer on the network. This is incredibly helpful when you're working on a problem at someone else's cubicle. Files aren't secure because they're on your hard drive, they're secure because they're in your account and need your password to access.

    The other half of this advantage is reduced downtime. Since the desktop boxen are fungible, the IS team can have a few in the back room ready to go. If your hardware fails, for any reason, they come by and swap boxes (just as if your phone fries itself). You are happily computing again inside of fifteen minutes, and the IS team gets to diagnose and fix the broken box without time pressure.

  • I think that a lot of people out there want "Windows, but doesn't cost as much and works better". A lot of people are used to the Windows UI and want the Windows UI. I think that this may have driven FVWM95 and other X GUIs.

    My problem with Windows isn't the point-and-drool interface, or even the huge pricetag. My problem is the fact that it goes down like a moose on rollerskates. I want my stuff to work. If it can't work, I want it to fail predictably.

    The more Linux looks like Windows without blowing up like Windows, the easier a sell it will be on the desktop. I don't think that it's a requirement, but it would be a big help.

    Linux, by virtue of X11, can put on a variety of faces. You or I can macdink around with the UI until we have it optimal for us. Most people don't want to macdink with it. They want it out of the box to work reasonably well. This is where selling boxes with Linux installed and GNOME or KDE installed as the "starting screen" can turn into a big win.

  • I've used many diffrent OS's, 9x,NT, OS/2, many forms of unix. I would have to say the 9x interface is the nicest I have used.. I can change hardware from there, check problems, change monitor setting with ease...I'm not saying that it's the best os, i'm just

    Actually, if you are a system administrators of large networks, you usually DON'T want the end user to go fiddling with hardware settings and such. Thats the whole point of centralizing the apps on the server... fewer things for the individual users to screw up. This does reduce support costs, though at the expense of less flexibility for users who really do need to customize their system.

    Thad

  • I'm currently working on just this concept. I'm purchasing or salvaging 486's (current best price, $119 w/ monitor) and using them as X terminals.

    I'm using a single boot floppy for each machine, and they then mount root from an NFS server. Performance is great, you certainly would not know you were working on a 486. And, in addition to the cost savings and more than acceptable performance, administration is a breeze.

    The kit I started with is developed by the author of linuxconf. You may find it here: xterm [solucorp.qc.ca].

  • I agree with that.

    At home I have NFS and fast clients, at university [tu-berlin.de] I have a thin client ( i486 [tu-berlin.de]) and am not allowed to participate the NFS, so I am using X redirection.

    You got the choice with Linux.
  • I have to agree with you. The average computer user isn't going to want Linux until there's a really cool solitare game out that he can play "Out of the Box."
  • Articles like this are very important to the continued growth of Linux. "Microsoft Power users" are certainly sharp enough to become "Linux power users". They need to understand the payback. Articles like Nick's show the benefits from using Linux, in plain english. I think there are plenty of computer types in the audience that could reap these benefits if they can be convinced that it's worth the effort to "dive in".

    When I went from VMS to Unix at DEC in the late 80's I had a learning curve. But the curve didn't last long - once I stopped thinking VMS -> Unix. It's like a foreign language, in the early stages you think English -> French.

    Advertising the benefits of Linux is not a sin just because Microsoft got to where they are through marketing/advertising - certainly not through technical merit.

    I welcome more "Benefits of Linux" type articles in the respectable mainstream press.

    That's competition.
  • I love X.

    We're an NT shop at work, but being in the WAN field, I'm interfacing with *nix boxes every day to do my job.

    I have to use OpenView and Newbridge's 46020 every day.

    I have a laptop the NT on it (no heckling, please) with eXceed as my X Server.

    Now, just because these NMS's (OpenView, 46020) run on *nix doesn't mean you get a genuis included to install the package or design the LAN/WAN that supports them.

    It so happens, there's no windowing system to use on the OpenView system and the 46020 system only has OpenWindows.

    To anyone who's used CDE (Common Desktop Envirnment)/HP-Vue/et al., you know that it provides a kind of functionality you can't do without.. Things the NT, OpenWin, etc environments just can't/don't do.

    So, given the beauty of X, I can solve the problems created by our "wizards" mainting the NMS's.

    I have an old Sparc 10 on my LAN that has CDE on it. I configure eXceed to connect to this Sparc 10 at startup time, I log into my account there, and run OpenView and 46020 in separate workspaced within CDE. With eXceed running in full-screen mode, it's "just like being there".

    Utterly beautiful.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.

Close