Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

The Metcalfe-Peterely Fun Continues 159

Posted by Hemos from the it's-like-boxing dept.
A reader sent us the latest installment in the Metcalfe and Peterely debate that started roughly one week ago with doubts about Linux from Metcalfe, and a response from Peterly. In this round, Metcalfe repents a bit, and also brings up the current hot topic: How the Linux community reacts to questions. Short, but interesting reading, and again raises the point: Read the Linux Advocacy How-To if you have any questions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Metcalfe-Peterely Fun Continues More

The Metcalfe-Peterely Fun Continues

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Flamers (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This may sound like flame-bait, but in my experience geeks as a group tend to be a lot more immature than other societal groups seen in everyday life here in the late 20th century. Not to imply that every geek is immature, only that the bell curve tends to skew that way.

    So, the flames will not stop until the geeks find a bigger burr [somewhere] and direct their energy elswhere or learn that in maintaining their narrow view of the world, they have been left behind. Their archane knowledge meaningless now in the new society. New geeks will have assumed their role as flame-throwers.

    These new geeks will have not learned anything and they too will not understanding people different from themselves. They will assume that by hurling insults, people will suddenly understand.

    To paraphrase an old disney short...

    They're stupid, but they will now know that they are stupid, and that will almost makes them smart. Almost.

    Cheers!

  • Re:What exactly is his point? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Could the problem be also that some companies that develop software for windows don't *want* to believe that there is really a large Linux user base (market) out there? Is it possible that some of this denial might be because they don't want to have to port their software, increase their costs and cut into profits?

    Why even post this as a rhetorical question? Of course, companies won't cut into their profits to support Linux, unless it's with a long term strategy of making good money in the future with it. Very few commercial ventures can afford to operate as a charity in today's competetive market.

    Nobody in the software industry should view Linux as a "charity case" and feel compelled to "Do the right thing" (what ever the h*ll that would mean). If companies start acting like that about Linux, the OS is in serious trouble. The companies who have extended their line to include Linux versions (i.e. ID) do it because it's in their interest, either financially or otherwise.

    That's just the way of the world.


  • Re:compiling kernels? SARCASM? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    maybe what hes trying to say is that he compiled kernels, did some kernel programming A LOOONGG time ago...the days when "people who compile kernels" are actually.....REALLYY...KERNEL PROGRAMMERS and not just some wanabee, trying hard-Linux-user,trying-to-be-elite, if-i-use-linux-i-will-be-elite MORONS just like MOST (not all) of linux users...Most ppl posting their opinions here in slashdot are real lamers...They think dissing Windows and using Linux makes them a member of the linux community....a community which is composed mostly (again..not all) of Newbies and wanabbeees...I PITY all of you...
  • THE Linux advocacy-strategy:

    1) Make Linux easier to use (KDE,GNOME, etc), so that idiots can use Linux.

    2) Open-Source is the PANACEA!! horray to Programmers who supports open-source software, they can fix bugs and add enhancements in just a matter of hours.

    3) Support for every piece of device you can attach to your PC!

    4) Bill Gates Sucks!!! Windows must vanish!! Microsoft MUST DIE!!!

    -------

    With this 4 broad strategies, 90 percent of all "Linux advocates POSTING IN SLASHDOT" are doing Strategy 4....The rest are practically users..doing some sort of CGI programming, Sys Administration, Network configurations,...

    What exactly have you done for Linux? the Open-Source Initiative? Or the Entire Computer Industry over all? Aside from "using" linux?

    What? Before opening your wide-mouth shouting to everyone how "Linux didn't crash for 10 straight days" and how Windows sucks by being toooo easy..an OS for the lamers..crashes-alot-OS..ask yourself if your qualified to speak..

    Programmers and Engineers surely doesnt need to react to this.

  • Which third? (Score:4)

    by Zack ( 44 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @01:17PM (#1816173) Journal
    So if Metcalfe had to be placed in one of his "thirds" which do you think he'd fall into? Those who pointed out the shortcoming, those who pointed out the advantages, or those who flamed?

    I'd put my money on "FLAME." Metcalfe is posting immature columns, and getting upset when others respond in the same manner. If his columns had ANY substance (other than the one he smokes ;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.

    My point? Ignore the man. Unless he comes out with a column that points out anything specific, then don't bother with him. "Mine's better than yours" he cries, well let him cry. Just don't cry back. If he points out any flaw or weakness, then we can address that.. until then, ignore the fool. There's no point in arguing over nothing.

    I challange Metcalfe: Post a column that says something. Why should we choose an OS? Technical merit, application availibility, ease of use... Pick an issue. Discuss. When you post a real column, you will get real responses.
  • I'll take my X Window System with fvwm over the MSWin GUI any day of the week and twice on Sundays. The fonts are less ugly...

    X fonts less ugly than Win fonts? I'll give you some shiny beads if you perform the magic on my machine that you must've done on yours...

  • Counting the two groups, it'd be Linux, 10 million, W2k 0. Or if you count the people who've bought a W2k beta, pirated it, etc that would be what, several thousand? I'm not really sure what Metcalfe meant by that. He probably meant count NT users or something. That because there are more, it must be better.

  • Flamers (Score:1)

    by whoop ( 194 )
    Basically Metcalfe says Linux will collapse because of the flamers that come out. See ESR's trip [slashdot.org] to MS last month. There are overly enthusiastic MS people as well, therefore Windows will disappear in the next 16 hours.

    Actually, Windows could disappear if MS suddenly folded under. On the other hand, with the source to Linux and everything out there, someone's bound to pick it up again if every developer called it quits this afternoon.

  • Great... Now Bob compares Linux users' reaction to "inferior" nations responding to some tacky ethnic insult, and feels that he still somehow has any other option than to shut up? I completely agree with him that his insults were at exactly the same level as insults, some uncivilized people direct toward nations that they consider "worse" than their own one. And that he displays approximately the same level of immaturity, arrogance and stupidity as in any case when individuals that belong to some self-proclaimed "superior" race throw derogatory comments about the ethnicity of their opponents.

    Being Russian/Jewish I think, I am qualified to make this comparison, and I don't see any way to respond to such manners other than by reminding him that they are rejected and hated by civilized people. In other words, fuck you, Bob.

  • Didn't the word anti-American die out in the late 50's. Part of being American is being anti-American. There can be no evolution without revolution.

    Well, some people in other countries are very anti-American, and this can be explained rather easily. Large amound of international umm... wrongdoing, prominent crooks and assholes come from US and "third world" countries. However while in "third world" they have some excuse (poor political system, poverty, underdeveloped education), US is supposed to be democratic, rich and refined. Yet for some reason for an outsider's eye Americans' activity abroad is as much civilized as one of dictator next door (or palace). What naturally makes people angry.

    Since I live in US, I can observe that _within_ the country it's not as bad as in some others (if it was I wouldn't be here in the first place). Still Americans' claim of being so much developed that the only thing they have to do is to maintain status quo inside and subjugate everything outside, is extremely overstated. And of many things that people abroad don't like in US, is exactly the existence of certain software racket that affects their lives almost as much as it affects ours here.

  • Actually, I think they're using WINE.

  • Re:FUD? (Score:2)

    by Analog ( 564 )
    And remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. ;)
  • This has been a problem with the MacOS and speech software. Companies are afraid to develop speech software for the Mac, because they are afraid Apple will make Speech software part of the Mac OS for free.

    Gee, we can't think of ANY examples of this behaviour in the Microsoft world, can we?


    ...phil
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    First, while good, your post rambles just as badly as Metcalfe's article. You start off with some good arguments and then veer off into "This is my world".

    Second, for your (future) digital camera check out gphoto (search for it on freshmeat.net).
    ---
    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • I'm curious: out of all of the OSS operating system users out there, how many actually do fix bugs or add features to their kernel?

    I haven't actually performed my own hacks on the kernel, but I have tweaked XFMail and a few other open source programs. Source code: that's one handy feature.

    --

  • He seems to be rambling at this point.

    The number of Linux users is largely irrelevant at this point. There is a sufficient userbase for many companies to port their software to Linux, so whether there are in fact 5 million, 10 million or 25 million Linux users is unimportant.

    What matters is whether Linux will do what you need it to do. In many cases, it will; in some, it won't. That's how you decide whether to use it; not on the basis of "who's winning."

    --

  • Gotta wonder about his numbers (Score:3)

    by Eccles ( 932 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @12:31PM (#1816185) Journal
    "Also during 1998 [...] Windows 98 was 17.2 percent, up 39 percent over 1997."

    Perhaps this is a trivial complaint, but Windows 98 came out in 1998. So how could its shipments possibly go up 39 percent from 1997 to 1998?
  • I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but "I told
    you so!"

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/06/21/126 233&cid=27

  • >Re:The bad reputation of Linux users grows larger_

    ??? You mean because we aren't going to let losers like yourself and Metcalfe get away with their shoddy articles we have a bad rep? Good. Maybe mags will think twice about publishing this kind of crap then.
  • I don't think that is a bad score, it is always the ones who feel strongly on a subject who replies.

  • Given that linux has been available commercially since 1993, and a lot of people still download linux from the net or copy it from friends, I think 10 million+ users sounds like a typical Linus understatement.

    Also why does Bob Metcalfe think that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested that he's on some board? That sounds far more like self-promotion to me.

  • You're going to get the same basic style of responses no matter what you post as long as enough people see it. What you look for is the proportions of the good vs. flame, the quality of the good, and the creativity of the flame.
    As for the column, he appears only to want I-told-you-so rights for twenty years from now when Linux is "dead." He also is "secretly rooting" for Linux, meaning when he's wrong and Linux doesn't die, he can claim to have won in being wrong.
    Congratulations Bob Metcalfe. You can almost hear his keyboard clicking out 2019's I told you so letter.
  • Since I live in US, I can observe that _within_ the country it's not as bad as in some others (if it was I wouldn't be here in the first place).

    Aha! We take our freedom for granted. If the US was "as bad as" certain other nations, you would not have the option nor the capacity to leave. Even if you could leave your country, the country you wanted to go to might border-patrol your butt right back where you started.

    "All nations is shite, and America is the best of the best."

  • Specifically, I meant that the ORIGINAL (Metcalfe) article was posted minutes before I submitted it to Slashdot many days ago.
  • That's embarassing. You spell Nick's last name in two different ways and both of them are wrong.
  • ... or they can download it! For free! They're
    aware you have to learn, that's why they haven't
    given it a chance. Because you have to read
    documentation.
  • I see. That's not YOUR opinion, that's
    principal. Or common sense? And you don't fit
    in that category, because you're one of the elite.
    Correct?
  • Rambling is too weak a term to describe what he's doing. His (Metcalfe) article doesn't cut the grade as even a readable Usenet flame. What's the prior history on this guy, does he always not make sens? And Mr. Petreley, is he an idiot, to respond to garbage like that?
  • Here [ebicom.net] is a picture of a NT ATM. Not a place where I would place my money and conduct transactions.

  • Interesting--the quote you used says nothing about "by hand."

    In any case, I think he's just once again trying to note how little use it will be for users to recompile their OS. And it is a tricky thing if you aren't used to it, y'know. Perhaps not brain surgery, but in any case I think we get his point.

  • Just as an aside, you may not need windows for your hypothetical digicam.


    I decided to try gphoto (see freshmeat for more info) last week and while it is early in development (0.38 i believe), i thought it worked rather well. While it would crash instantly if I attempted to view any of the pics from my camera onscreen, it happily downloaded them to my hard drive where i could XV and gimp them to my hearts content.


    I am not affiliated with the gphoto project, just a happy user. Keep up the good work guys! And by the way, i was using a Fuji DX-7 with the DX-5 drivers :)

    --
  • Just as pornography drove image file formats, I guess one must accept that something as (seemingly) pointless as gaming will drive computing technology. Heck, it has since long before Castle Wolfenstein.

    Maybe if I played games, I'd be a bit more excited. All these advances in 3D technology don't seem to mean all too much for me, though.

    Do compilers get anything from directx support? My uninformed leaning is toward "no."
  • Advocacy is getting to be a tired subject. Get used the level of ineptitude that comes along with free speech. Some people have utterly repellent methods of communication. These people will get what's coming to them, more likely than not at a job interview or on a date. Evil is its own punishment
  • A couple things i might point out about NT:
    David Cutler is the guy who created VMS and went to work on NT; however, they based NT on the Mach kernel, not on VMS, and everything else was written from scratch.
  • How can anyone claim to be surprised by any of this? Bob Metcalfe wrote a column which was a puerile, ad-hominem flame of the the Linux community (known for its emotional flamers). He received a bunch of puerile, ad-hominem flames back.
    Of course.
    Go back and look at the original column. He starts with a terrible analogy in which compares the open source movement to various Communists. Then, halfway through the column, he admits it's a bad analogy and proposes one that's even more inappropriate. That back-to-the-earth metaphor lasts about a paragraph before he changes strategies again: He starts calling Open Source "Open Sores."
    Now, most of us stopped making jokes about people's names sometime back in grade school. Those that didn't write puerile, ad-hominem flames. Or bad columns.
    Is Bob Metcalfe surprised he got flamed? No. He set out to be flamed so he could talk about how irresponsible the Linux community flamers were.
    I'm only surprised anyone was foolish enough to rise to his bait.
  • I really agree! I was gonna e-mail this guy, but
    he probably doesn't care. I started usin' LinuX
    to learn, and it can make you learn (Slackware).
    Now, I think that it is good to learn, but there
    is the percentage of people not interested. And
    they (Windows users) aren't AWARE they'll have to
    learn. They can have my LinuX when, they can pry
    it from my cold, dead hands.
  • Ok then, how about
    o kernel
    o gcc
    o make
    o flex
    o bison
    o glibc
    o util-linux

    That's a good bit right there... And I bet that thousands if not millions have built all of those at one time or another, even on the same box...

    Hell, hundreds of kiddies have built the rootkit.. What qualifies?
  • You put Quake support into the kernel? What kind of framerate improvement does that offer?

    ;)
  • After the origional article came out, I wrote a pretty hot, but non-flammable e-mail to Mr. Metcalf and the online editor at Infoworld, in which I predicted that he would use the flames he received as fodder for his next article. I even have the sendmail logs to prove it.

    HA!

    I'll post the e-mail later, when I get home from work (overtime sucks...).



  • There are three types of lies..

    1) Lies
    2) Damned Lies
    3) Statistics

    - M. Twain

  • Here was a snippit of my e-mail to Metcalf and letters@infoworld.com



    Mr. Metcalf is entitled to his opinions and predictions. In regarding this article, however, I have very little respect for Mr. Metcalf's opinions, and Infoworld had lost quite a lot of respect from myself and others for printing such an obvious attempt to bait the Linux community into a reaction. I'm sure Mr. Metcalf will use all the flame mail he gets and turn it into his next column about how illiterate and immature the Linux/Open Source community is.



    It seems to be a pattern in technical journals...

  • It seems that it is actually Mark Twain (mis)quoting Benjamin Disraeli. The origional is slightly different. Wierd....

    Look at http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/1_2.html#s ubindex and search for "Twain" in your browser's search function.

    jf

  • Bob Metcalfe (metcalfe@idg.net) is one of very few people who've ever successfully recompiled an operating system. But not recently, not Linux, not Windows, nor his trusty Macintosh. Neither has he performed brain surgery on himself.

    What, does he mean by hand ? I have compiled Linux a couple dozen times over the last 3 years - but I used 'make'.

  • Interesting--the quote you used says nothing about "by hand."
    Ahh. I think you missed a comma in my comment - I said "What, does he mean by hand?" as opposed to "What does he mean, by hand?". I was less than clear and I apologize.
    I think he's just once again trying to note how little use it will be for users to recompile their OS.
    On Linux boxen, I check Freshmeat, download, and make. On my WinNT box, I check MSDN for the latest advisories, gotchas, patches, and updates. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I don't consider it of little use - it's the basic method of installing updates.
    And it is a tricky thing if you aren't used to it, y'know.
    Agreed.
  • That is a major issue.

    Commerical Developing for Linux is right now a major risk, in the fact that something far better to your commerical program becomes avalible for Linux for free (under the GPL). Think about the risk. You would quickly lose user base, even though your product has special features not in the GPL version of the program.

    This has been a problem with the MacOS and speech software. Companies are afraid to develop speech software for the Mac, because they are afraid Apple will make Speech software part of the Mac OS for free.

  • Agreed. It's actually really annoying the way people have to ennunciate their annoyance /every/ time some journo makes it up.

    It seems to me a bit like those hoax virus messages where the actual virus is the propogation of the message willy nilly.

  • Is BOB trying to tell us that Statistics is proof enough for a desecion ?!??!?

    Well he should know (being one of the few people to have compiled a OS) more oftern than not the way statistical figures r read is the way answers will be.

    The most important point which he he may not have understood or he greatfully ignores is actually society decides the life of a product and not the marketing force of a company.

    This community has come together to do something good which they could all use. Now after finding it is good they are sharing the idealogy and the results of that with all others. Practically free of cost.

    Over the years in Social Revolutions we have seen that the most successful once have been the once where comman man felt comfortable in a belief and started following and slowly everyone seemed to follow them. More often that not the person did it because he felt good and also someone else started feeling good and so on and on.

    Here i think the primary problem is that many people for some vague reason have a inhibition against UNIX like system. This more of a pschycologial fear which has been there for as long as UNIX.

    Yes in many ways LINUX does resemble UNIX and with more improvements which the UNIX market has also acknowledged. Why should LINUX not be like UNIX. I am yet to see a programming language which has replace C. I do not see that happenning. So effectively LINUX is an improvement of an idealogy which was born some 20 odd years ago. For sometime during in its teens it was wild then go into its business perspective and later matured to be dependable.

    It is still growing......

    Now Windows .........

    I am yet come across a situation where people have pointed out that a particular feature was first implemented by WINDOWS which has been later on copied by UNIX world.

    The point everyone is against is very simple. How many of us have not seen a WINDOZEEEEEEEEEEE or WINDOW crash ?

    This factor has been going on and MS has been getting away with it so often that it does not seem to be of any use in testing one of their products. Either we whave not finished installing all the patches and upgrades and started our actual work or the product is killed by miscrosoft for something else.

    Effectively the scoiety is being treated as a gueniea pig for MS whims and fancies. The best part is we pay them for that.

    I think most of the problem MS is going to have in the coming years is the Quality of the product and NOT the product by itself. Because none of the products they have are their own creation, they are features added to idealogies which people had created long time ago.

    Society has show once they do not believe in the quality of a commodity they do not have any qualms in turning their back on it.

    This is something where LINUX might have a lead. Because it is the society which willingly doing the QC and the same society which make them work. So this might be just the edge that LINUX community has to prove that a society is more important than the product.
  • Well, this is sad but this guy sound like one of those '50 american guys looking for communists under carpets and ashtrays...
    A technology has no political content, is just a way to do things. Metcalfe tries to bind microsoft success to the notion of "pro-american" and linux for contraposition to "anti-american"...well, I'm American, South American in fact, and I gladly perceive Linux as a "World" thing, not just one country thing, and there's were the magic lies at the end.
    Then again, anti-social...well, I made MANY social contact with other linux users in the last years, and happily avoided contact with corporate "User Support" employes who are always 2nd years students that don't have a clue about what they are supporting anyway.
    Anti-capitalism? Well, people who is actually porting apps to Linux must be happy for having another reason to get new contract time, more work os more services to sell.
    Many companies are implementing Servers under Linux and I readed a Price Waterhouse Coopers manual for Linux, and if this guys are getting their employees used to linux, they must have a good reason...(And if PWC is not a good example of capitalism, I'm really lost)
    I do not think that linux is anti microsoft, is just plain better if you got a clue, but if you are old and slow to learn, well, that up to you Bobo...I'm in command of my destiny and I choose the OS that will take me there...Is it clear? Right to Choose, that's not american, not capitalistic, not communist, not socialist, not social is UNIVERSAL)
    Who cares how many users? Thanks god there's DIFFERENT CHOICES and people uses them, imagine a world where everybody dress the same, eat the same, drives the same and installs the same, PLAIN BOARING!
    What' s the point with those numbers if at the end Bob accepts that nobody knows real numbers anyway?
    What's the point of this article??!!
    My Advise to Bob is to perform brain surgery on himself, it's clear he has nothing to loose anyway...

  • Hmm... (Score:1)

    by Gromer ( 9058 )

    I think those who are saying Metcalfe is out of touch may have a point. Check out the bottom of the article- "Bob Metcalfe is one of very few people who've ever successfully recompiled an operating system." I can only wonder whether he has no clue about Linux, or he really counts the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Linux hackers who have done a kernel recompile over the years as "very few."

  • OK, I get it. Mea Culpa.

  • Yep that's it. It's extraordinary to see the creator of Ethernet going so low and making of himself a shameful picture.

    Metcalfe's article is hatred. For what reason he is doing this I can only make guesses. But the worst is the blind way he makes his flamework. It sounds typical of Cold-War times when journalists and politicians droped cheap highly flamatory articles over each other. One may remind that sometimes this propaganda war went quite surrealistic. Disregarding any realities and good-sense, people went just flaming away its enemy.

    That is what Metcalfe is doing. He even calls Linux Anti-American. We all know that Linux has a political flavour in it but anti-american?????? Hu-oh well Mr. Metcalfe can you tell me who boosted Linux distribution system more than anyone else? Yes, Linux is international. And this means the americans are in. And means they make a lot in it. Even Linus has gone to America. Strange thing for the founder of the "anti-american" OS...

    Maybe for Mr. Metcalfe this "international" characteristic is seen as the greatest threat to America's establishment. Some sort of masonic conspiration to undermine America. If so then it is better to hunt down Intel too. And the founding fathers of the computer industry. And don't forget all those Russians over there. Oh! and the all those Jews, Indians, Chinese and Japanese of course. Save America Mr. Metcalfe, but don't forget to rip off the whole computer industry...

    But there is one thing that amazes me more than anything else. The huge blindness of his hatred:

    "let's count Linux versus W2K users"

    I didn't know that NT and 9x could be considered as W2K... It is amazing how Mr. Metcalfe manipulates statistics. A "magic wand" and suddenly all Windows users become W2K statistics...

    I perfectly understand Mr. Metcalfe's acrobacies. One of the reasons why people is turning to Linux is.. after seeing W2K in action. I hold my words on it because I saw this happening. And this seems to worry too much Mr. Metcalfe. So much that he doesn't worry to flame away in fury. and when he catches fire to drop hatred in all ways.

    It is hatred and blind hatred. His article is nothing more than a "Hunt for Red October" in the cheapest tone.
  • My Grandfather once told me - "Never argue with a fool. Someone else might not know the difference."

    So, that's fine Bob. I think you should just use Microsoft products. After all, isn't that what they're paying you for?
  • It was Benjamin Disreali who said that.
  • Wasn't it Disraeli who said that one?
  • Linux will better Windows because Linux is reliable, free, and you can recompile it yourself whenever you need to fix bugs or add features.

    I'm curious: out of all of the OSS operating system users out there, how many actually do fix bugs or add features to their kernel? I'm not talking about applying someone else's patch, either! This is constantly used as an argument for using Linux, but I think it's misleading.

    Before all the flamers come after me, think about it for just a bit. I realize that it's nice to have this capability and I'm not trying to slam any advocates. It just seems a bit silly since very few of us ever try to do this in the first place. It's like saying DOOM was better than Wolfenstein just because id published information on how to make add-ons. A nice feature, yeah, but that's not the reason most people played the game.

    It seems to me that perhaps we should be concentrating on the reasons Linux runs better than Windows that typical users would understand.

  • I noticed that too...This guy is a fool. I'd like a survey of the number of reporters that have written about linux and then ask how many have used it. Including this bafoon!
  • Perhaps this is a trivial complaint, but Windows 98 came out in 1998. So how could its shipments possibly go up 39 percent from 1997 to 1998?

    Well, if you regard Win98 as a bugfix release for Win95 with a few extra utilities thrown in (and there's not a lot more to it than that), thus making all the numbers relate to versions of Win95, I guess this becomes totally trivial rather than almost totally trivial.

    Who cares?

    Numbers mean sweet FA to the average user anyway. Individuals and companies choose the OS's that best fit their needs, present and forecast, at a particular time. More often than not, they'll be unable to get by with a single OS and need to use a mix. Buying (or obtaining for free) decisions on OS's based on market share or penetration would be a foolish strategy. Fitness for purpose (which to some extent includes value for money) is the overriding concern for anyone with a clue.
  • Or the "Linux cheerleaders" will point out that just like NT is a from scratch OS influenced by an older design, but with many newer features, Linux is a from scratch OS influenced by UNIX, with new features and tweaks. The NT version of libc/X11/pthreads/sockets called win32 is just a wrapper around system calls. I can only assume your attempt at humor is to hide the fact that your argument is ridiculous.

  • Metcalfe is saying nothing coherent at this point. His one weak attempt at lucidity -- his claim of the third reason why Linux is doomed, that being its flameful advocacy -- was implicitly contradicted just a couple of paragraphs above, when Metcalfe, in answering the 'first third' who claimed that more coding and less talking will allow Linux to push ahead, answered that he does not believe that will happen.

    Which one? Is too much talking and not enough coding the reason why Linux is behind, or is it irrelevant to Microsoft's market penetration lead?

    All in all, this article looked to me like Metcalfe's attempt, after having realized that he put both of his feet and his left hand into his mouth, to salvage what little is left of his face -- by kinda agreeing with his previous column, but without being either too aggressive or too comittal in stating his point (or so detailed and coherent as to have accidentally put the abovementioned appendages into his mouth once again).

    Yet another under-informed over-opinionated person trying to back out of the corner they painted themselves into. Film at 11...

    --

  • ROTFL!!!

    Ooops.. :> Missed that one :> heh
    Interesting though.. this is the first time I've actually
    read a response to one of my posts..
    (articalis interruptus)

    Thanx

  • Was that the article, or did I miss something? (Score:3)

    by GreyFauk ( 18632 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @02:20PM (#1816230)
    That was an article?
    Really?

    You're quite sure now.?

    Hmmm... He should have cut out all the rambling,
    and put the 3 sentances of _actual_ content as a
    caption under a picture or something.


    I'll wait for better stuff before I waste another
    10 seconds reading that tripe.

    As for all the flamers? Sheesh... grow up.. wouldja?!

    Here are some tips for flaming...
    1) Think carefully about your response
    2) Refer back to the origional post you are flaming
    frequently to make sure you aren't going off
    topic.
    3) Write your response.
    4) USE YOUR SPELL-CHECKER!
    5) WATCH YOUR GRAMMER!
    6) Re-write, repeating steps 1-5 until it has you
    chortling in self satisfaction for hours.
    7) (and this is the most important one) DELETE IT!
    8) Pat yourself on the back for being human and
    resisting immaturity.

    Save your flames for warming your loved ones on a
    cold winter's eve.


  • I don't know about you, but I didn't get a whole lot of fear, uncertainty, or doubt from reading this article. But then again, I didn't get any content of any other kind, either... *shrug* (Is my browser broken, or does the article really *end* with statistics? Hello? And these statistics mean...???)
  • You're only supposed to say that when people disagreed with you originally, and I, for one, have a hard time seeing that happening... :)
  • Consider Corel WordPerfect for Linux. Surely it didn't cost anywhere near as much to port to Linux as it did to originally develop for Windows? I don't think anyone here is suggesting developing commercial desktop applications for Linux *instead of* Windows, but rather for Linux *in addition to* Windows.
  • That page actually is a joke... :)
  • Recompiling an operating system != recompiling the kernel.

  • I like the title... (Score:4)

    by rm -rf /etc/* ( 20237 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @12:35PM (#1816236) Homepage
    "Enough of the OSnic slurs, let's count Linux versus W2K users."

    What was that quote? Something like there are more cockroaches on the planet than people, so does quantity really mean that much?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Actually, I can perfectly well envision a Windows based OS in ATM.

    The NatWest bank in the UK has NT running in all over its ATMs. They don't seem to crash any more than other ATMs ( often OS/2 based I believe ) and they look prettier/better as well.

  • Linux will not die (Score:5)

    by Milkman Ken ( 26074 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @12:43PM (#1816239) Homepage
    I posted this before, in case it looks familiar :)

    Why do I think Linux won't kill Windows? Two reasons. The Open Source Movement's ideology is utopian balderdash. And Linux is 30-year-old technology. And he's contrasting this to Windows 2000? Ummmm....waitaminit...W2K is just NT5.

    Windows NT was originally written by a bunch of guys from DEC who wrote VMS. Hence, NT can be said to have derived much from VMS, which is well over 20 years old. What does that mean for NT?

    Clearly, that age doesn't mean a damn thing. Newer does not necessarily mean better. I'd rather have an OS that has evolved from decades of trial and error than something just out of Redmond, and I'm sure many others would as well.

    I've been running Linux intermittently for several years (and exclusively for the last 6 months). I've also run windows 95/98, and NT4, and a beta of W2K when it was still NT5. NT5 is a pretty cool OS -- the relative (to win98) reliability and security of NT, and directx for games--yay.

    This seems to be where everything is headed currently -- what used to be solely server/workstation operating systems are now becoming gaming platforms. NT is adopting directx6; Unix is getting XFree86 4.0 with all sorts of cool additions. This is A Good Thing (tm), which you should acknowledge even if you hate NT.

    Curiously, the same reason that I used Windows is the reason I switched from Windows to Linux. Linux support for hardware used to suck. My TV card didn't work, there was no 3d acceleration (for my TNT), the games sucked. So, I used Windows and put up with the occasional reboot. Eventually, I got fed up with Windows. I hated having to run Exceed to be able to access some of the programs I needed for classes (Matlab, Maple, LaTeX, etc.). So I installed Linux and dealt with the lack of good hardware and game support.

    I can get my TV card working with a 2.2 series kernel (which I still haven't gotten to work without breaking AFS, which kind of defeats the whole purpose), and now with NVidia releasing open source drivers, I don't have to worry about 3D acceleration. I really don't have a single qualm about not running Windows...the only games I play are Q/Q2/Q3 anyhow.

    Simply put, I have no need for Windows. I haven't booted up Windows in months (I'm pretty sure mucking around with VMWare killed it anyhow), and if I do need it for anything (say, if I buy a digital camera and need to get the pictures off it), I can use VMWare (damn that's an impressive program).

    Windows is not going to disappear any time soon. Neither will Linux. Both OSes have built up way too much steam to just roll over and die. Deal with it. Use whichever suits you best. Believe it or not, Linux is not the best OS for some (gasp! blasphemy!) -- my mom still has problems copying and pasting -- I don't think she's ready to be configuring XFree86 (which, while RedHat 5.2 has made some significant changes to make configuring XFree easier, still requires some knowledge about your computer's hardware, which most people haven't a clue about [horizontal refresh frequency? dot clock?]). If you want to use Linux, use it. But don't unnecessarily evangelize an OS that is not ready to replace Windows yet.

    Better yet, use Linux conspicuously. Answer questions about Linux. Let them come to you -- don't force it down their throats. Then prove the esteemed Mr. Metcalfe wrong.

  • In the artical, windows 98 and 95 were counted as seperate products, with there own stats, so the 39% couldn't be from 95 to 98...

    it also said that DOS sold more for the client then Linux (but I don't know how dos could be a "client" as in connected to a server)
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • People, relax. What you have to realize is that *this guy is not really all that serious* He's just playing the devils advocate, the sort of grouchy old man, stirring up controversy for the pure hell of it. In the article he *admitted* that he was flaming linux to begin with, and he didn't say that there was anything inherently wrong with people speaking out against him. He seemed to think that OSnic patriotism wasn't really all that uncommon. Besides this guy is so out of touch that he predicted that Internet would collapse in 1996 [infoworld.com], partly because it would be impossible to find any porn....
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • His original article on Linux was insanely stupid. I mean, what were his points: Linux reminds me of communism, and Unix is old? At least *this* time, he wasn't stupid, he was just totally in the ozone. I suppose that's an improvement....
  • No, in the Olde Days, Microsoft was one of the few companies that actually seemed to care about the PC market. Of course, those days are long past, and Microsoft is all about monstrous profits, and screw turning out good products....

    N.B. Mr. Gates: You're the richest man in the world. You won. Lighten up.
  • No offense, but "maturity" seems to have a very objective definition these days. Everybody tells anybody who disagrees with them "Grow up!" As if being relatively immature were the only reason two people could disagree....

  • Flame-baiting (Score:5)

    by KirkKhan ( 28065 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @12:18PM (#1816245)
    Columnists who are groping for a topic for the weekly grind are getting way too much mileage out of slamming Linux one week, then writing about getting flamed for what they said the next. There is nothing a "journalist" loves more than the feeling they are defending free speech. They can write a lazy column requiring no research or work at all on their part, then get all indignant and huffy about the flaming. It is really getting boring. The splenetic flaming by Linux users is getting cliched and boring. Especially when it is so obvious that that is exactly what the writer of the column wanted!
  • >I don't think anyone here is suggesting developing commercial desktop applications for
    Linux *instead of* Windows

    Right. My point was that the *incremental* cost of porting an app to Linux probably cannot be easily justified (in most cases, I would guess) by increased revenue. The point about getting sales because an app *is* cross-platform is certainly valid, although that may be even harder to predict than just the size of a potential Linux commercial software market.

    Corel is a different example because they do already have an established product, with dwindling win32 market share, that obviously was ported to other platforms. In their case it may have been an easier decision since the windows word-processor market is obviously dominated by the competition, so making a Linux port was probably an easy business case.

    I guess all I'm saying is that it must be problematic for companies to justify development of Linux software in tandem with Win32 projects because of the uncertain market for commercial Linux products in general. I'm not sure that's the kiss of death, just an observation to go along with the point that the number of Linux users is not easily measured.

  • Re:What exactly is his point? (Score:3)

    by Jburkholder ( 28127 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @12:59PM (#1816247)
    Interesting. Could the problem be also that some companies that develop software for windows don't *want* to believe that there is really a large Linux user base (market) out there? Is it possible that some of this denial might be because they don't want to have to port their software, increase their costs and cut into profits?

    If I'm a successful software company and I write windows-only products, I have a known cost for developing and testing my software and a (pretty-well) known market for my product. I can forecast my sales revenue against my cost to produce the product and make a business case for Return On Investment.

    But if that same company were to decide that there are 10 million potential customers for a Linux port, the business case may get a little hairy. Now your costs for development, testing and support are increased (not 2x, but by some factor). You probably have to decide if this increase in the cost to produce your product is warranted by the potential market increase.

    If there is no reliable way to size a market for your product, it could be a tough sell to management based on the economics. Of course, a few companies (like id Software) have the luxury of putting economics on a lower priority than "doing the Right Thing", but this is the exception (for now).

  • Another factor product managers must consider is how much business is being lost in a heterogenous environment. There are companies that say, "I'll buy 10,000 copies of your software for Windows, but only if I can use the SAME app on my 200 Mac stations." So, there is more revenue at stake than just the potential user base on Linux desktops; as a company I might do a Linux port (not expecting to sell huge quantities of it), just to get (or hold on to) this other revenue. Expect this to happen as Linux creeps more and more into the desktop arena.
  • In one of my previous jobs we regularly paid out the big $$ for this type research from IDG, Gartner and others. They always generated data that seemed to me to be clueless. They didn't properly qualify the data (i.e. this data is characteristic of InfoWorld readers that take the time to return questionaires) and would just characterize it as "our surveys of leading IT managers", discounting the known fact that most of the things people tell trade magazines is pure puffery (you have to say you are the descision maker for >$100,000 in computer purchases or they dont' send you the trade mag).

    I can't think of any "prediction" that these
    groups made that turned out to be both correct and valuable. The PHBs allocated money according to those predictions, which is part of why that company no longer exists.

    I mean really; does anyone think Netware's market is actually growing?

    garyr
  • Let's say it did. I'd still take my chances with the flamers over hot air journalism any day.

    Be courteous to our bright and afraid acolytes. Fuck the mainstream public. They're a bunch of whiny Fascists who can't have a good time without the latest UltraStrength Headache medicine.

    Heck, Put the local Boys/Girls Club on Linux. Harvest a couple of geniouses.

  • Isn't he the guy who shilled OS/2 and that it would beat out windows? Or has my memory gotten that bad?

    Charlie

  • McCarthyism Returns (Score:3)

    by smutt ( 35184 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @02:00PM (#1816252)
    Now I have a third reason that Linux will not beat W2K, which is the obsessively anti-Windows, toxically anti- Microsoft, sometimes anti-capitalism, often anti-American, and always antisocial flaming that passes for discourse around the Open Source Initiative.

    Is this Bob MetCalfe or Senator Bob McCarthy?
    Didn't the word anti-American die out in the late
    50's.
    Part of being American is being anti-American.
    There can be no evolution without revolution.

    Maybe Linux and OSS is a revolution of some sorts?
    A revolution that some people find threatening because it forces them to reevaluate how they
    view capitilism and the marketplace.

  • Ummm... (Score:1)

    by ??? ( 35971 )
    Bill Gates himself even shilled OS/2 and that it would beat Windows... As late as 1989, Microsoft was talking publicly about stopping Windows development by mid 1990, in favor of OS/2.

    As for Nicholas Petreley, he is the "editorial director of LinuxWorld"... He continues to write well thought out, if somewhat religious ;-), defenses of Linux.
  • Perhaps we should follow our own advice? I think you wanted to write "grammar" (NOT grammer)?
  • I think an improvement for Metcalfe would be to give up writing columns like these, until he actually has something to say/a point to make. I don't find it as necessary to use a whole column to say what he could have said in a paragraph; and a paragraph that wouldn't be too much of a thrill to read, I think. Anyway, I still fail to see how he thinks W2K will beat Linux..
  • "To each according to needs from each according to his means" Karl Marx.
    So.... How does the development of Linux expropriate resources from me to give to those without resources?

    Many people use Linux, which is the fruit of the labor of those with the means to produce an operating system. These people who use Linux may not have the means (ability) to produce any code, but they do have a need for the OS. SO, again, there is some communistic facets to the Linux community.

    There is nothing preventing a convergence of Libertarianism and Communism. In fact, I would say Libertarianism would be an evolutionary step toward voluntary Communism. Of course, by that time there will be a new name for Communism.
  • I went ahead and skimmed the page mentioned above. I have come to the conclusion that it's a joke. I hope it is cause I can't stop laughing.

    On the Linux=communism note:

    I cannot completely disagree with the idea that Linux promotes some degree of communism. Let us take a look at the word:

    communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

    The areas that Linux falls under are the ones that touch on possession and wealth.

    In the Linux community (notice the similarities between community and communism? I knew you could!) the code is open to all, everyone has an equal chance of utilising the code to suit their best interests. For those of you challenged ones, this is the abolation of the inequalities in the possession of [intellectual] property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

    It's not a bad thing! Really. The communism of this century was not real communism. There was no equality. The communism that has been shoved down our throats is more of a beurocracy. Communism is a social system with one class, the USSR had two classes.

    I am a communist. I dream of a world where everyone is seen as equal, not the backwards heirarchy we see today. Linux, to me, is a step in the direction of world-wide utopia!

    From my [X]window, Linux is everything that is good about communism!
  • This is a really cynical thought, but the expected flames from Linux users is so cliche, the columnists in question wouldn't even need to get any flaming e-mail to claim that they had received it. So their initial article guarantees a follow-up no matter what, at this point.
    Another thing that I've noticed is that they are starting to use "Slashdot reader" in place of "Linux user" if they want to seem really hip and up-to-date.
  • I agree with your point *somewhat*. People do base their decisions on whether any OS is up to the job they need doing.

    They also, however, base their decisions on "who's winning". Why? Large userbases, large development communities, large support networks, etc. (all of which Linux has to some extent, but Microsoft moreso) help provide the user a "safety blanket" in making their decision as to which OS to use, since they may not have the time nor the expertise to make the in-depth analysis that you may.

    Even though I use Linux, I can understand the MS community's use of a "safety blanket". It's a throwback to the old maxim "Safety in numbers."
  • I'll take my X Window System with fvwm over the MSWin GUI any day of the week and twice on Sundays. The fonts are less ugly, the scrollbars work better, I can choose the window manager that suits my fancy, and very easily configure appearance and behavior to my liking.

    Yeah, the interface to exmh works a little differently than the interface to Netscape. So what? They're point and drool interfaces anyway; I could use 'em with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back. Speed? Only really an issue in games, so I run the SVGA version of Quake.

  • Of course, it is largely a matter of taste, and of what applications one is running - my most used programs emacs and exmh, where fixed-width fonts are desirable. Love the Lucida Typewriter - try

    xterm -fn "-*-lucidatypewriter-bold-r-normal-sans-14-140-*" -fg white -bg black

    Can't get a DOS window to look so good.

    I've got no problem with the Times and Courier that I use as a default in Netscape; I use the same settings on my Win95 box at work, and like the X Courier more than the Win95 one.

    WordPerfect for Linux is ugly, but so are all WYSIWYG word processors. Things that are supposed to be easy to read on paper are rarely easy to read on screen, and vice-versa.

    When required, I compose in emacs then import into the word processor for formatting. But I still prefer to use Lyx for short letters and LaTeX for longer dead tree documents. (HTML for electronic ones, of course.)

  • People: Microsoft _invented_ the term "server OS" to cover up the single-user-ness of their flagship product.

    Now that's ridiculous. The "Server OS" term came into being long before Microsoft had a product in that space, before Microsoft even included networking with their client products. Does anyone remember Netware? Banyan? Actual server operating systems, since one couldn't actually use the server as a personal workstation at the same time.

  • I thought his column seemed fairly level-headed. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I didn't interpret his writings as being inflammatory. It was an interesting read.

    Then I read all the slashdot followups and, aside from being called "rambling" and "out of touch," every sentence is taken out of context and nit-picked to death. That hair-trigger defensiveness is what has been associated with "advocacy" since the Amiga days.
  • I never managed a Netware site, but I _did_ manage a VINES site and never saw VINES marketed as a "server OS". The term wouldn't have made sense since everyone knew that the operating system running on VINES servers was UNIX. VINES was basically an app that ran on top of UNIX. Does that mean I can call samba or apache a "Server OS"?

    I don't know what OS was running under Netware
    but considering Netware was really nothing more than a file server, it would have been deeply weird for anyone to call Netware a "Server OS".

  • Re:Linux will not die (Score:3)

    by sgml4kids ( 56151 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @01:45PM (#1816265) Journal
    The success of Linux (or Unix in general) has nothing to do with the number of NT units sold (or, for that matter, shipments of MacOS, CP/M, or PalmOS). It seems that many pundits will only accept the success of Unix when Unix outsells NT in the "server OS" category. People: Microsoft _invented_ the term "server OS" to cover up the single-user-ness of their flagship product. Unix is an evolving technical solution for operating a tremendously wide variety of computers. NT is a toy operating system for a toy (fad?) architecture.

    Think of what computers will be like 20 years from now. Can anyone honestly say that they can picture a Windows-based OS in their car? Or in ATMs? Or IP-based phone-switches? (Will we need to reboot your neighbourhood exchange when the phone company adds a new user?) Or in robotics? Of course not. Microsoft couldn't even maintain a PPC port of NT.
    Can you envision Linux/Unix in any of these applications? Most definitely.

    If you stare hard at the technology Microsoft is banking on, its pretty evident that they are on shaky ground.

    I can't imagine Windows being around in 20 years but I also can't picture Unix not being around in 20 years.
  • It's the kind of guy he is. His articles are more like light (too light, imho) rants, and never anything poundingly insightful.

    His articles in InfoWorld and... Byte? have always been fluff. Frankly I'm surprised people are still listening (or hiring) him as columnist and speaker. I'm also surprised people still use the word "pundit" about these guys. It's supposed to mean "learned person; an expert or authority". Which is a word I'd use about Nicholas Negromonte, or Eric Raymond, but certainly not of Metcalfe, or any of his wannabe cronies (including the complete cast of PC Magazine columnists, whose job seems to be to jab about their telephony jacks not fitting their hotel room sockets, and the fancy new projector system that makes their PowerPoint slides dazzle). Really, you are these guys still around?

    Much is made of the fact that Metcalfe invented the Ethernet; maybe it's time for the guy who invented fiberoptics to take his place.
  • Oh boy I explains how to that the Linus long-hairs are all commie pinko red commies at http://www.freeyellow.com/members7 /geraldholmes [freeyellow.com] Its real enlitenin and will tell you good stuff.
  • It could also be possible that many companies place a lot of weight on the fact that many users of linux or whatever also use a MS OS, and they assume that because of this the number of lost users from not porting to linux is nowhere near the actual number of linux users.

    I think its also true that businesses may be conscious of the strength of free domain software in the linux community. I know that even if a commerical paint program showed up for Linux, I'd still use the GIMP, and I have a feeling that with how loud some people get about free and open source software, businesses probably percieve a large risk in an entree into linux development.

  • Metcalfe ascendant (Score:5)

    by Scurrilous Knave ( 66691 ) on Tuesday July 06, 1999 @04:36PM (#1816284) Homepage
    Please do be aware that Mr. Metcalfe is not an idiot, uninformed, or a senile old fool. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote both articles. On that hand, he knew what he was doing when he predicted the collapse of the Internet. He's a wise old cat, and we would do well to look past his words into the meat of his message.

    He has long battled entrenched monopolies--telcos of all stripes, and Microsoft, of most note. This latest "flame against Linux" was an attempt to challenge the Linux community to correct what Mr. Metcalfe sees as its worst shortcomings. It's similar to, but less clumsy than, when your father said "Bet you can't clean up your room in ten minutes flat." Except Mr. Metcalfe has your number pretty well, and judging by the vehemence of responses he reported, the Linux community never saw him coming. Stop and re-interpret his comments as if Mr. Torvalds or Mr. Stallman had made them instead. What could possibly cause them to say such a thing? Ah, now you are getting into the proper mindset!

    What, you're still here browsing the web, instead of chasing bugs, cutting code, or writing docs? Why, exactly?

    Okay, boys, coffee break's over--back on your heads!

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close