Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!smurf.noris.de!msn!faulrs!fauern!
lrz-muenchen.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!
news.coli.uni-sb.de!sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de!sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de!hightec
From: high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de (Michael Schumacher)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 9 Sep 1994 14:05:57 GMT
Organization: Universitaet des Saarlandes,Rechenzentrum
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]


Hello Linuxers!

Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
can find between here and the sun. Linux has some nice features, e.g.
the /proc filesystem, it is fast, it supports lots of hardware, it
follows the POSIX standard (which makes porting of existing software
much easier), plus: it's free. Nobody knows the exact number of Linux
installations, but it's likely to be in the 100000's. One could think
that companies are willing to consider Linux a reasonable and serious
platform, and that they would port and offer their products to the
Linux community. However, they are far away from doing so, actually. 
Here's why:

1. Commercial software products are typically binary-only (i.e., no
   source code is available). No matter what language you use for
   compilation, you will finally need libc, which happens to be FSF's
   libc on Linux. From the GLPL you learn that you are not allowed
   to make statically linked, binary-only releases of your software.
   You may, however, distribute a dynamically linked version of your
   product, since then only the startup code (crt0) is needed, which
   is explicitly excluded from the GLPL. This is perfectly okay for
   other commercial OSs, but:

2. Linux's libc tends to change its version number almost every week
   (sometimes even more often). Even though changes of the minor
   version number should not affect previous applications, they will
   sometimes break them. This means for a company that they have to
   debug the library in order to find a work-around (see 3.).

3. The kernel versions change faster than the speed of light. If you
   ask for a "stable" version, you'll be teached that there are two
   versions: 1.0 (production) and 1.1 (hacker's paradise). Wanna have a
   stable one? Get 1.0! Okay, but if I want to offer a commercial
   product, it doesn't matter what kernel version *I* am using, but
   what version is used by my potential *customers*! There's a reason
   for 1.1: it is a bit faster, it supports more hardware, it provides
   more features. As a result, most Linuxers traditionally pick up the
   the newest kernel releases all the time - and usually end up in this
   newsgroup, saying "this is broken", "that doesn't work anymore",
   "can't compile", etc. (if you don't believe me, just exit this thread
   for a moment and take a look at the other subjects). Besides other
   disadvantages, this will definitely not convince companies of the
   stability and usefulness of Linux!

4. The spirit of free software is all around. Free in both meanings:
   free availability of the sources, and free of charge. Which does
   not go together with commercial interests very well. Just to give
   you an example of what I'm talking about: I'm the author of tgdb,
   a graphical user interface for gdb. I like the idea of free software,
   and so I asked my employer for permission to make it GPL'd freeware.
   Guess what, he said "No way!". So I ripped off my bones and used all
   of my talents to persuade him to make it a shareware product instead
   of a true commercial package. Well, now that tgdb is available for
   a couple of weeks, I'm quite sure there are 100's or even more people
   who use it for their daily debug sessions. Fine. But the bloody truth
   is that not even a *single* person has paid the nominal shareware
   fee of US$30!

5. On the other hand, I can tell you how to make lots of money with Linux: 
   simply download the archives of tsx-11, sunsite, nic.funet.fi,
   prep.ai.mit.edu and ftp.x.org, put them on a CDROM, call it "Dream Linux"
   or similar, and sell if for US$35 per copy. It's that easy. Let's say,
   an average user is looking for "the better OS" and wants to try out
   Linux. He buys a "Dream Linux" CD - and is lost. Nothing works "out of
   the box", no reasonable documentation is available, nor hotline support. 
   What will happen? I'm quite sure that most of these desperated people
   will close the Linux chapter - forever.

There are a lot more things which speak against Linux as a platform for
commercial products. If an operating system is successful or not depends
on the availability of qualified (commercial) software for end-users. I
would like to see companies porting their WYSIWIG word processors, graphic
tools, spreadsheets, compilers, backup software, and whatever to Linux.
Linux is great, but at present mostly for developers and freaks - *not* for
average users who need a reliable platform for doing their jobs. Whoever
asks for a good word processor for Linux, hears something like "word
processing is out - try TeX", or "you can run xyz under DOSEMU" or "try SCO
versions of xyz; just recompile the kernel with SYSV support and get the
iBSC2 package from foo.bar". This can be - at most - a temporary work-around.
Users don't want to know how to roll a new kernel, they don't want to ftp
packages, unpack, configure, compile, debug and install them. That's why
they are willing to spend some bucks in commercial software, and that's why
Macs and Windoze are so successful. And that's why Linux is not.

   Quo vadis, Linux? Do we continue to like Linux "as is", or should we
change something in order to encourage companies to develop commercial, but
sophisticated end-user software for this beautiful OS? Do we continue to
keep Linux a powerful tool for wizards only, or do we want to see Linux 
being used in offices and other commercial environments? If we *really*
want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their commercial products!

Thanks,
mike

PS: See 4. ;-)
--
In Linux we trust.

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!
travelers.mail.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!cornell.edu!bau1
From: b...@cornell.edu (Bogdan Urma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 10 Sep 1994 17:46:54 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept. Cornell University
Lines: 26
Sender: b...@cornell.edu (Verified)
Message-ID: <34sref$klu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>
Reply-To: b...@cornell.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cu-dialup-0210.cit.cornell.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Michael Schumacher (high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de) wrote:

: Hello Linuxers!

: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
: can find between here and the sun. Linux has some nice features, e.g.
: the /proc filesystem, it is fast, it supports lots of hardware, it
: follows the POSIX standard (which makes porting of existing software
: much easier), plus: it's free. Nobody knows the exact number of Linux
: installations, but it's likely to be in the 100000's. One could think
: that companies are willing to consider Linux a reasonable and serious
: platform, and that they would port and offer their products to the
: Linux community. However, they are far away from doing so, actually. 
: Here's why:


    That's pretty funny, since Maple V Release 3 has just been ported to Linux.

Bogdan

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!
trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!zib-berlin.de!
news.th-darmstadt.de!odb!eurom!news
From: mi...@elara.fsag.de (Michaela Merz)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de> 
<34sref$klu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: n...@eurom.rhein-main.de (EuromNewsAdmin)
Organization: Free Software Association of Germany
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 04:13:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Sep11.041315.14726@eurom.rhein-main.de>
Lines: 24

     Bogdan Urma wrote in article <34sref$...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> :
>
>Michael Schumacher (high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de) wrote:
>
>: Hello Linuxers!
>
>: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
>: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
 
>
>    That's pretty funny, since Maple V Release 3 has just been ported to Linux.
>
>Bogdan

He is _perfectly_ right! There a thousands of programs. Maple is _just_
one of them ...

mm.
 
---
The                                           
Free Software                                      (Phone) ++49-69-6312083
Association of Germany, FSAG                             We have a target!

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!panix!ddsw1!redstone.interpath.net!news.sprintlink.net!
nwnexus!news.halcyon.com!usenet
From: mpdil...@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 13:32:39 +0100
Organization: Memra Software Inc., Armstrong, B.C., Canada
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <dZlSkapDlfW4071yn@halcyon.com>
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de> 
<34sref$klu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <1994Sep11.041315.14726@eurom.rhein-main.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chinook.halcyon.com

> >: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
> >: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
> >
> >    That's pretty funny, since Maple V Release 3 has just been ported to Linux.
> He is _perfectly_ right! There a thousands of programs. Maple is _just_
> one of them ...

Maple is a good example because it is not THE top selling product in
it's field. The Flagship dBase clone is another good example. Companies
like Lotus and Wordperfect are too tied to DOS/Windows to be interested
in porting their products to Linux.

But there are OTHER commercial spreadsheets and word processors out
there, some of them already ported to other UNIX's, that might
have less of an investment in DOS/Windows that they would be
willing to take a chance on a Linux port.

Can you imagine somebody selling a 486 with preinstalled Linux, X Windows,
spreadsheet, word processor, etc... just like they do now with
AST and Dell systems.


cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast
breakin' all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past!
--
Michael Dillon                 Internet: mpdil...@halcyon.halcyon.com
C-4 Powerhouse                  Fidonet: 1:353/350
RR #2 Armstrong, BC  V0E 1B0      Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Canada                              BBS: +1-604-546-2705

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <1994Sep13.142347.25281@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:23:47 GMT
Lines: 49

In article <34pq45INN...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de> high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de 
(Michael Schumacher) writes:
>installations, but it's likely to be in the 100000's. One could think
>that companies are willing to consider Linux a reasonable and serious
>platform, and that they would port and offer their products to the
>Linux community. However, they are far away from doing so, actually. 
>Here's why:

I have to agree with most of your observations. This was a 
well-thought-out article.

>   Quo vadis, Linux? Do we continue to like Linux "as is", or should we
>change something in order to encourage companies to develop commercial, but
>sophisticated end-user software for this beautiful OS? Do we continue to
>keep Linux a powerful tool for wizards only, or do we want to see Linux 
>being used in offices and other commercial environments? If we *really*
>want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their commercial products!

This is one of the goals of Linux International, a nonprofit organization 
which is currently forming. A number of Linux developers, such as Michael 
Johnson, Alan Cox, and Ian Murdock are working with Linux International in 
order to promote the development and growth of Linux. One of LI's goals is 
to lobby commercial software developers to release products for Linux.

This is not LI's only goal, of course. Another focus is to support the
Linux developers themselves, by helping to direct donations and funding.
My concept has been to form a "grant fund" where people can send donations
to support Linux development. People who wish to develop software for
Linux (such as new device drivers, applications, and so forth) and require
funding (to purchase equipment, documentation, etc.) can make a 
grant request. Grants will be awarded out of the pool of donations sent
to this fund.

This seems to be the only way to manage donations for Linux development.
With all due respect, it doesn't make a great dceal of sense to send
your money just to Linus Torvalds or Patrick Volkerding. Scores of
others have spent as much time working on Linux over the last two
years. You could always support the FSF, which does, in fact, support Linux. 
But what about people developing the Linux kernel? And the many others not 
affiliated directly with the FSF? Because the Linux "development team" is so 
disorganized, a grant fund seems to be the best way to go.

There's no organization behind Linux. LI is not an attempt to form one.
It is just an attempt to promote the growth of Linux through aiding
developers. 

LI is still in the planning stage, but watch c.o.l.* and Linux Journal
for more details.

M. Welsh

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!
charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!eribruno
From: eribr...@netcom.com (Eric V. Bruno)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <eribrunoCw41zx.IwM@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:23:57 GMT
Lines: 168

Michael Schumacher (high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de) wrote:

: Hello Linuxers!

: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
: can find between here and the sun. Linux has some nice features, e.g.
: the /proc filesystem, it is fast, it supports lots of hardware, it
: follows the POSIX standard (which makes porting of existing software
: much easier), plus: it's free. Nobody knows the exact number of Linux
: installations, but it's likely to be in the 100000's. One could think
: that companies are willing to consider Linux a reasonable and serious
: platform, and that they would port and offer their products to the
: Linux community. However, they are far away from doing so, actually. 
: Here's why:

: 1. Commercial software products are typically binary-only (i.e., no
:    source code is available). No matter what language you use for
:    compilation, you will finally need libc, which happens to be FSF's
:    libc on Linux. From the GLPL you learn that you are not allowed
:    to make statically linked, binary-only releases of your software.
:    You may, however, distribute a dynamically linked version of your
:    product, since then only the startup code (crt0) is needed, which
:    is explicitly excluded from the GLPL. This is perfectly okay for
:    other commercial OSs, but:

: 2. Linux's libc tends to change its version number almost every week
:    (sometimes even more often). Even though changes of the minor
:    version number should not affect previous applications, they will
:    sometimes break them. This means for a company that they have to
:    debug the library in order to find a work-around (see 3.).

: 3. The kernel versions change faster than the speed of light. If you
:    ask for a "stable" version, you'll be teached that there are two
:    versions: 1.0 (production) and 1.1 (hacker's paradise). Wanna have a
:    stable one? Get 1.0! Okay, but if I want to offer a commercial
:    product, it doesn't matter what kernel version *I* am using, but
:    what version is used by my potential *customers*! There's a reason
:    for 1.1: it is a bit faster, it supports more hardware, it provides
:    more features. As a result, most Linuxers traditionally pick up the
:    the newest kernel releases all the time - and usually end up in this
:    newsgroup, saying "this is broken", "that doesn't work anymore",
:    "can't compile", etc. (if you don't believe me, just exit this thread
:    for a moment and take a look at the other subjects). Besides other
:    disadvantages, this will definitely not convince companies of the
:    stability and usefulness of Linux!

: 4. The spirit of free software is all around. Free in both meanings:
:    free availability of the sources, and free of charge. Which does
:    not go together with commercial interests very well. Just to give
:    you an example of what I'm talking about: I'm the author of tgdb,
:    a graphical user interface for gdb. I like the idea of free software,
:    and so I asked my employer for permission to make it GPL'd freeware.
:    Guess what, he said "No way!". So I ripped off my bones and used all
:    of my talents to persuade him to make it a shareware product instead
:    of a true commercial package. Well, now that tgdb is available for
:    a couple of weeks, I'm quite sure there are 100's or even more people
:    who use it for their daily debug sessions. Fine. But the bloody truth
:    is that not even a *single* person has paid the nominal shareware
:    fee of US$30!
   
     I have downloaded tgdb today has a matter of fact, Haven't unpacked
     it yet. Of course the rest of week is shot since my 3 year has
     decide that play leggos with daddy is more pressing. I also
     have fix a leakly value in kichten ...etc. :-).
     But I always take 30  days to decide 
     (same with eval copies of "commerical products").
     Normally use someting for week, put it aside for week, Pick it back up 
     and if I'm still using it 10 day latter I put the check in the mail.
     If I like it I'll tell some co-works, they will have to look at it
     and decide just takes time.
 
    Give tgbb sometime say  90 to 180 days, takes time word of mouth,
     Then if don't hear anything worry a bit.

: 5. On the other hand, I can tell you how to make lots of money with Linux: 
:    simply download the archives of tsx-11, sunsite, nic.funet.fi,
:    prep.ai.mit.edu and ftp.x.org, put them on a CDROM, call it "Dream Linux"
:    or similar, and sell if for US$35 per copy. It's that easy. Let's say,
:    an average user is looking for "the better OS" and wants to try out
:    Linux. He buys a "Dream Linux" CD - and is lost. Nothing works "out of
:    the box", no reasonable documentation is available, nor hotline support. 
:    What will happen? I'm quite sure that most of these desperated people
:    will close the Linux chapter - forever.

: There are a lot more things which speak against Linux as a platform for
: commercial products. If an operating system is successful or not depends
: on the availability of qualified (commercial) software for end-users. I
: would like to see companies porting their WYSIWIG word processors, graphic
: tools, spreadsheets, compilers, backup software, and whatever to Linux.
: Linux is great, but at present mostly for developers and freaks - *not* for
: average users who need a reliable platform for doing their jobs. Whoever
: asks for a good word processor for Linux, hears something like "word
: processing is out - try TeX", or "you can run xyz under DOSEMU" or "try SCO
: versions of xyz; just recompile the kernel with SYSV support and get the
: iBSC2 package from foo.bar". This can be - at most - a temporary 
: work-around.
: Users don't want to know how to roll a new kernel, they don't want to ftp
: packages, unpack, configure, compile, debug and install them. That's why
: they are willing to spend some bucks in commercial software, and that's why
: Macs and Windoze are so successful. And that's why Linux is not.

:    Quo vadis, Linux? Do we continue to like Linux "as is", or should we
: change something in order to encourage companies to develop commercial, but
: sophisticated end-user software for this beautiful OS? Do we continue to
: keep Linux a powerful tool for wizards only, or do we want to see Linux 
: being used in offices and other commercial environments? If we *really*
: want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their 
: commercial products!

: Thanks,
: mike

: PS: See 4. ;-)
: --
: In Linux we trust.

Before commercial "mainstream developers" can port products to Linux
two basic things would have to happen.

   1) "Official Stable" releases would have to released a slower rate no
       more than 1 per year. New drivers and hardware fixs should be made
       available when completed.

   2)  Commercial developers would have to have the releases at least
       6 months before release to the general public in order to 
       regession test and upgrade the products to be in lock-step
       if new release was not fully backwards compatible with the
       previous release.

The hacker version of Linux would end up being 1 to 3 years a head of
the "commercial version.

In a "production" environment say 100 machines.  My sysadmin people
can only upgrade x machines, x applications per day.  To install 
a new OS on all 100 machines I have to allocate 1 day per machine.
(8 hours). That is backup the current machine, load the new OS 
test the configuration (each machine is going to be little different since
different users have different configurations depending on what they do
and when the equipment was purchased). Before I do the install I would 
have to build a version of new OS load all of the main apps my 
org is using regession test them to ensure that nothing breaks.  
Say one week (40 hours) to do this with out problems.  
The system then needs to be burned in.
Say one week of uptime with out major problem.

Basically, unless there is compiling reason (need hardware or 
software support) OS upgrades more often than once every 2 or 3 years
is a major impact on organization.

I worked on on project where the users asked for bigger updates less
often (once a year verse a proposed 4 times a year) 
since it was a major impact to thier operations to install and
train thier people.

Linux still has some growing to do.  Look at alot of the gnu code
many items have not changed since they are stable.


Give Linux another 18 months and the commerical venders will either
port or new venders will start up.

How much have the main stream Un*x's (kernel) changed in the past 5 years?

However, the hacker version is the best thing around for R&D (schools and
companies) It is also great for platform for test tools. Since I can
fire up as may copies as I need provided I have the hardware.  

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!jvnc.net!
acc-corp.jvnc.net!info
From: i...@acc-corp.com (ACC Corp.)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <info.1129899262A@tigger.jvnc.net>
Sender: n...@tigger.jvnc.net (Zee News Genie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: acc-corp.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
X-Newsreader: VersaTerm Link v1.1.5
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 03:00:22 GMT
Lines: 58

In Article <34pq45INN...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>, high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de
(Michael Schumacher) wrote:
>4. I'm the author of tgdb,
>   a graphical user interface for gdb. I like the idea of free software,
>   not even a *single* person has paid the nominal shareware
>   fee of US$30!

We resell a bunch of Linux CD's.  None have as catchy a name (for marketing
purposes) as your "Dream Linux" CD.  So how does someone who has such a
knack for marketing end up calling his own product "tgdb"?  :-)

>5. On the other hand, I can tell you how to make lots of money with Linux: 
>   simply download the archives of tsx-11, sunsite, nic.funet.fi,
>   prep.ai.mit.edu and ftp.x.org, put them on a CDROM, call it "Dream Linux"
>   or similar, and sell if for US$35 per copy. It's that easy. Let's say,
>   an average user is looking for "the better OS" and wants to try out
>   Linux. He buys a "Dream Linux" CD - and is lost. Nothing works "out of
>   the box", no reasonable documentation is available, nor hotline support. 
>   What will happen? I'm quite sure that most of these desperated people
>   will close the Linux chapter - forever.

Surprisingly, this is not so.  Most of our customers who end up striking out
on their first Linux CD end up calling us back and ordering a different one
hoping for better luck.  In some cases we can help, eg Slackware
Professional from Morse is much easier to install than the Linux Quarterly
(also from Morse).  In others we refund their purchase as their problem
often is incompatible hardware which they are not willing or able to change.

>There are a lot more things which speak against Linux as a platform for
>commercial products. If an operating system is successful or not depends
>on the availability of qualified (commercial) software for end-users. 
> If we *really* want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their
>commercial products!

The old vicious cycle.  In Linux's case this cycle is not operating.  The PC
world has been waiting for the last dozen years with growing anticipation
for a "real" operating system to run on their increasingly powerful
machines.  The catch for home users and the self employed has been the cost
of the current alternatives such as SCO and OS/2.  The cost of these OS's,
tools, and applications are much higher than their dos equivalents.  

The use of Linux is not growing exponentially because it is "beautiful"
"fast" "has a great sense of community" or is otherwise socially acceptable.
It is simply because dos users who have been looking for more functionality
are now finding that they can get it without bankrupting themselves.

I would not fret about the lack of commercial software packages.  They are
coming.  Where four months ago there were virtually none, there are now
several dozen commercial packages, and the rate of new introductions is
increasing rapidly.  Sure there are a bunch of potential clouds on the Linux
horizon, but meantime enjoy the ride.

Cheers,  Bob.

ACC Bookstores
"Home of the PC UNIX - Linux Catalog"
1 (800) 546-7274
i...@acc-corp.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!usenet-feed.umr.edu!saucer.cc.umr.edu!
brennerc
From: brenn...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Corey Brenner)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
References: <info.1129899262A@tigger.jvnc.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 14:12:25 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: saucer.cc.umr.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University
Sender: cn...@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Administration)
Message-ID: <1994Sep14.141225.3826@umr.edu>
Lines: 30

ACC Corp. (i...@acc-corp.com) wrote:
: In Article <34pq45INN...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de>, high...@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de
: (Michael Schumacher) wrote:

: I would not fret about the lack of commercial software packages.  They are
: coming.  Where four months ago there were virtually none, there are now
: several dozen commercial packages, and the rate of new introductions is
: increasing rapidly.  Sure there are a bunch of potential clouds on the Linux
: horizon, but meantime enjoy the ride.

Is there a list of some kind for the commercial apps for Linux?

I know of UDT and Flagship...  any others?  Perhaps those in the know
could educate those of us in the lurch...

:)


: Cheers,  Bob.

: ACC Bookstores
: "Home of the PC UNIX - Linux Catalog"
: 1 (800) 546-7274
: i...@acc-corp.com

Corey Brenner

sig not needed :)

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.dfn.de!
news.belwue.de!newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!
zxmgv07
From: zxmg...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 14 Sep 94 17:52:01 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <zxmgv07.779565121@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de> <eribrunoCw41zx.IwM@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de

In <eribrunoCw41zx....@netcom.com> eribr...@netcom.com (Eric V. Bruno) writes:

>Before commercial "mainstream developers" can port products to Linux
>two basic things would have to happen.

>   1) "Official Stable" releases would have to released a slower rate no
>       more than 1 per year. New drivers and hardware fixs should be made
>       available when completed.
What do you mean - not release new drivers for a year? This does not work
for linux because it is a very fast developing system. Many people in the
world are working on it, and the net-effect makes new things evolve in
months. But major "Official stable" releases like 1.0 have taken more
than a year yet. 

Since old applications do not get bad by a new kernel normaly, this should be
no problem. Just support 1.0 for a while, if people want to use a new
alpha-test-kernel they can still keep the stable 1.0 kernel to use their
commercial apps... but most likeley they will just work well with the
new test-kernel without changes.

>   2)  Commercial developers would have to have the releases at least
>       6 months before release to the general public in order to 
>       regession test and upgrade the products to be in lock-step
>       if new release was not fully backwards compatible with the
>       previous release.
This is not how linux works... people want to hand out their new code
as quick as possible because many people can test it and help fix unforeseen
bugs.

>The hacker version of Linux would end up being 1 to 3 years a head of
>the "commercial version.
Probably. No problem, though.

Where there not an attempt to do quite this with "Linux/cv" commercial
version? What has come out of it...

>In a "production" environment say 100 machines.  My sysadmin people
>can only upgrade x machines, x applications per day.  To install 
>a new OS on all 100 machines I have to allocate 1 day per machine.
What? Why this. They are on the net, to upgrade a kernel takes half
an hour on each machine simultanousely, it could happen at midnight.

>(8 hours). That is backup the current machine, 
Backup should happen via network on a regular basis at night anyway.

>load the new OS 
>test the configuration (each machine is going to be little different since
>different users have different configurations depending on what they do
>and when the equipment was purchased). Before I do the install I would 
>have to build a version of new OS load all of the main apps my 
>org is using regession test them to ensure that nothing breaks.  
Yes, this is probably the tricky part.

>Say one week (40 hours) to do this with out problems.  
>The system then needs to be burned in.
>Say one week of uptime with out major problem.

>Basically, unless there is compiling reason (need hardware or 
>software support) OS upgrades more often than once every 2 or 3 years
>is a major impact on organization.
And not really necessary - I would not upgrade until really necessary.

>I worked on on project where the users asked for bigger updates less
>often (once a year verse a proposed 4 times a year) 
>since it was a major impact to thier operations to install and
>train thier people.
It shure is an expensive thing to do, you are right.

>Linux still has some growing to do.  Look at alot of the gnu code
>many items have not changed since they are stable.
Well, an operating system is a bit too complex to just be finished and 
fulfilling all wishes :-) I guess it will never be really finished.

It is already working to an extent of usability though, in quite some fields 
it is even more usable than the commercial unices.

Cheers, Michael Will

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!
lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <Cw8HCw.JF8@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <34sref$klu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> 
<1994Sep11.041315.14726@eurom.rhein-main.de> <dZlSkapDlfW4071yn@halcyon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 17:46:08 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <dZlSkapDlfW407...@halcyon.com> mpdil...@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon) writes:
>Maple is a good example because it is not THE top selling product in
>it's field. The Flagship dBase clone is another good example. Companies
>like Lotus and Wordperfect are too tied to DOS/Windows to be interested
>in porting their products to Linux.

Actually Wordperfect are aware of the Linux iBCS2 support working with it,
and are keeping a track on how many genuine Linux queries they get. I
know I asked 8).

Alan

-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
news.nd.edu!news1.oakland.edu!vtc.tacom.army.mil!ulowell!cs.uml.edu!jrichard
From: jrich...@cs.uml.edu (John Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 18 Sep 1994 01:52:48 GMT
Organization: UMass-Lowell Computer Science
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <35g6hg$sao@ulowell.uml.edu>
References: <34sref$klu@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> 
<1994Sep11.041315.14726@eurom.rhein-main.de> <dZlSkapDlfW4071yn@halcyon.com> 
<Cw8HCw.JF8@info.swan.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.uml.edu

In article <Cw8HCw....@info.swan.ac.uk>,
Alan Cox <iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk> wrote:
>Actually Wordperfect are aware of the Linux iBCS2 support working with it,
>and are keeping a track on how many genuine Linux queries they get. I


How would one go about asking Wordperfect about this?  Is their an
e-mail address, or do you just talk to them on the phone?

--
John Richardson
jrich...@cs.uml.edu

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!
Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!
studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!zxmgv07
From: zxmg...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?! Of course we do :)
Date: 18 Sep 94 20:51:59 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <zxmgv07.779921519@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>
References: <info.1129899262A@tigger.jvnc.net> <1994Sep14.141225.3826@umr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de

>I know of UDT and Flagship...  any others?  Perhaps those in the know
>could educate those of us in the lurch...

ParcPlace (i...@parcplace.com) offers at least OI/UIB and Smalltalk/X,
MetroLink and others offer Motif, 

tgdb was offered by the originator of this thread. 

Tonya Brooks (ton...@ontko.com) offers the Database Illustrator for
Oracle 6 and 7 databases.

Someone should create an official List :-)

Cheers, Michael Will

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!
info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <CwDE07.3AG@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <34pq45INNojt@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de> <eribrunoCw41zx.IwM@netcom.com> 
<zxmgv07.779565121@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 09:21:41 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <zxmgv07.779565...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> 
zxmg...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will) writes:
>Since old applications do not get bad by a new kernel normaly, this should be
>no problem. Just support 1.0 for a while, if people want to use a new
>alpha-test-kernel they can still keep the stable 1.0 kernel to use their
>commercial apps... but most likeley they will just work well with the
>new test-kernel without change

Try phoning a software company up now (eg WP) and tell them product XXX
doesn't work with the latest ALPHA test of the YYY kernel. You'll get told
politely not to run the alpha test YYY kernel. It would be unreasonable to
expect people to support alpha test kernels for product. 

Alan
-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <CwDGJp.3y2@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <info.1129899262A@tigger.jvnc.net> <1994Sep14.141225.3826@umr.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:16:37 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <1994Sep14.141225.3...@umr.edu> brenn...@saucer.cc.umr.edu 
(Corey Brenner) writes:
>Is there a list of some kind for the commercial apps for Linux?

http://www.linux.org.uk/

Alan


-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!
iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?! Of course we do :)
Message-ID: <CwF8zK.F3G@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <info.1129899262A@tigger.jvnc.net> <1994Sep14.141225.3826@umr.edu> 
<zxmgv07.779921519@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 09:28:32 GMT
Lines: 15

In article <zxmgv07.779921...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> 
zxmg...@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will) writes:
>Tonya Brooks (ton...@ontko.com) offers the Database Illustrator for
>Oracle 6 and 7 databases.
>Someone should create an official List :-)

It's hardly official but www.linux.org.uk has such a list. There is also the
commercial-howto maintained by iX. Thats more detailed.

Alan


-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!
info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Message-ID: <CwIyLJ.F40@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <dZlSkapDlfW4071yn@halcyon.com> <Cw8HCw.JF8@info.swan.ac.uk> 
<35g6hg$sao@ulowell.uml.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 09:34:31 GMT
Lines: 13

In article <35g6hg$...@ulowell.uml.edu> jrich...@cs.uml.edu (John Richardson) 
writes:
>How would one go about asking Wordperfect about this?  Is their an
>e-mail address, or do you just talk to them on the phone?

I just phoned them up.

Alan


-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iia...@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/