Man, I just installed Mandrake 8.0 and just with the basic install and apache it is using 163MB of memory (using the KDE interface)!! What the hell is up with that?! My 2000 Server uses less memory when it's idle (and I've got ActiveDirectory and Proxy 2.0 running on it)? Also, I have a Voodoo3 3000 and I figured, "hey, it's an old card so it shouldn't have any problems with drivers." Well it detected it as a "generic" Voodoo3 and set the res at 800x600@16. OK, cool, I'll just set it to 1024x768@32. Well when I did that it just went nuts. The screen blanked out on me and never came back. I hit the test button to test the res (like in NT) but it doesn't work NEARLY as good as NT 4.0. I thought that is what the whole "test button" is about, to see if your video card and monitor will be happy at the higher res. And if not, your safely back at the original settings. Am I wrong or am I missing something here? And one last thing, my system doesn't feel NEARLY as snappy as 2000 or for that matter ANY Windows9x. I have a PII400 (440BX chipset) with 256MB of PC133 ECC memory and that is the EXACT system I was running with 2000 Server loaded on it. This is the first time I've ever messed with Linux, but am I doing something so terribly wrong to have the system perform the way it does?
I thought Linux is supposed to this sleek, reliable, streamlined OS?
- Thread starter JackBurton
- Start date
Sounds like you already have your mind made up... lets all just move along and forget about the whole thing.
<< Sounds like you already have your mind made up... lets all just move along and forget about the whole thing. >>
Hehe yea... If you want more reasons to use Linux just use search
I won't bother retyping my responses every time.<< Man, I just installed Mandrake 8.0 and just with the basic install and apache it is using 163MB of memory (using the KDE interface)!! What the hell is up with that?! >>
Top is notorious for giving inaccurate memory usage stats for apps that share memory accross thier own threads. An example, lets say you have an app that opens and spawns 4 threads (the parent and 3 children), and shares 15MB of memory between them. Top doesn't know how to report this, so it says that the app is using 60MB, even though your app is really only using 15MB. Many system monitoring utilities use top as a backend for some of thier functions.
This is a well know bug with top, and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunitly, there is ferce oppsition from people who think that fixing it only makes the output look pretty...
<< Also, I have a Voodoo3 3000 and I figured, "hey, it's an old card so it shouldn't have any problems with drivers." Well it detected it as a "generic" Voodoo3 and set the res at 800x600@16. OK, cool, I'll just set it to 1024x768@32. Well when I did that it just went nuts. The screen blanked out on me and never came back. I hit the test button to test the res (like in NT) but it doesn't work NEARLY as good as NT 4.0. >>
Some video cards need special drives and settings to work properly on Linux. The Nivida is one of them, the Voodoo is another one. Try here for info on how to get your Voodoo fully functional under Linux.
BTW, watch your refresh rate! It doesn't matter that your video card can do 1024X768X32@75Hz if your monitor can do only 60Hz at that res. Your monitor should display an error message if you exceed it max. refresh rate, unless its a really cheap or old one.
<< And one last thing, my system doesn't feel NEARLY as snappy as 2000 or for that matter ANY Windows9x. I have a PII400 (440BX chipset) with 256MB of PC133 ECC memory and that is the EXACT system I was running with 2000 Server loaded on it. This is the first time I've ever messed with Linux, but am I doing something so terribly wrong to have the system perform the way it does? >>
Can you give me any specifics? What are you running? What version of X are you running? Do you have any swap space set aside, and how much? How is it not feeling as snappy as before, is it when you're running a certian app., or does it feel slugish all the time?
Thanks Scott1 for responding. You offer help as others just post worthless comments to just add posts uder their belts. Contrary to what others think in this thread, I have NOT made up my mind. I have NEVER even touched Linux so any problem I have now I will blame on the user (me).
Anyway, to answer a few of your questions Scott1, since 3DFX went out of business I haven't been able to get new drivers but there have been some new beta drivers going around. I don't know if they have Linux drivers or not so if anyone knows where I can pick them up, let me know. Also, I know my monitor (Sony G500) can handle 1024x768x32 @70Hz but like I said, Linux freaks out when I try and adjust the res. This could be probably solved with better video drivers.
<< Can you give me any specifics? What are you running? What version of X are you running? Do you have any swap space set aside, and how much? How is it not feeling as snappy as before, is it when you're running a certian app., or does it feel slugish all the time? >>
Pardon my ignorance but when you say what version of X I'm running what do you mean? When I boot my machine up it doesn't go straight into the GUI (KDE)(I have no idea why it stopped booting straight to the GUI), it goes to the console (black screen) and I have to type my user name and password. After that is done I type "startX" and then it brings up the KDE interface.
Now what I mean by stuggish, is that when I click on an icon, it take about 2 seconds before the window appears.
And one last thing, when I'm in KDE, the bottom icons used to get big when I had my cursor over it. Now I get no reaction out of them. Not essential to my work but I thought it was cool (kind of MAC like ).
Anyway, to answer a few of your questions Scott1, since 3DFX went out of business I haven't been able to get new drivers but there have been some new beta drivers going around. I don't know if they have Linux drivers or not so if anyone knows where I can pick them up, let me know. Also, I know my monitor (Sony G500) can handle 1024x768x32 @70Hz but like I said, Linux freaks out when I try and adjust the res. This could be probably solved with better video drivers.
<< Can you give me any specifics? What are you running? What version of X are you running? Do you have any swap space set aside, and how much? How is it not feeling as snappy as before, is it when you're running a certian app., or does it feel slugish all the time? >>
Pardon my ignorance but when you say what version of X I'm running what do you mean? When I boot my machine up it doesn't go straight into the GUI (KDE)(I have no idea why it stopped booting straight to the GUI), it goes to the console (black screen) and I have to type my user name and password. After that is done I type "startX" and then it brings up the KDE interface.
Now what I mean by stuggish, is that when I click on an icon, it take about 2 seconds before the window appears.
And one last thing, when I'm in KDE, the bottom icons used to get big when I had my cursor over it. Now I get no reaction out of them.
Not essential to my work but I thought it was cool (kind of MAC like ).<< Man, I just installed Mandrake 8.0 and just with the basic install and apache it is using 163MB of memory (using the KDE interface)!! >>
Are you using a v2.4.x kernel? (type 'uname -a' if you don't know). If so, top & free have not been updated and do not report caching correctly. If you are using a v2.2 kernel, type 'free' and look at the colums. See the "used" and below it is the 'used +/- buffers/cache'. This number should be much less than the "used". The buffers/cache is linux just using your unused memory effeciently to cache information and therefore work faster. If you need the memory for a process you are running it will give up the buffer/cache space.
<< And one last thing, when I'm in KDE, the bottom icons used to get big when I had my cursor over it. Now I get no reaction out of them. >>
I only see that if I have the panel size set to small or tiny. If it is set to normal I don't see it. (right click on the panel, then Panel Menu, then Size).
Ok, since nobody else has yet tackled your memory problem (oops...your computer's memory problem , I'll try.
First, you haven't told us a thing about your system. Given the fact that you run Windows 2000 Server, and I'll assume your a reasonable person, you probably have 256 MB of RAM. Is that correct?
Now, let's assume that your running at least a 600 MHz processor (btw, it would be nice if you could setup a system rigs page, like most of the rest of us have; then we wouldn't have to ask you these questions all the time). So it would seem reasonable to expect that Linux should be as snappy as Windows.
Now, have you tweaked any of the services that are running? You know, where when it boots it has all those little green "Ok"s? Well, in my experience with slightly-out of date versions of Redhat and Mandrake (6.1 for RH and 7.1 or Mdk), Mandrake runs a lot more unnecessary services than Redhat does, but they're both subject to these problems. Now you can read up on the subject abit, and then use "linuxconf" to disable some of the services you don't need. That will lower memory usage a bit and improve boot-up time, although it won't do a whole lot to help system stability.
Lastly, I will say that in my experience, the precompiled KDE that comes with distributions is pretty sluggish, and once you're feeling up to the task, you can download XFree86 4.0.3, kernel 2.4.5, KDE 2.1, and QT 2.3 (or whatever the latest version is now), and compile all of them in an optimized form for your system. You'll notice a BIG speedup after doing that. HTH.
--
Josh
, I'll try.First, you haven't told us a thing about your system. Given the fact that you run Windows 2000 Server, and I'll assume your a reasonable person, you probably have 256 MB of RAM. Is that correct?
Now, let's assume that your running at least a 600 MHz processor (btw, it would be nice if you could setup a system rigs page, like most of the rest of us have; then we wouldn't have to ask you these questions all the time). So it would seem reasonable to expect that Linux should be as snappy as Windows.
Now, have you tweaked any of the services that are running? You know, where when it boots it has all those little green "Ok"s? Well, in my experience with slightly-out of date versions of Redhat and Mandrake (6.1 for RH and 7.1 or Mdk), Mandrake runs a lot more unnecessary services than Redhat does, but they're both subject to these problems. Now you can read up on the subject abit, and then use "linuxconf" to disable some of the services you don't need. That will lower memory usage a bit and improve boot-up time, although it won't do a whole lot to help system stability.
Lastly, I will say that in my experience, the precompiled KDE that comes with distributions is pretty sluggish, and once you're feeling up to the task, you can download XFree86 4.0.3, kernel 2.4.5, KDE 2.1, and QT 2.3 (or whatever the latest version is now), and compile all of them in an optimized form for your system. You'll notice a BIG speedup after doing that. HTH.
--
Josh
Oops...sorry. I hit that reply button too fast. You did mention a 400 MHz processor. I have one of these, also, and I must admit, KDE is relatively slow on such a beast. WindowsXP would be, also.
Now, you must realize that, with the current x servers, such 2d performance as you're used to seeing in Windows will not be atainable on Linux. If you have a fast enough system, you won't notice it too much, but on a 400 MHz system, it really shows.
--
Josh
Now, you must realize that, with the current x servers, such 2d performance as you're used to seeing in Windows will not be atainable on Linux. If you have a fast enough system, you won't notice it too much, but on a 400 MHz system, it really shows.
--
Josh
well, linux does use a lot of ram. know why? it does lots of disk caching. The idea is if you have the ram, what good is it free? as soon as something needs ram, it gets it
Thanks guys for all the great info! Linux sounds pretty fun to mess around with. It should keep me occupied for awhile. If it wants more memory, I'll give it all it needs. I'll pick up another 256MB stick from Crucial (512MB total). I'm going to pick up a big ass Linux book and see what is up with this thing. Any advise on a GOOD Linux Mandrake book?
If it wants more memory, I'll give it all it needs. I'll pick up another 256MB stick from Crucial (512MB total). I'm going to pick up a big ass Linux book and see what is up with this thing. Any advise on a GOOD Linux Mandrake book?One thing to keep in mind, those of us that know the power of linux as a server don't use the GUI. I run a webserver, DNS, mail server, firewall and occasionally a gnutella reflector on my server and it's a pentium 233mmx with 32megs of EDO ram. Try running all of that one windows with that kind of hardware.
KDE and Gnome are more bloated than windows and probably always will be because of the overhead that whole independent X thing adds. The power in linux is that you don't have to run the additional overhead of the GUI if you don't want to.
KDE and Gnome are more bloated than windows and probably always will be because of the overhead that whole independent X thing adds. The power in linux is that you don't have to run the additional overhead of the GUI if you don't want to.
Ya rahvin, I think I'll probably mess with the KDE interface but I'll probably revert to the command line.
Well.. just to redeem myself and post something usefull...
You DID create a swap parition didn't you???
Also, did you install any Databases like Progress or MySQL?? Those take up a lot of memory and are just in the way if your running a single user system.
U guys need to listen to CTho9305... I have a linux server running now with 2.25GB RAM and it is using 1.8GB right now and is doing nothing... majority of it is cache.
Rahvin: PII 233 is the sh!t for linux. I just installed Debian on such a machine and created a nice router, firewall, webserver etc, on it last night (with the help of a good friend that is)... You gotta try getting some more speed out of that 233.. I'm getting a solid 300 out of mine..
Command line is the way to go in linux if you want to learn anything. I'm learning, and it's easier for me to learn stuff w/ the cmd line on my old machine then w/ Mandrake KDE on my new machine..
If you want to play games, boot into windows... My Mandrake 7.2 install on my 1.06 gig / 512 meg machine is 'sluggish' too. I think it's the KDE though..
Command line is the way to go in linux if you want to learn anything. I'm learning, and it's easier for me to learn stuff w/ the cmd line on my old machine then w/ Mandrake KDE on my new machine..
If you want to play games, boot into windows... My Mandrake 7.2 install on my 1.06 gig / 512 meg machine is 'sluggish' too. I think it's the KDE though..
I would just like to add a couple of things:
1. Mandrake is geared toward new Linux users and has a lot of services turned on by default.
2. KDE is memory intensive -other window managers are much smaller but offer less functionality.
3. Linux does not use memory like other operating systems but will cache as much as possible in order to speed things up.
1. Mandrake is geared toward new Linux users and has a lot of services turned on by default.
2. KDE is memory intensive -other window managers are much smaller but offer less functionality.
3. Linux does not use memory like other operating systems but will cache as much as possible in order to speed things up.
<<: PII 233 is the sh!t for linux. >>
Mine is not a PII, it's the original pentium. And I don't overclock my server.
Mine is not a PII, it's the original pentium. And I don't overclock my server.
<< Pardon my ignorance but when you say what version of X I'm running what do you mean? >>
Oh, I'm talking about X-windows, which is what KDE, Gnome, and other DEs use to give you the GUI. I wanted to know if you were using the older 3.3.6 version, or the newer 4.0 series.
<< When I boot my machine up it doesn't go straight into the GUI (KDE)(I have no idea why it stopped booting straight to the GUI), it goes to the console (black screen) and I have to type my user name and password. After that is done I type "startX" and then it brings up the KDE interface. >>
Sounds like you didn't sent your system up to automaticly go into the GUI when you installed linux, or you changed your system's runlevel.
A runlevel is basicly a setting that controls what mode linux boots into. It does the same thing as pressing F8 in windows, and choosing normal, safe mode, command prompt only, ect...
Here's a breakdown on linux's runlevels:
runlevel system mode
---------------------------
0 halt
1 single user (maintainance mode)
2 multi-user without network support
3 full multi-user (with network support)
4 (unused)
5 full multi-user with X windows (automaticly starts X)
6 reboot
There are a number of ways to change the defult runlevel if you want to. Since you seem to be new at linux, I suggest using mandrake's control center.
Do not set your defult runlevel to 0 or 6!! If you do, your system will go into an infinate reboot loop, or it wil contuniously halt after booting. You will need a rescue disk to recover from that mistake.
<< Now what I mean by stuggish, is that when I click on an icon, it take about 2 seconds before the window appears. >>
The deley is proboly the program loading, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
BTW, linuxnewbie.org is good site to go for linux info and help for newbies.
/* Now what I mean by stuggish, is that when I click on an icon, it take about 2 seconds before the window appears. */
Ok...you've already been told not to worry about it, so I won't repeat that, but you may by this time realize that splashscreens aren't really popular with Linux apps. That 2 seconds of seeing nothing while KWord is loading, would still be 2 seconds loading MS Word 2000, but with the latter you have something to look at to know it's working. With recent versions of KDE (Mandrake 8 probably comes with 2.1, or something like that) it should show you a little button with a rotating disk icon in the taskbar; this will let you know when an app is starting.
--
Josh
Ok...you've already been told not to worry about it, so I won't repeat that, but you may by this time realize that splashscreens aren't really popular with Linux apps. That 2 seconds of seeing nothing while KWord is loading, would still be 2 seconds loading MS Word 2000, but with the latter you have something to look at to know it's working. With recent versions of KDE (Mandrake 8 probably comes with 2.1, or something like that) it should show you a little button with a rotating disk icon in the taskbar; this will let you know when an app is starting.
--
Josh
Really, the bottom line is, Linux needs to be tweaked. Linux is not for everyone. To use it, you really have to know your hardware, and you have to be willing to think different. This is a completely different system. You have to read the manuals, and figure out how to slim it down, because default installs can be fat, just like windows.(the difference is, it is not "bloat" with linux, just a lot of programs load by default). Once you get it slimmed down, have only the neccesary services running, and compile a slimmer kernel, I guarantee you linux will perform better. I recently proved this here at work, when I took a "crash box" which is a pentium 166 with 64 megs of ram, and put red hat 7 on it, with a custom kernel, and it performs like a 400 with 128 running windows. Bottom line. It is a fully functional print server that keeps hashing it out, without a problem. I could go on and on about the benefits of linux in a server environment, but its unneccessary, I would be just repeating everything else everyone has already said. But really, for a very basic reason linux is better than Windows on servers,is rebooting.
Only when you need to add hardware. Nuff said.
Only when you need to add hardware. Nuff said.
Scott1:
No need for that floppy, you just need to type something "linux single" on your LILO
prompt and it would go into the single mode runlevel, from there it would be easy
to edit /etc/inittab and change the default runlevel to something less dangerous....
Also, One should consider Gnome and Kde as desktops, I prefer to use window managers
windowmaker, icewm are good ones, my current one is Xfce its a Linux CDE ( the WM of
Thru 64Unix )....is light and has a few good features....
So my advice to anyone trying to setup a server linux box, learn your way around things
first ( grab a good book for this: "Running Linux" is a good one ), then try a fresh
install and customize everything...you end up with a good clean system....
No need for that floppy, you just need to type something "linux single" on your LILO
prompt and it would go into the single mode runlevel, from there it would be easy
to edit /etc/inittab and change the default runlevel to something less dangerous....
Also, One should consider Gnome and Kde as desktops, I prefer to use window managers
windowmaker, icewm are good ones, my current one is Xfce its a Linux CDE ( the WM of
Thru 64Unix )....is light and has a few good features....
So my advice to anyone trying to setup a server linux box, learn your way around things
first ( grab a good book for this: "Running Linux" is a good one ), then try a fresh
install and customize everything...you end up with a good clean system....
Article found by one of my employees:
Why 2001 is not the 'Year of the Penguin.'
COMMENTARY--2001 is not going to be the year of the Penguin for home or business users that have yet to adopt Linux. Before all the Linux enthusiasts appear and tell me all the reasons why I'm wrong, allow me to explain that I do run Linux and do prefer it over Windows, both at home and at work. Yes, I am a Linux enthusiast, and yes, I have attempted to sway my friends and family to look at Linux as an alternative. However, I am also a realist, and when many of my friends and family decided that Linux wasn't for them, I could understand why.
Although Linux has grown by leaps and bounds during the last few years, it is still plagued with a lot of issues that will keep it away from being a viable alternative to Windows for a long, long time. At the top of the list comes the simple fact that Linux, by design, is not a common person's operating system. Linux, like Unix, was designed with networking in mind and network security.
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from people who I have tried to use Linux is that they can't grasp the multi-user aspect of the operating system. For 99% of home users, having one logon is good enough, and on Windows 9x or Millennium, having a single logon for a family doesn't impair any functions, such as installing new software. Linux, however, being network-centric, forces users to go to a multi-user system and worry about file and system permissions, something that Mr. and Mrs. Average from Anytown, USA aren't going to want to worry about when all they want to do is type up their grocery list and check their e-mail.
There are a myriad of complaints I have heard from average computer users who I have tried to understand Linux. A Majority of the complaints stem from the great difficulty involved in learning Linux. Complaints such as Linux's inadequate support for installing new software, the lack of centralization of common components such as fonts, the cryptic nature of the Linux and Unix directory structure, and the inability to easily run pre-existing Win32 and Win16 applications, are all valid complaints as to why Mr. and Mrs. Average would pass on Linux.
Why the corporate world won't use Linux for businesses, with exception to those businesses that already deploy Linux, I feel that Linux is not an operating system for an employee's desktop. There are plenty of reasons why Linux can't replace Windows as a standard network client, but the two biggest reasons are the lack of easy portability between pre-existing Win32/Win16 applications and the amount of time it would take to retrain staff to move from Windows to Linux.
I'm sure that as someone reads this, they're probably prompted to tell me that using Linux as a network client is better for overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and that because Linux is cheap (notice I don't say free, because to get good functionality out of Linux, you need to buy a distribution, not download one) it will drive down the total cost. If you honestly believe that switching from Windows to Linux is the only thing that factors into the TCO calculations, you seriously need to reexamine that thought. As anyone who's in a position to make recommendations for system implementation can tell you, TCO is about much more than an operating system, and factors include hardware, the application cost and the training time required to teach employees how to use the new software and hardware. That's right, training is a big part of the TCO--after all, employees are on the clock when they're being taught how to use their corporate software.
With just those factors alone, I'd like you to examine this scenario. One of my former employers was a small data warehousing company with less than 100 employees, including management and IT staff. They ran Windows NT Servers and each employee had a Windows 98 workstation. There were several Win32 based applications that were required for daily operations, including Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat 4, Adobe Photoshop, and Quark Express, just to name a few. Also, there were 16-bit applications that were necessary to the duties of each employee that had been used since the company's creation. Yes, the TCO was high, mainly due to software costs, but the cost to train employees was very low.
Assume for a minute that this company decides to go to Red Hat for their servers, Linux-Mandrake 8 for all of their employees' computers, and they've installed StarOffice to try to take over their MS Office dependency. The first problem comes in when they need their mission critical applications. How would they create the PDF's they need to create? There's no more Acrobat. How would their graphics team be able to make high-quality marketing graphics? There is no Photoshop. Lastly, what about the fate of the 16-bit legacy applications, which are critical to their productivity? Those, too, are gone. While I'm sure that you could possibly find cheap, or even free, applications capable of handling a few of this company's needs, their second problem hits you. It's time to re-train all of the employees. They're accustomed to Windows, and they're resisting the change to Linux. They're frustrated because they knew how to do their job well with their pre-existing Windows 98 machines and Win32/Win16 legacy applications, and now you have the dubious distinction of trying to train them on all this new software, on the company's dime, of course.
Sure, in the second scenario, we've drastically reduced the TCO for software, but we've monumentally increased the TCO for employee training. When it's all said and done, these costs do not balance out, and the TCO for being a Linux-based company ends up being higher than the TCO for being a Microsoft-based company. Yes, I could suggest that we implement Netraverse's Win4Lin or VMWare Workstation so that some of our employees would still have access to Win32 and Win16 applications, but, on a corporate level, what good would that do? Not only would we have to train the employees on how to use Linux and the Linux applications, we'd also have to train them how to use a virtual machine to get into Windows and use their applications. To give them Windows with a virtual machine, we'd still have to pay license fees, so not only would we have a higher TCO for employee training; we would still have a high TCO for software fees.
Still, I hold out faint hope for Linux. The past few years have brought new innovations such as SANE, and should the next few years show us more improvements, perhaps it will, one day, be a minor threat to Microsoft. I do think we'll see a few companies using Linux for some of their file/print servers, but as far as Linux being a desktop replacement for most average computer users and businesses, well, maybe in 5 or 10 years, but they're nowhere close now.
THIS GUY CALLS HIMSELF A LINUX ENTHUSIAST?????????
<< . How would their graphics team be able to make high-quality marketing graphics? There is no Photoshop. >>
JEZZZZZZ Man....anyone who calls themself a "Linux Enthusiast" better know about GIMP..
My guess is, he hasn't seen much more than a "screenshot" of Linux.
The GIMP is an open source graphics application much like Photoshop... The GIMP is incredible.. It does pretty much everything that photoshop does and even some more...its just as easy to use and some say more powerfull... If it was not open source and was commercial it would cost $700 easy.. Hell its been around for a LONG TIME too..in fact the GIMP gui is what was the genesis for the GNOME project...
Check out GIMP here.
I must start by stating my own bias: Though I use my Linux desktop for everything that I possibly can (as do my wife and teenaged daughter), I agree that 2001 is not the year of desktop Linux. The desktop is a hard hill to take.
That said, my first reaction to this article was "With enthusiasts like this, who needs slackers?"
Just a few nits:
1. Multi-userness:
Nothing about Linux forces you to operate in multi-user mode. Stupid people are fully able to run as root all of the time -- just like Windows 9x/me.
Of course, with Windows NT/2k/XP, you're back to that notion of users and security. I guess they must be too hard for the average user, too.
2. TCO
First, the author stacked the deck a bit. A 100 user company is a very difficult case. They will not have a lot of IT staff. They will be big enough to require careful planning, but not so large that pilot trials can be done easily. They may be too small to leverage the cost savings against the disruptions. A company ten times smaller with the right expertise or a company 10-100 times larger makes for a better test case.
A larger company can begin with Linux servers to get comfort with the OS and move on to selected desktops that constitute a good fit, radiating out as they gain experience and more desktop functions become viable candidates.
The training cost issue is a complete sham.
Somehow, the analyses never require much in the way of training costs for Windows software.
Obviously, somebody's been looking through foggy Windows.
Even ignoring the changes between versions of Windows and Windows applications, the anlyses ignore some very substantial training (and other) costs common to Windows shops.
First and foremost, when bringing in new employees, everyone must learn the "company" way of doing things anyway, from templates to network drives.
Second, employees in Windows shops are constantly sharing "tricks of the trade". Sounds like a good thing until you realize that they are sharing ways to get around the bugs and limitations in Windows software. This is especially pernicious, because it is a "papers in the shoebox" kind of knowledge, rather than a logically constructed knowledge base. Worse, new tasks are likely to trip new bugs are bring unexpected behavior from old ones. This training never ceases.
I assume there is no need to mention the incredible litany of frozen machines and corrupt files that Windows software seems determined to inflict on those who seek to use all of its "features". All at great cost in lost time, of course.
Cryptic directory structure?
Have you looked at a Windows box lately? Take a look at these babies that is only just a sample.
./Application Data/Identities/{D36A1700-0A7E-11D5-AAEA-00A0CC576724}
./Application Data/Identities/{D36A1700-0A7E-11D5-AAEA-00A0CC576724}/Microsoft
And the Windows registry is a cake walk too. Glad I don't have to play that game on my Linux system.
Granted it doesn't have big heaping stacks of apps yet, but it has everything I need (plus more) right now.
<< . How would their graphics team be able to make high-quality marketing graphics? There is no Photoshop. >>
JEZZZZZZ Man....anyone who calls themself a "Linux Enthusiast" better know about GIMP..
My guess is, he hasn't seen much more than a "screenshot" of Linux.
The GIMP is an open source graphics application much like Photoshop... The GIMP is incredible.. It does pretty much everything that photoshop does and even some more...its just as easy to use and some say more powerfull... If it was not open source and was commercial it would cost $700 easy.. Hell its been around for a LONG TIME too..in fact the GIMP gui is what was the genesis for the GNOME project...
Check out GIMP here.
I must start by stating my own bias: Though I use my Linux desktop for everything that I possibly can (as do my wife and teenaged daughter), I agree that 2001 is not the year of desktop Linux. The desktop is a hard hill to take.
That said, my first reaction to this article was "With enthusiasts like this, who needs slackers?"
Just a few nits:
1. Multi-userness:
Nothing about Linux forces you to operate in multi-user mode. Stupid people are fully able to run as root all of the time -- just like Windows 9x/me.
Of course, with Windows NT/2k/XP, you're back to that notion of users and security. I guess they must be too hard for the average user, too.
2. TCO
First, the author stacked the deck a bit. A 100 user company is a very difficult case. They will not have a lot of IT staff. They will be big enough to require careful planning, but not so large that pilot trials can be done easily. They may be too small to leverage the cost savings against the disruptions. A company ten times smaller with the right expertise or a company 10-100 times larger makes for a better test case.
A larger company can begin with Linux servers to get comfort with the OS and move on to selected desktops that constitute a good fit, radiating out as they gain experience and more desktop functions become viable candidates.
The training cost issue is a complete sham.
Somehow, the analyses never require much in the way of training costs for Windows software.
Obviously, somebody's been looking through foggy Windows.
Even ignoring the changes between versions of Windows and Windows applications, the anlyses ignore some very substantial training (and other) costs common to Windows shops.
First and foremost, when bringing in new employees, everyone must learn the "company" way of doing things anyway, from templates to network drives.
Second, employees in Windows shops are constantly sharing "tricks of the trade". Sounds like a good thing until you realize that they are sharing ways to get around the bugs and limitations in Windows software. This is especially pernicious, because it is a "papers in the shoebox" kind of knowledge, rather than a logically constructed knowledge base. Worse, new tasks are likely to trip new bugs are bring unexpected behavior from old ones. This training never ceases.
I assume there is no need to mention the incredible litany of frozen machines and corrupt files that Windows software seems determined to inflict on those who seek to use all of its "features". All at great cost in lost time, of course.
Cryptic directory structure?
Have you looked at a Windows box lately? Take a look at these babies that is only just a sample.
./Application Data/Identities/{D36A1700-0A7E-11D5-AAEA-00A0CC576724}
./Application Data/Identities/{D36A1700-0A7E-11D5-AAEA-00A0CC576724}/Microsoft
And the Windows registry is a cake walk too. Glad I don't have to play that game on my Linux system.
Granted it doesn't have big heaping stacks of apps yet, but it has everything I need (plus more) right now.
Just as a "rebuttal" HP exec: Linux will be desktop champ
By Matthew Broersma
ZDNet (UK)
May 28, 2001 6:08 AM PT
Dell Computer and other industry giants may be pessimistic about Linux's chances on the desktop, but HP executive and Linux veteran Bruce Perens believes the open source OS will still triumph in the end.
Financiers may be increasingly reluctant to fund companies to come up with a consumer-friendly Linux interface, but that is just a temporary setback, in Perens' view. "[The Linux] desktop is not dead, and will perform in the market as Linux has in the server market--going from a toy to a curiosity to a contender to having a big piece of the market," he told ZDNet UK.
At one time, any company having anything to do with Linux could expect a huge stock market flotation, but that euphoria has faded along with many other high-tech business plans. While it is making great headway in the server market, Linux is used on less than 2 percent of desktops, which doesn't encourage investors.
Punctuating the new atmosphere was the closure of Linux desktop developer Eazel last week, which burned through about £7.5m and had only a file manager to show for it.
Industry analysts and major players in the PC market, including Dell, say they don't see Linux breaking into the mass market any time in the next few years.
But dismissing Linux for the desktop is shortsighted, says Perens. "Consider the age of the Linux desktop. Development started from zero sometime in 1997. It's almost maturation time for that desktop, and four years is a lot less time than it has taken any other desktop project to get to the level that Gnome or KDE are at," he said in an interview.
Perens is the senior strategist on Linux and open source for Hewlett-Packard, and the company says it is committed to driving Linux into the mass market. For now HP says cost is the biggest issue--Linux allows HP to sell PCs for lower prices in countries like China because of the lack of operating system license fees.
Eazel may be gone, but several initiatives are continuing to develop a simpler Linux interface, such as Ximian and the Gnome and KDE foundations. In fact, Eazel's legacy, the file manager, is "a great piece of software", according to Perens, and it will continue to be developed for Gnome.
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>
Subject: Microsoft and the Big Lie
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:47:38 -0400
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
A senior Microsoft executive is telling lies in public. In other startling news, the sky is blue and water has been seen flowing downhill.
At <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft answered this question:
<< Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft?
"Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works." >>
Let's examine the key sentences:
<< Open source is not available to commercial companies. >>
The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
I wonder what the developers at Microsoft who based the Internet protocol code of Windows on the open-source Berkeley TCP/IP stack think of this assertion?
<< The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. >>
60% of the world uses the open-source Apache program to serve their web pages. The next time you hear of Apache use forcing anybody's software open will be the first.
<< If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. >>
True. Of course, "the government" doesn't own Linux and has very little to do with Linux development, so it's hard to see what Ballmer is recommending here.
<< Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. >>
Lots of people have proprietary software and data on their Linux machines. The next time you hear of Linux "attaching" itself to any of this data and forcing it open will be the first.
That's the way that the license works.
The GPL infects only derivative works of GPLed software -- you have to include part of the source code of a GPLed program in your program, or choose to link to a GPLed library, before the GPL applies to your code. You can use a Linux kernel and Linux-hosted programs all you like with never a worry about your intellectual property.
Other open-source licenses -- such as the BSD license in the TCP/IP stack that Microsoft adapted for Windows -- will never infect anybody's code or data, because they're designed not to. But Ballmer wants businesspeople and the public to fear them all, because only if open source is general is discredited will Microsoft maintain its monopoly.
The Big Lie is a term originally coined to describe a characteristic form of Nazi (and later Soviet) propaganda. The essence of the Big Lie propaganda technique is that if you repeat the lie often enough over enough channels, people will soak it up through their pores and come to believe it as something "everybody knows".
In the last three months, Jim Allchin and Craig Mundie and Steve Ballmer have launched a classic Big Lie campaign against open source. They have described it as "un-American", "a destroyer", and "a cancer". They have deliberately confused the GPL with non-infectious open-source licenses, and they have deliberately confused active combination of code with passive aggregation of data. They have lied, and lied, and lied again.
Why? Because the most truthful thing Ballmer admitted in that interview is that yeah, Linux is a threat to Microsoft. It threatens to break Microsoft's 91% monopoly on personal-computer operaing systems. It threatens to free consumers from proprietary lock-in, and to deliver better software and more choices at lower cost.
Two years ago, the Halloweeen Documents observed that in order to defeat the threat of open source, Microsoft must attack "a process, not a company". That is exactly what Allchin and Mundie and Ballmer are doing now, attacking with a Big Lie software they know they cannot match in reliability, sophistication, security, and overall cost/benefit ratio.
In the open-source community, we have a favorite quote from Mohandas Gandhi: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
Evidently, we're getting close to winning.
--
<Eric S. Raymond>
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing
which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety,
is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made
and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862
Subject: Microsoft and the Big Lie
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:47:38 -0400
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
A senior Microsoft executive is telling lies in public. In other startling news, the sky is blue and water has been seen flowing downhill.
At <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft answered this question:
<< Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft?
"Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works." >>
Let's examine the key sentences:
<< Open source is not available to commercial companies. >>
The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
I wonder what the developers at Microsoft who based the Internet protocol code of Windows on the open-source Berkeley TCP/IP stack think of this assertion?
<< The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. >>
60% of the world uses the open-source Apache program to serve their web pages. The next time you hear of Apache use forcing anybody's software open will be the first.
<< If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. >>
True. Of course, "the government" doesn't own Linux and has very little to do with Linux development, so it's hard to see what Ballmer is recommending here.
<< Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. >>
Lots of people have proprietary software and data on their Linux machines. The next time you hear of Linux "attaching" itself to any of this data and forcing it open will be the first.
That's the way that the license works.
The GPL infects only derivative works of GPLed software -- you have to include part of the source code of a GPLed program in your program, or choose to link to a GPLed library, before the GPL applies to your code. You can use a Linux kernel and Linux-hosted programs all you like with never a worry about your intellectual property.
Other open-source licenses -- such as the BSD license in the TCP/IP stack that Microsoft adapted for Windows -- will never infect anybody's code or data, because they're designed not to. But Ballmer wants businesspeople and the public to fear them all, because only if open source is general is discredited will Microsoft maintain its monopoly.
The Big Lie is a term originally coined to describe a characteristic form of Nazi (and later Soviet) propaganda. The essence of the Big Lie propaganda technique is that if you repeat the lie often enough over enough channels, people will soak it up through their pores and come to believe it as something "everybody knows".
In the last three months, Jim Allchin and Craig Mundie and Steve Ballmer have launched a classic Big Lie campaign against open source. They have described it as "un-American", "a destroyer", and "a cancer". They have deliberately confused the GPL with non-infectious open-source licenses, and they have deliberately confused active combination of code with passive aggregation of data. They have lied, and lied, and lied again.
Why? Because the most truthful thing Ballmer admitted in that interview is that yeah, Linux is a threat to Microsoft. It threatens to break Microsoft's 91% monopoly on personal-computer operaing systems. It threatens to free consumers from proprietary lock-in, and to deliver better software and more choices at lower cost.
Two years ago, the Halloweeen Documents observed that in order to defeat the threat of open source, Microsoft must attack "a process, not a company". That is exactly what Allchin and Mundie and Ballmer are doing now, attacking with a Big Lie software they know they cannot match in reliability, sophistication, security, and overall cost/benefit ratio.
In the open-source community, we have a favorite quote from Mohandas Gandhi: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
Evidently, we're getting close to winning.
--
<Eric S. Raymond>
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing
which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety,
is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made
and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter