Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:20:19 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why? (Was: Re: FreeBSD, the follower of Linux ?) Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990901144318.047adb10@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9908312034570.1356-100000@acp.qiv.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19990831184900.00a3ed40@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:35 PM 8/31/99 -0500, Jay Nelson wrote: >>That's fine and healthy. >I'm not so sure;) Why not? Controversy is good. Aristotle, way back in ancient Greece, recognized that the dialectic -- argument and discussion -- is what leads to progress and to knowledge. >My experience is that users don't give a damn or care -- as long as >they don't have to invest any effort. Nor do they want to deal wth the >necessity of plugging in a network cable to make their system work. >Their perception is more important than ther reality. UNIX is better equipped to provide this than any other operating system currently available, because it is better at self-maintenance. > >Even Windows really isn't "about" the point-and-click user; it just seems > >It's not? My experience asserts otherwise. Sorry. If you've dealt with Windows users, you should see why Windows doesn't really help the point-and-click user. It gives the illusion that everything is working fine while cruft -- useless files, leaked memory, etc. -- piles up in the background. Then, finally, BOOM! -- the system fails. This is not a service to the user. >Ahh... therein lies the rub. You are in the publishing industry. No, I'm not. I'm a hacker, freelance writer, electrical engineer, chip designer, musician, rental property manager -- and a few other things besides. >I've >spent many years in nearly the same industry. From what I've seen >produced, most users don't have a clue about what they're doing. "Good >enough" was the phrase I heard over and over. How would any OS help >them produce better quality? By working reliably. Wordsmiths don't need fancy graphics; they need reliable ways of writing and communicating words. >>But I am more optimistic about the development of GUIs for UNIX. I think > >we will soon see not one but several options which are usable by naive > >users. > >There's no question that the GUIS are getting fatter "Fatness" is not necessarily an asset. >and fancier. Neither is fanciness. >But >if you are to retain the power of X, how can you shield the users from >the complexity of X? Actually, one of the things that has most hobbled UNIX's mainstream acceptance is that its default GUIs are based on X. X was designed with the wrong priorities for today's computing models (i.e. for situations where bandwidth and CPU speed are infinite and memory is expensive) and has viciously tricky APIs. >>I do not believe that working -- seriously well -- precludes user friendliness. >Bull. If you have 10 choices, you only have 10*10 things to learn. If >you have 1000 choices... "Choices" != "working." >If you reduce the choices (aka user friendly) available in Unix, you >reduce Unix (which you can certainly do;) But why? You don't need to reduce the choices in UNIX; only in the naive user's environment. >>The "sociology" to which ESR refers is not limited to the development > >model but embraces both the developers and the user community. In fact, > >it has MORE to do with marketing and advocacy than with development. > >There is no one model under which "professional software" is > >developed. > >Probably true, but I haven't seen the Linux model used in the real >world, yet. That's because it produces unpredictable results. Development proceeds in fits and starts, and progress is chaotic and nonlinear. (Not good when you have to ship products and have customers relying on you.) But then, the FreeBSD development process has this trait too. [...] >Think outside the box for a moment. It's the fact that I am "thinking outside the box" that's causing some people on this list to flame and/or attempt to ridicule me. Novel ideas -- or even obvious ones that a group has programmed itself to ignore (e.g. emperors not wearing clothes) -- often provoke that response in this forum. As this discussion continues, expect people to make all sorts of excuses to shut it off before it goes anywhere. They'll range from "this is off-topic" (even though there's nothing that's really "off-topic" on a "chat" mailing list) to "I'm unsubscribing" to the unfounded accusation that "Brett is bashing FreeBSD" (which I am not). Anything to squelch the discussion or avoid listening! >Intel hardware is beginning to >grow up. Major manufacturers are beginning to look at the higher end >market, mission critical servers and data warehouses. Trust me when I >tell you that they are paying attention to the free OSs and seeing >them as a potential means of offloading development and maintenance >costs. At the same time, they are furiously trying to learn how they >can leverage the free OS hysteria (to which Linux has greatly >contributed) into more profitable hardware sales. All true enough. >Seasoned admins are disenchanted with Linux, Not true. More are going to Linux than to the BSDs, for all kinds of reasons: better PR, the notion that since Linux has more market share it will be better supported, the availability of certification programs, highly capitalized vendors (e.g. Red Hat), etc. >are looking for stable >platforms and will go with which ever one won't get them out of bed at >2AM. Linux, while technically inferior to the BSDs, meets that criterion well enough for many. >They don't care whether it's free or not. The *BSDs are growing >in the quiet corners. From my perspective, I would rather appeal to >the professional admins than the Maudie fricks. I see such an attitude as unwarranted snobbery. Everyone needs more reliable software. >>The BSDs' market share is currently shrinking, and its mindshare (while > >I and others have worked to boost it) is not keeping pace with that of > >Linux. Again, it is being squeezed out of its ecological niche. "Patience" > >will only result in a continuation of this trend. > >So what? Let Linux go for the desktop. Let them fail as M$ has done;) >Why must we be Linux? I did not say that the BSDs must *be* Linux, but rather that Linux is usurping BSD's proper place in both the desktop *and* server markets. This is occurring due to poor marketing and promotion and a failure to establish effective evangelism. > >I disagree with this opinion. In my experience, the professionals with > >whom I deal will only consider a new operating environment if many people > >with whom they come in contact STRONGLY recommend it. The BSDs' lack of > >strident evangelism makes it less likely that this will occur. On the > >other hand, Linux owes its runaway success to it. > >You deal with different people, then. Most of the people with whom I >deal are more motivated by what allows a good night's sleep. And they will be told, by more people and more emphatically, that Linux will allow them a good night's sleep. Perhaps before they ever HEAR of FreeBSD. >They've been disappointed with the Linux hoopla and are quitely >turning back to the roots. Very few are actually disappointed with the "Linux hoopla." Again, while Linux is technically inferior to the BSDs, it is reliable enough to allow lots of sleep. It's certainly light years ahead of NT. >>> To whom would > >>you rather appeal; the professionals or the desktop crowd? > > > >Both. To frame it as "one or the other" is a false dilemma. > >Excuse me? Not in my world. Where I work, there is a _strong_ >distinction between the two. The distinction is an artifact of history. It exists only because Microsoft Windows overwhelmingly dominates the desktop (and is the exclusive platform for the most popular productivity applications) but is not reliable enough for the server space. Users and administrators alike fervently wish that they could run one OS on both. This is driving the acceptance of NT, alas, and will continue to do so until UNIX is competitive on the desktop. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19990901144318.047adb10>