Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:25:54 -0100 (GMT) From: Remy NONNENMACHER <remy@synx.com> To: "Karl M. Joch" <k.joch@kmjeuro.com> Cc: "freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG" <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: salesman is thinking..... Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.980417091621.10142P-100000@rs1> In-Reply-To: <01BD69D9.0C63F8E0@wsjk01.kmjeuro.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Karl M. Joch wrote:
> I think the main difference is in the 3 different views (sure more are to
> find) on a product:
>
> 1. PROGRAMMERS AND ADMINS: they want a stable system with a lot of features
> to make their daily job easier. they are able to compile programs and doing
> programming.
>
I would separate programmers and admins:
programmers:
- Can operate on CLI without troubles
admins:
- Want consistant packages (and pkg_xx is not so bad)
- Needs an application database with coherent documentation
(i want to do 'that', 'that' is done by package 'xxthat')
- Needs everyday tools for survey
> 3. THE USER: sometimes we all forget the user. but in fact we all have our
> systems running because of the users!. they want a workstation/pc where
> they can switch on and click to start word processing, spreadsheet and
> their commercial package. (most of them don?t do more). users are normally
> not interested in programming and daily operating work.
>
User point is *THE* problem. From my personnal experience, i found pretty
easy to have customers buy FreeBSD (apart the name is a problem) as
shoebox that will be used for service (replacement to NT as workgroup
server or network node) than having them replacing Linux by *BSD as
personnal workstations. This is due to the fact that Linux RedHat (for
instance) give you a near Wxx installation with all coming on on the
desktop (so the user see that as 'personnal', 'home', 'little', 'pretty',
etc... all the Wxx view of things). On the other hand, FBSD with a CLI
appears more solid, reliable, and .... remotely administrable.
Someone said that FBSD/Linux compete for NT/W95. That's the *REALITY*.
(even is comparing two OS with two GUI equipped with a disk shaker is hard).
>From the 'server' point of vue: GUI or CLI ?
--------------------------------------------
it is interesting to look back history of old commercial Unixes (POCUS):
- Xenix, SCO Unix, AT&T's, etc... All relied to 'sysadmxxxxx' for
modifying text files.
- IBM AIX V1 and V2 used 'smit' for modifying an opaque registry
- IBM AIX3 used smit for modifying text files with the interesting
feature of letting you know what would have been the CLI equivalent
- IBM AIX V4 returns, slowly, to an opaque registry.
- SCO ODT, SUN solaris 2.x, DEC OSF (Dec unix, now) use a VERY VERY
limited X GUI to alter text files and/or registry.
FBSD uses a very consistent rc.conf definition and less configuration
files than other systems (For example: try installing Linux then try to
stop all the things you do not need! (May be i sucked but last time it
required to modify about 50 files in the absurd rc*/*/*/* tree). This
will facilitate the process of making an admin tool.
I *DO* believe that adding a GUI must have two goals:
- Having FBSD appear as 'advanced' to newbies admins (remember
they only experienced poor X-GUI from U*X vendors or frustrating opaque NT)
- Having this GUI learn them what files are involved in the
operation they are requesting and what action will be taken
***** the word 'appear' is the important one ****
For those who know what is DDD (the Dynamic Data Debugger: a very friendly
graphic interface to GDB/XDB/DBX), somewhere in the documentation, there
is the sentence: "why having a direct command window to the debuger ?
because experienced users always found CLI more convenient than GUI".
Having the whole system with all apps or tools using the same GUI driven
setup is an impossible thing !! Remember history: it took 10 years to M$
to have all apps locked in the Motif look and now *THIS* is their only
protection.
This may seems a 'back to the roots' call but, sincerely, do you really
believe it is time to compete with the W95 like integration of Linux ?
Do you think that requesting all GPL products developpers to provide a setup
script for FBSD is possible ?
What FBSD needs, as a server box, is a mind change. Jordan told us what
we *ARE* doing. History predicts that we *CAN'T* compete on GUI's. Time
to imagine something new.
I told a PR about how to change minds about a standard product. Here is,
basically what he said :
- if (you have an advantage over the others) {
- make it a win
- make their smaller
} else {
- find three or four words you want the public to have in mind
when thinking to your product
- Change a few thing in your product to make these words exist and
to provide a physical base
- Build a word that gather these words in a concept
}
for (try=0; try < MAX_TRY; try++) {
make_noise(noise_level) ;
if (they claim they do the same) {
attach_stick("follower", to them)
claim("we are the leader");
noise_level++;
}
if (their noise > your noise)
noise_level++ ;
if (it works)
add(some new features sticking to the concept);
else {
prove(you, TRUE);
prove(them, FALSE);
}
if (they take over you) {
do(what they do) ;
claim("It's something completly new, not a copy") ;
claim("they try to catch our own concept, they will suck");
noise *= 100;
}
}
if ((new_profession = random()) == old_profession)
restart to beginning ;
else
change_profession(new_profession) ;
(All this remind something, no ?)
-----
This is my feeling. I spend a lot of time fighting every press issue in
France to have them say '...Linux or FreeBSD...' and not only
'...Linux...' and commercial vendors to have a FreeBSD offer side by side
with the Linux one. I am really not interested on coming back to them
saying 'ahem, well, okay but our buttons and checkboxes are prettyer'.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.A32.3.91.980417091621.10142P-100000>