Linux 2001 - 2002
Sunday, April 14, 2002
Sections
Alt.Mail
Special Reports
- Beginning: Rosenberg installs Mandrake
- First Discussion
- Mandrake and Via Voice
- Applications: what are the alternatives? Star Office
- But the fonts are ugly!
- Roland Replies
- Dr. Huth says they are too ugly
- Another vote for ugliness and what to do about it
- ESCAPE FROM REDMOND
- Applications and more applications
- Not yet: the last 20%
- Virtual machines and Aunt Minnie's nephew
- Pre-install?
- Joel Rosenberg on preconfiguration
This page collects that mail and comments into one place. It all began with this, on November 15, 2001:
AND from Joel Rosenberg (a science fiction writer, colleague, and old friend):
I finally got tired of it all. Crashes of the usual sorts; worries every time I browsed to a web page or opened an email -- you know.
So I got rid of it. The combination of Mandrake and StarOffice makes the most important thing I do possible without Windows, and I've spent the past week --
-- working under Mandrake, without Windows on the main box. (My wife and daughters still have Windows on their machines; for kids playing, there's no obvious substitute for Windows, and Felicia is, err, resistant to changing over.)
All in all, it's been a win. No need to reboot constantly; no constant irritations with software demanding to be upgraded . . . well, you know.
The only real problems are in interconnecting with the Windows boxes over the net, and I've been too busy to spend the time necessary to make it possible to let the Windows machines print to my printer, although I've no trouble printing to the Windows-machines' printers, or in saving my work to a share on the W2Kpro boxes. There's certainly enough apps for my needs, with the sole exception of voice dictation software; I'm going to have to look into ViaVoice for Linux. For the moment, I'm just running a long microphone line to the kids' machine, and accessing it via VNC when my hands are sore.
On to politics . . .
Yup: the hard part is about to start. Trying to turn Afghanistan into a democracy is going to be a real bitch, and probably futile. It's also unnecessary -- it's not the US's job to make everybody democratic, which is just as well, because it's probably not even vaguely possible.
Still, the lesson has been inflicted on the people of Afghanistan, although what the lesson is, I dunno.
*sigh*
Joel Rosenberg
------------------------------------- There's a widow in sleepy Chester Who weeps for her only son; There's a grave on the Pabeng River, A grave that the Burmans shun, And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri Who tells how the work was done. -------------------------------------
On my agenda when I get home: put together an Athlon box with nothing of Microsoft, networked in with the rest of the system, and just see what happens. Thanks for the report!
November 23, 2001
Mandrake: I'm getting more and more comfortable with Mandrake 8.1 as my working environment. The important things are easy -- Star Office, with a few annoying bugs, works like a charm -- and while I'm suffering from browser bloat (I've got two versions of Netscape, as well as Konqueror, Opera, and Mozilla up), that really amounts to an embarrassment of riches, more than anything else. I really need to get and install ViaVoice for Linux, but that's been a matter of lack of time and too much work, rather than anything else.
I keep hearing complaints about the lack of apps, but some people apparently need to do things that I don't. From my point of view, there is a serious embarrassment of riches problem, when it comes to things other than the main wordprocessor. For system configuration (I can't help playing around with stuff), I've pretty much settled on webmin, which can do more than I need to, and gcombust works wonderfully for burning backup data CDs.
The only real frustration is that I haven't been able to get both monitors working simultaneously, which is a handy thing to have. When it comes to automatic configuration of anything beyond the basics, Windows is still easier. But it'll come, I'm sure.
--- (There followed some mail exchanges about other ways to do things. Rosenberg continues:)
Yup -- no matter how you do what you do, there's somebody with a better, or at least different way, to do it, who will be glad to explain it to you, but is often -- not always -- less helpful in explaining why their way is better.
(And, of course, in my experience, it sometimes *is* better. I *think* that my preference for the combination of RAID-5 and the ext3 journalized file system for everything except the /boot partition makes sense for a desktop user with a modern machine, although I really don't have anything near the expertise to be sure.)
One real weakness for Linux in terms of getting broad-based penetration is that method bloat, for a lot of things.
If you want to, say, configure your Linux box to connect to a share on an NT/2000 machine, you can do it from the command line, set up and run a script, edit smb.conf manually (not too hard, following the how-to), browse to http://localhost:901/ to use SWAT, or do it from webmin in, I think, at least two ways. In 2000, there's basically only one way.
Want to get and read email? Pick your choice of email client (granted, that's the same for Windows), but then you get to decide whether you want to use your ISP's SMTP server, or run Postfix (my recommendation, FWIW), or run Postfix and Fetchmail to deliver your popmail to your machine in the background (which is what I finally settled on). Want to know when your email's arrived? Kbiff or tkbiff or some other biff? All are fine, but somebody's got to choose.
Now, if I were to go to a friend's house and set up a Mandrake box -- which is probably in the cards, sooner than later -- I could do it, and I'd do it as plain-vanilla as I could, and with Mandrake, that would probably mean booting into X with Aurora (even though I don't like it -- it is the default) and autologin, KDE desktop, Kmail, Postfix (doesn't hurt -- the user can still use his/her ISP's SMTP server), Knode, etc. Still, I'd have to make some choices (do I install StarOffice in the user's home directory, or in /opt?), and somebody else trying to manage/reconfigure the system would have to either figure out those choices or just override them.
And Mandrake is, by design, intended to be an easy install.
But it's coming along, and I think it'll get there, and with Microsoft doing everything it can to maintain an iron grip on the desktop, it should.
Joel Rosenberg
Re with Linux there will "... always be someone who can and will tell you there's a better way to do it."
Linux (and Unix) have been around long enough now (20 years?) where things have evolved how to do things that are not so much the "right" way, but "the way" or "a way". A body of knowledge and experience exists. With the changing population of users caused by time and by growth, a lot of learning and re-learning goes on surrounding that knowledge.
I've noticed (and this applies to most things, not just computers) that people expect and seek complexity when trying to learn. When I'm teaching people, and I notice them "making it difficult" at least I know they are interested and trying. I advise and counsel to seek simpler things. If it seems hard, there ought to be another way.
Simplcity doesn't come easy. It's harder to create simple things than complex things, as we all know.
My Linux Learning: seek the simple solutions. Don't let it be complex and don't accept complex solutions as the way it is.
Robert Schneider
Good observation. On the other hand, "better is the enemy of good enough". Chaos Manor tends to be the house of good enough. The danger there is that sometimes better really is better and good enough isn't. And of course around here we do a lot of silly things so you don't have to...
December, 2001
No more new stuff on Mandrake and StarOffice, at the moment, which is all to the good: it's just working, and so am I. The next issue will probably come when IBM delivers my copy of ViaVoice for Linux. I've heard good things about it, and I very much like to be able to dictate by voice as a break from / alternative to keyboarding, so we'll see . . .
And Joel Rosenberg continues to find happiness with Mandrake...
More on the conversion to Mandrake Linux project ...
IBM ViaVoice for Linux arrived today, took a few minutes to install, and another few minutes to configure. Nothing terribly complicated -- if it was, I couldn't do it -- and it's now up and working. From my point of view, it's another victory for the conversion/changeover. ViaVoice under Linux works faster and more accurately than the last version of ViaVoice for Windows that I used. (My suspicion is that it's the combination between me using the latest version -- the Windows version I used was one generation back -- and the lower overhead of Linux giving the processor more cycles to come up with the correct word. ) But there's no question that it is faster, and quite accurate enough for real work, as opposed to simply as a toy. What I don't have -- yet -- is the ability to do voice dictation into anything else except the ViaVoice editor, but that's not at all critical to me using this to enter text, and while I do expect that I will, eventually, get xvoice installed and working, that's not a high priority.
Short form: after just a few weeks, my new, Mandrake-only environment is faster, more stable, and in all important-to-me ways, superior to the previous Windows environment.
Which means I have to get off my duff and set up one of these machines as a Linux box. I am still not all that happy with Star Office; but mostly I am waiting to get my internet connections stable. Then I'll shift the subscriber list over to Linux and operate my own mail system for that. Meaning it will be a LOT easier to send mail to the subscribers...
There followed discussions of Star Office, and dissents. December 28, 2001:
And on Star Office:
First the original mail:
Jerry,
Regarding your finding that MS applications are pretty good for what they do: in my opinion this is true only in a limited sense(for Office, at least). If your needs are very basic, Office will do what you need with little sweat. OTGH, in that case why spend $416 for XP Pro when competing products are cheap or free and just as straightforward? If you have complex but repetitive tasks and have already endured and forgotten the pain of familiarization, Office can also be adequate. But to do something in MS Office apps that has not previously been attempted and involves a degree of complexity is, IMO, typically very painful. Let me give you the latest example, fresh in my mind because it *was* only yesterday. Create 2 tables in Access 2000. The table #1 contains a key to be used to look up a field in table #2. The associated fields represent dollar values. Define the field in table #1 as currency, and Access will tell you that you can't use that type field for a look up function - proper behavior. Define the table #1 field as numeric and the table #2 field as currency, however, and Access goes nuts when you try to define the look up from table #1 (I did it this way first, of course). You will receive a message claiming that you referenced an invalid function named "|". You will receive another error telling you that Access can't find the look up wizard, please install all wizards from media. You may, depending on the data already in the tables and design previously done, see more messages complaining that you have damaged the expression builder or replaced it with a non-MS version and/or that you cannot use the field in a look up because it violates an existing relationship for that field (this in an mdb that *has* no relationships) Every error imaginable is cited except for any that relate to the actual problem. I spent about 3 hours yesterday messing about with Office repair, Office reinstall, and Office patches and service packs, when the real problem was a simple data mismatch. For years, I have found similar snafus whenever first trying to do something beyond basic function in Office apps. To me, this is not nearly good enough. Personally and professionally, I'm more than ready for a change. YMMVOC.
Scott Miller
I then asked what he proposed as substitute:
Jerry,
Personally, I find the latest version of Star Office good enough, at least the word processing and spreadsheet modules. I haven't used the adabas db engine much yet. As long as I have a database manager that will allow me to quickly and easily design and relate tables, I'm happy. If I need fancy reports and graphs, I can use Crystal Reports. Any fairly complete implementation of SQL will do. The trick for me will be to identify one before I get into crunch time with the next project. Otherwise, I will fall back on Access in desperation, again. The only issue preventing me from pushing for a feasibility study on switching our 800-plus users to Star Office is the availability of conversion tools for macros and the like. I can't imagine those won't be available from third parties shortly after the Star Office commercial release.
Regards, Scott Miller
I intend to get to general applications and utilities as a major subject early next year.
Seeing Mr. Rosenberg's review of Star Office, I downloaded the binary from. It was fairly painless to download & run the .rpm package manager, true. But... I LOATHE the fonts it used when I loaded some Word documents to test the data compatability! UUUGGHGHG! Yuuck! The onscreen fonts were terrible, and Star Office didn't print it worth a damn. Ditto for a simple document I wrote that included text boxes & line drawing between the boxes (to approximate a structure chart; looked pretty darn good in Word; I use the Office 2000 package over here).
Maybe I should have converted fonts, or something, or not used the default printer for Star Office, but RH 7.2 itself handles my HP Injet 962c just fine.
My verdict (for now): 2 thumbs down.
Casey Tompkins
And Roland on complaints about Star Office:
His problem with the fonts isn't StarOffice; it's the fact that he hasn't set up fonts properly on his Linux box.
I've done so, and I've lovely TrueType and Adobe Type 1 fonts throughout XFree86, my window manager (WindowMaker), and all my applications, including Mozilla and . . . StarOffice.
Mr. Tompkins should check out the Linux Font De-uglification HOW-TO, located here:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/
So there is hope for us all.
And Joel Rosenberg notes:
Unsurprisingly, Roland beat me to the font deuglification matter. (When *does* he sleep? Or is "Roland" merely a collective pseudonym for a league of experts -- sort of like Doc Savage's sidekicks?)
Actually, with recent versions of Mandrake, it's even simpler than in the deuglification howto. Just be sure that you set up XFree 4.n when installing, leave the default of antialiasing on, and then install a buncha Windows fonts using DrakFont. Direct messing about with the XF86Config-4 file -- always a tricky matter -- isn't necessary.
Roland is a singular individual...
And from Dr. Huth a small dissent:
Jerry,
I don't want to be a party pooper, but...
I loathe the fonts installed by XFree86 under redhat 7.2 and I've been attempting to follow the instructions pointed out by Roland http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/ . The instructions don't seem to have anything to do with the version of Xfree86 running on my system and I can't follow them...at all. Now I'll admit that Roland is a wizard and I'm a hack, but gee whiz. I've spent a couple of hours fooling with this and have returned to windows. Snarl, mutter, grumble.
This is exactly the problem with linux for me. I'm not quite smart enough or motivated enough or enough of a wizard...I've got a running linux system, but it isn't tweeked. I'd like to run evolution, but can't seem to make it work. I'd like to install and run the freemed software, but the dependencies defeat me.
I'm trying, really am, but the light hasn't come on for me as yet. I'd probably pay someone to sit at my side to help me along, but should I really have to do that to run a tool?
I've had great success with my Cobalt Cube, but that is set up to run out of the box.
Mark Huth mhuth@coldswim.com
And on fonts and Ugliness and the like:
Dear Dr Pournelle,
I was waiting for someone to come back with that... Mr Huth has my deepest sympathy; I was bitten by this too. More success came when I reviewed the web link ( http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/ ) and found the part dealing with the 'special case' of Red Hat 7.x - http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/x-4x.html#AEN755 .
Can I ask Mr Huth to review the procedure and see if it's less unclear? There are still a few gotchas in my opinion. Which brings me to an observation made before, but worth repeating; Linux is an excellent server-class OS, and I run it with few problems alongside three NT 4 servers.
While I have a few staff who use Linux on the desktop the majority use either Mac OS or Windows 2000. If they want the serious horsepower of a Linux box there are special research machines (Alpha, Intel, and Mac PPC) running Red Hat Linux.
A staff member sitting at his Windows PC starts the Microsoft Desktop manager (DESKTOPS.EXE) which is part of the NT 4 Resource Kit. This creates a floating bar with a number of buttons each invoking a separate desktop, like Linux X-windows workspaces. He clicks on a button marked "Desktop2" and is suddenly in a new explorer desktop. He then wakes up an X session (we use LabTam's X-Win Pro) which completely takes over that desktop, but of course he can switch back to desktop one for ordinary (office) work. So our notional staff member can switch at will between Star Office/KDE and Office/W2K. This is perfectly adequate for all but a handful of staff.
For those who do need to work with Star Office Windows fonts, following the font deuglification process wasn't too hard for me to set up. But I'd hate to be a newbie doing it.
Regards, TC
-- Terry Cole BA/BSc/BE/BA(hons) (tcole@maths.otago.ac.nz) System Administrator, Dept. of Maths. & Stats., Otago Uni. PO Box 56, Dunedin, NZ.
and Roland on Dr. Huth's font problems:
There are explicit instructions in the Font De-Uglification HOW-TO for dealing with Red Hat's non-standard XFree86 setup (one of the many reasons I eschew Red Hat and instead run Slackware, found at http://www.slackware.com ). You should be running XFree86 4.1.0, if you're running the latest Red Hat.
The instructions in the HOW-TO cover XFree86 4.x, including 4.1.0.
---------------- Roland Dobbins
And
The De-Uglification HOW-TO incorrectly states that Mozilla and Netscape won't use the TrueType fonts. This limitation went away quite some time ago; I've both Mozilla 0.97 and Netscape 4.79 installed on my various workstations, and both Web browsers make use of the TrueType fonts just fine.
Roland
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
The discussion on ugly fonts seems to concern Xfree86 more than anything else. Some distributions, including my own SuSE 7.2, include Xfree86 3.x and 4.x to maintain compatibility with older video cards. I no longer use the 1024x768x8 Trident card that requires Xfree 86 3.x, and my current video cards and chips have improved drivers with Xfree86 4.x.
Ugly fonts might have been a complaint with me, but I found sans-serif fonts in Netscape 4.7x that suit me. I have no experience with Red Hat beyond version 5.2, but that will change when my new computer arrives shortly, with a modified Red Hat 7.2 pre-installed. Unlike some of your readers, the only font I call "ugly" is one I cannot read. If the type size is small enough, that includes all of them.
Regards,
William L. Jones wljones@dallas.net
And Dr. Huth replies:
Roland (and Jerry and Terry),
I've no doubt that you can de-uglify fonts on redhat...as can others. I'm less convinced that I can make it happen.
The explict instructions...well...lets take a look at the second paragraph of the instructions for redhat (the first paragraph gives no warning that this is coming):
The FontPath is still in XF86Config, as always. For Redhat 6/7 using a stock XFree86 4.x (i.e. NOT the Redhat 7.x supplied version), this will mean moving the Redhat xfs FontPath from /etc/X11/fs/config back to XF86Config. A separate font server is no longer needed just for TrueType support. You may disable it, unless it is needed to serve fonts to other clients in a network environment. See the section below for Redhat 7.x specific configuration issues.
>From this I think he is telling me that if I want to use these instructions and deuglify my fonts and I'm running standard non-redhat Xfree86 (which I presume I've installed myself), then I've got to move the redhat xfs fontpath from its current location back to xf86config. If I am running the standard redhat 7.x, I'm to go to the section below.
The section below says:
Redhat 7.0 introduced some changes to X configuration over previous Redhat versions. It is also different from the stock XFree86 configuration as addressed above. Notable differences: Both XFree86 3.3.6 and 4.x are included. If upgrading you may wind up with 3.3.6. The X configuration file is XF86Config for 3.3.6 and XF86Config-4 for 4.x. Of course, you'll need to know which is which for editing and configuration purposes. xfs is still handling all font duties. A default Redhat 7.x installation does not use the 'modules' section of XF86Config-4 for font handling. Instead it relies on xfs, which has this capability built in. This is different from a stock installation of XFree86 4.x where the X server does all the font work -- including TrueType. The socket for xfs is "unix/:7100" with RH 7.x, as opposed to "unix/:-1" in previous versions (i.e. Redhat 6.x). As of Redhat 7.1, the xfs init script actually runs mkfontdir and ttmkfdir on font directories known to xfs. So this step is not necessary when new fonts are added. Just restart xfs.
I'm working on it, but I'm afraid that I'd hope explicit instructions would say such things as:
Insert spanner and turn in a clockwise direction until the bolt is tight, then turn 1/4 turn more.
I recognize that instructions in cardiology which I might consider explicit, might well read like gobblygook to the layman. However, the instructions in this mini-howto are tough to follow for even the interested hack.
I'll keep struggling to get better fonts. You fellas keep working on making instructions such as these more explicit!
Then the column with Joel Rosenberg's report appeared, along with the "Escape from Redmond" sequence. That generated a lot of mail.
The basic question was, is there a Linux desktop system Aunt Minnie could use. My answer was, "Not Yet."
Greetings from Huntersville, NC, just north of Charlotte.
I very much enjoyed reading your article. I'm a technical writer with a similar home network setup and I've been contemplating the jump to an all Linux workstation but haven't yet made it. I'm still dual booting.
With regard to Aunt Minnie, however, I would like to make one point--if Minnie could get a Linux box preloaded from one of her trusted vendors, her problem would mostly be solved. I doubt she could load w2k/xp etc. on an empty hard drive either. So, maybe the issue isn't that Linux isn't easy enough for those who aren't do it themselves-ers, it's that the prime-time installation and support infrastructure just aren't there yet. (And yes, there are still issues with not having a common installer for peripherals our dear aunt might buy later, but my mother in law didn't load install her new scanner herself, she had someone from her local shop come do it for her on Windows...).
Now, if the Justice Department will enforce its ruling allowing OEMs to preload dual boot systems, you might see Minnie dance with the Penguin.
Thanks and kudos for a fine article,
Ed Matthews ed@wematthews.com
In fact there is nothing to prevent companies from selling dual boot systems, but it costs to have them available and no one wants them. It would be easy enough to set up a business to provide them, for that matter. Perhaps it will happen.
Jerry,
I have enjoyed reading your columns for some time now both on your website and the online version of Byte magazine. I used to subscribe to Byte back when it was in print. My profession is in retail management, but I have had a long running hobby with computers. In the past I have owned a TI 99a, a Timex Sinclair, and Apple IIe, a Macintosh, and too many IBM clones to count. I currently have a Celeron 300a running SUSE Linux 7.3 and Gnome window manager, a Celeron 700 running Slackware 7.0 with Enlightenment window manager, and a Pentium IV 1.4 running Windows XP Home edition. My wife has a Celeron 400 running Windows 98SE, one of my sons has an AMD K5 500 with Windows 98SE, and the other kids share a Pentium III also running Windows 98SE. I assembled all of the above purchasing most of the components from Fry's in Dallas. To keep costs down I usually buy products or components that have been out at least six months to a year. I also have an IBM PC with a 75mhz Pentium overclocked at 100mhz. It is loaded with Slackware 7.0. I have a cable modem running through a Netgear router and then through an eight port hub. Three of my pc's and my wife's pc are all on the internet. My windows pc and my wife's share her printer. My two Linux pc's each have their own printers. My wife thinks I am a computer geek. I tell her it's just a hobby. I don't fish or golf and she knows where to find me.
I enjoy reading about your adventures assembling different systems and testing operating systems and hardware. I also enjoy learning about Linux, but I use Windows some of the time and so far I am impressed with Windows XP (I have the most current updates). I have tried some of the Linux office suites but have not spent enough time to learn them sufficiently to replace Microsoft Office. We use Excel and Word at work and those will probably be the two most difficult programs for Linux to overcome. As regards Linux distributions, I have installed Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, TurboLinux, and SUSE at least twice each. Although Red Hat generally gets good reviews and is I believe the most popular distribution, I have not had good luck installing it. For beginners Mandrake or SUSE is the wisest choice (My Opinion). If you want to learn Linux, by trial and error and digging and reading and searching then install Slackware. I really enjoy using Slackware. If you enjoyed using DOS or CP/M then you will probably like Slackware. When I say enjoy I realize that may be somewhat perverse, but if you get satisfaction out of learning how to use an operating system then you will understand what I mean.
I agree that Linux can be almost whatever you need it to be, whether that is a GUI with which to surf the web and email, a server of any type, a router, a firewall, or whatever you need or want it to be. You can learn as little or as much as you desire about Linux and that is partly what intriques me about Linux. You mentioned the difficulty with editors. I agree that the oldest and most popular are very difficult to learn. Vi and emacs are very powerful editors with a steep learning curve. I do not know how to use either one, but I can do what I need to do using Pico. My first experience with the internet was with a shell account and I used Pine for email. If you can use Pine you can use Pico. There are numerous programs available for most tasks, if one doesn't suit your needs or experience level, try another.
I gather from reading your column that you are generally satisfied with Microsoft Frontpage for web page design. Fry's had the full version on sale for $129.99, but they were out and I now have a raincheck. I am interested in developing a web page, but I don't think I have the patience or time to learn HTML and I haven't found anything comparable to Frontpage for Linux. Maybe one of your readers has a suggestion.
Hopefully you will be able to get some form of broadband internet service soon, I don't envy your situation. We recently got cable modem service, but we had good dial up connections prior to that. In fact when Excite discontinued service with AT&T I was able to switch back to dial up for the two days that AT&T was down. I had paid for my dial up service a year in advance and it is not up for renewal until February of this year. I suppose that if you had to have access keeping a dial up account active might be a worthwile investment.
One last comment. Today I read your Byte column while at lunch on my Handspring Visor Prism. It has an Omnisky minstrel wireless modem. It's not very fast, but it works if you're near a metropolitan area. It came with its own browser, but I downloaded another browser (Blazer) from Handspring's website. It displays color and does a better job of formatting web pages for viewing on a palm device. I guess it's another "geek" toy.
Keep up the good work,
Scott Wallick
-----
Hi Jerry I have enjoyed reading and being entertained by the CHAOS MANOR column over the past 10 years - but I'm hazy on exact dates because all my old copies of Byte are stashed in a box in the back shed. I mostly concurred with your views - even with the overall thrust of the column titled "Escape from Redmond". ...but but but you approach an interesting prehaps even crucial point when you conjure Aunt Minnie into being: that (home) computing for the masses remains a Pandora's box. You go part of the way to exposing the problem in this quote: 'The question is, can Aunt Minnie, in her journey away from the Cathedral, stop off at Mr. Raymond's Bazaar and, without expert guidance, put together an Open Source desktop computer system which will be both easy to use and more stable/secure than any of Microsoft's offerings? Joel Rosenberg seems to have done it, but he's not Aunt Minnie. And the answer, I think, is, "Not yet." '
But the inference is inescapable that Aunt Minnie will find Windows XXX facile. However the notion that Windows is intuitive and 'easy to anything' is a neatly presented marketing factoidasaurus. How will Aunt Minnie tackle the mouse I wonder? and the start button? but wait utill she tries to install a printer driver for that 'end of model' discounted printer with a driver disk for Windows 95! or when she tries to tweak the display adapter settings!
Fact(oid) is they are neither of them so easy to use as a programmable VCR - and how many Aunt Minnie's does it take to programme on of those?
There are few sights more edifying than that of a venerable relation approaching their PC armed with an electric can opener: to smite the PC or have the appliances mate it out makes no difference.
George
Really all I can say is that there are now a hundred million and more PC's out there. Someone is using them, and finding them usable. And they do things we never dreamed we COULD do only a decade ago.
YOUR interesting column inspires me to speak. I get a different slant from MS vs Linux, and I hope that I can express it adequately. First, I remember the IBM, DOS, WINDOW3.1 evolution. when IBM came out with the intel pc, I was using Radio Shack, Commodore, and Sinclair computers.. They were as well supported as any, but they did NOT network, They did NOT share files, they did NOT share periphials, they did NOT share any standards. The IBM/MS association created the "CLONE" environment, which caused MUCH plagiarism and unauthorized copying of software and hardware.
Shareware became very popular, you could scrounge parts and software easily and build a useable pc. It had standards and consistency and you could freely exchange and cooperatively build systems and software. Although business did not actively pursue this avenue, business did benefit from the the expanded knowledge and skill developed in the workpool. The resulting expanded community was not necessarily a lot different from open source.
The only company that really capitalized on this "explosion" was Microsoft. They owned the basic software - MSDOS - that was common to all of this... As their market expanded, the free copying and plagiarism served to expand interest and demand for expanded OS features and service. MacinTosh came and went during this time, but their technical excellence was completely overshadowed by the MSDOS/WINDOWS low-priced, and many cases free, access to software. Today, hardware is almost a commodity. BEos, QNX, Solaris, FreeBSD, OPENBSD, NETBSD, Linuux, DOS, DRDOS, WINDOWS95,98,ME, NT, 2000, AND XP, All could run on the same pc. Each of the OS's benefit from the commodity pricing of the intel-type platform.
The significant difference of Linux is NOT the technical strength. Linux is a powerful, reliable and supported software. But technically, it is just another UNIX. IT'S THE GPL Copyright. Linux offers no technical advantage over FreeBSD. Linux offers no significant pricing advantage over FreeBSD. But Linux is MORE than just OPEN SOURCE. Open Source implies that the source code be publicly available, but proprietary changes can be made. I.E, Microsoft acquired the KERBOROS software from FreeBSD, made proprietary changes, and did NOT return those changes to the community.... and it's legal. If they had acquired that software from Linux, they would have had to make their changes public...
The GPL requires that changes and improvements of the source code also be returned to the community under the same license. (a viral or cancerous requirement per certain critics) Many OPEN SOURCE copyrights protect the programmers and originators of the code, Linux, using Richard Stallmans GPL, much better protects the users...Without saying one is better than the other, the GPL has gathered the steam, has made major growth, gotten the publicity, and is solely responsible for the popularity of Linux. (note: various linux distributions contain opensource software, some of which is NOT GPL... I.E. "PINE" OR "NETSCAPE") Macintosh OSX has garnered the BSD os into their system, they will gain quality, they will gain access to Unix conventions and Aplications, but their proprietary attitude is still in the way of widespread success.
Macintosh would never have linux code because they could not make their implementation proprietary. Using GPL, business can easily cooperate on software projects, knowing that results will be public.. No NDAs necessary. "Re-inventing the wheel" is eliminated. IF the original GUI browser, MOSAIC, had been published as "GPL", there would never had been a "NETSCAPE".. Nor would there be a "INTERNET EXPLORER", We might all be using a solid and feature-rich "MOSAIC". GPL is not the ultimate answer, afterall programmers have to eat too.,. but it is fundamentally more honest than the widespread plagiarism of the 1980's. Using the example of MICROSOFT'S benefit from the cheap, widespread software explosion of the 1980's in a sense will be mirrored by the GPL explosion of the 2000's. GPL is cheap, accessible, widespread, distributed and it can be copied without theft. Linux is riding on the shirttail of the GPL revolution, the GPL "cannot be stopped". (Although Sen Fritz Hollings may try)
THE basic difference between most interpretations of OPEN SOURCE and the GPL,(GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) IS a KEY difference. The GPL fosters an image of total freedom that causes much enthusiasm, much participation and much support. There may be needs for proprietary, open source, and GPL copyrights, but the GPL is the one garnering the numbers. The GPL gives the little guy the same access to software as the corporations.
About myself: I am retired telephone technician and am 60 years old. I am married 40 years with 3 grown children, 5 grandchildren, been a ham radio operator for 29 years, have been a computer hobbyist since 1978. Drag-racing and cars were a focus for several years.I have always been an avid reader of westerns and science fiction, but have slowed down the last few years. When reading, I always finished my books in one sitting, thusly, the shorter books were more approachable. I have purchased, read several of your books in years past. hi..
Best Regards... de Jerry Sharp, Modesto,ca.
Interesting. Thanks for the kind words.
On the following, I have posted it, and I have sort of read it, but I can't say I paid a lot of attention, as I will explain at the end.
Dear Mr. Pournelle,
Good article. You present the current situation very well indeed; I enjoyed reading it very much.
On Monday 07 January 2002 18:39 PM, Jerry Pournelle wrote: > suite, while Judy and I both use Star Office 6.0 beta for writing (books in > my case; homework in hers). Aside from Mandrake, the only program I've had
I concur with your friend's choice of Mandrake - I've been using it since its first release. Initially, just because it was compiled /specifically/ for 586, but since then for the goodies and 'bleeding edgeness'. I would choose a different distro for net work say, NetBSD or Debian.
> to buy (and I didn't really have to buy Mandrake) is IBM ViaVoice for > Linux, which works just fine - faster and cleaner under Linux than the
I did not know that it worked better under *nix - and had forgotten that it was for sale. I just took the offered free download. I have written pseudo-printers, D'n'D things etc. to read to those who have difficulty reading for themselves and it has proven very useful. ViaVoice also works well generating on-the-fly messages for voice modem work. Nice to hear about the dictation. I tried X-voice out a bit, but never had an application for it really.
> The question is, can Aunt Minnie, in her journey away from the Cathedral, > stop off at Mr. Raymond's Bazaar and, without expert guidance, put together > an Open Source desktop computer system which will be both easy to use and > more stable/secure than any of Microsoft's offerings? Joel Rosenberg seems > to have done it, but he's not Aunt Minnie. > And the answer, I think, is, "Not yet." Linux setup tools and the various
I'll go a bit farther: I *know* it's "Not yet". Maybe never.
Interestingly, Aunt Minnie -- along with her son the plumber, together with his wife and most of his offspring can't/don't/won't tackle the install and post-install configuration of MSwindows either. They call you or me (or the local computer shop, but you or me first) to do it for them. Ditto for major upgrades and, often, simply software installs.
For the vast majority of MSwindows users, the install was done for them by a third party. Until enough boxes ship with Linux as an obvious option, the situation will not change. I, for my own part, am finding that the Linux install (with Mandrake) is both simpler and less frustrating than the MSwindows install on the same box. Especially when it comes to setting up video cards etc. - using the winCD's that shipped with the white-box. No, not always, but more often than the other way around lately. And just /one/ reboot.
Once installed, it can be ignored. I once (2 years ago now) installed Mandrake with KDE1.x for an older couple who had Win3.11 on their previous box. Not one complaint so far. Nothing. He's 70+ and was using it for checking stocks and she (I won't wade into the age waters here) uses email, wordprocessing, personal finance(CBB) etc. They each have a log in and so do their grandchildren...
> GUI environments available for it such as KDE and Gnome have made great > strides in usability.
Even to the extent that XP seems to have borrowed a bit. I spent a few hours copying stuff into an XP box yesterday. That and 'showing' the owner around. Mostly same-same, not too difficult to navigate around. I did notice that the 'Start' menu now tracks common apps ala KDE and likewise shows multiple instances of a program on the task bar the way KDE can. I don't think it's just me: those special-purpose pix folders look for all the world like OS/2's. And the over-all 'look' seemed like Icewm's "BluePlastic" theme i.e. lots of rounded, 'bumpy', blueness. I hope it makes up for the wasted screen real-estate and over-use of icons with increased reliability, since security issues are (perhaps?) a foregone conclusion and finding the words that match the pictures can be a chore. Overall, I found if not too bad.
> serious rival to Microsoft's dominance in the office suite category (though > Sun and the www.openoffice.org crowd need to work a bit more on their > Microsoft file compatibility). The diversity of hardware supported under
Given the excellent filters for OpenOffice and the trend toward open XML file formats, I don't think it will be /very/ long before the question is asked of MS: Why don't you support open XML files properly? :-)
> Linux, including USB, wireless, and DVDs (see http://xine.sourceforge.net/) > is more than impressive.
There are, of course, still problems writing drivers for 'Win+xxxx' hardware. Difficult to proceed when one's best efforts are being deliberately foiled though. /Most/ stuff just works. Some doesn't. Best to check /before/ buying hardware, if your client needs/wants to run something other than MSW.
> Linux is already making significant inroads into the business world. You
The NYSE, GM.de, HomeDepot, City of Largo - quite a range really; From heavy db transactions to P.O.S.
> line-of-business applications, and even use Samba on Linux as a replacement > for Windows NT/2000/XP Server general file and print services.
This is so. Samba is a great piece of work. I wrote a faux faxprinter for MSW->linux boxes one night. Took a couple of hours, but that's probably due to my lack of facility with the language I used.
> your desktop base over to Linux, using a window manager like fwvm, an > appropriate theme, and tools like Citrix MetaFrame (see my own essays at
fvwm? Not sure what you were thinking here. You are recommending fvwm? Icewm or xfce for lower end I think.
> However, unless Aunt Minnie is willing to invest the time to learn enough > Linux to become at least a small-time systems administrator, Linux isn't > for her, at least not yet.
As detailed above, I don't believe this statement of yours is true /unless/ you force Aunt Minnie to buy a vanilla white-box and set it up herself.
I'm sure you're a better nephew than /that/! :-)
> us want to devote to them, but they can be fun; and keeping Microsoft > honest is worth something.
Hmmm. "keeping" implies a current state of honesty; DOJ found otherwise.
-- Regards, Paul Evans Paul Evans <pevans@users.sourceforge.net>
Never is a long time...
I have printed your letter, and I have tried to read it, but frankly the modern "web" style of taking something, chopping it into incomprehensible snippets, then interleaving your comments, does not appeal to me. I don't think it lets you say anything much other than rambling stream of consciousness, and it doesn't fairly represent what I said either. People do this all the time, but I don't, and I don't like it much.
If I am going to interject my own comments in someone else's letter, I will at least do it at the end of a full paragraph which I have repeated.
Apparently you are saying that there ought to be Linux boxes available in stores, and those would do the job: but no one is selling them. I am not sure that is what you said because I gave up somewhere in the chop there, My apologies.
I read your column "Escape from Redmond" with interest. In my various travels to friends and family over the holidays I was surprised to find a large number of people complaining bitterly about Microsoft products. These people were all "users" in the old IT sense of the term. They just want to browse the web and send email and do a little work unmolested.
During my career as a computer professional I have mostly used Windows of one version or another and found Office/Outlook to work pretty well (well, at least the 2000 versions running under Windows 2000/Pro), though in comparison to products like Framemaker (and DECwrite) they are unwieldy and crash prone.
In the last year I formed a start-up doing some embedded systems work that pretty much demanded we use Linux so we could get access to the OS sources. I installed Mandrake as a development environment a year ago and now find myself only returning to Windows when I need to run MS Project or some EEPROM tool that doesn't have Linux support.
Apologies for the long-winded way of getting to tell you that as you evaluate Linux you should try:
Applixware (~$60) for Office Tools Ximian Evolution (free) for Outlook-type stuff ` Mozilla/Galeon for browsing
I find Applixware to be better than Staroffice in many ways including MS Office interoperability and speed. It is well worth the pretty nominal price.
Ximian Evolution is very nice tool for email/calendar/task management work and seems to work as well as Outlook with the exception of PocketPC synchronization (Palm syncs just fine). Like Outlook it also offers to launch appropriate applications for attachments and it can schedule meetings even with Outlook clients.
Mozilla and Galeon (Mozilla on a diet) are very nice browsers that can do most things IE can do. The exceptions are playing certain proprietary multimedia types that have no Linux support. Even some of these, e.g. Quicktime, can now be played using an inexpensive ($20) tool called CrossOver to invoke Windows emulation under Linux.
I haven't quite gotten to the point where I am telling all of the folks who lamented their Microsoft world to me, to "escape" (image if the rhetoric at CES were to come true, get ready to reboot your TV), but the Linux crew are really starting to make progress.
Best regards,
Dino Lachiusa ideaLogix Inc
Thanks!
And a reader who agrees "Not yet"
Jerry,
I have tried for years to switch to Linux as my primary OS. I have even distilled down what I use a computer for to a few very key things.
Web surfing Email Application development Instant messaging Writing (word processing)
Linux has good alternatives to many of those things but in the area of web surfing it sometimes falls short. It is often hard to find support for those things you would consider extensions. I do not believe there is support for Quicktime and there is probably no support for the Microsoft video and audio formats.
The area where I think Linux is very weak, and this is why I cannot switch, is in the office suite. I suffer from dyslexia, which has made it very challenging to develop my spelling and grammar skills over the years. When I was young, my parents bought me a word processing program for my Commodore 64 that offered spell checking. I was in awe of its ability to tell me I spelled things wrong. This technology improved more and more over the years and the current level of spell and grammar checking in Word is nothing short of amazing to someone who daily has challenges with things that other people take for granted.
I find nothing in the current offering of Linux products that come close to the abilities of Word 2002.
When I mention this need to Linux folks, I get several reactions. The first is usually to say existing programs already offer this ability. When they say this they are thinking of spell checking but not grammar checking. If I correct them they usually say "Well, you should be your grammar checking, not the machine." I agree, but they do not understand what it is like to have to struggle with grammar. My grammar and spelling gets better all the time, this is because I continue to study but also because Word corrects me when I make mistakes as I make them and nothing works better to help you improve your skills than constant feedback.
You can get a copy of Word Perfect that runs on Linux but I have found it to be very unstable and nothing near the quality of Word 2002.
To me though, the key point here is not that I cannot find a grammar-checking program for Linux. The problem I have is that most people react to my comments by implying most people do not need that, or that something is wrong with my request. Instead of looking at the situation and saying, "yeah we need that, how can we get it done" they react by attacking the source of
As long as Linux stays an eighty percent solution, supporting almost all hardware and giving you almost everything you need to do your work, it will never reach wide acceptance on the desktop. What Linux companies should be focusing on is closing that last twenty percent gap between themselves and the offerings from their competitors.
Chris Kraft
-- Chris Kraft, krafter@zilla.net on 01/08/2002
I agree. Not yet, as I said. But perhaps soon. Word Perfect might have done it.
When I get a .doc from a Linux user, even when this was a document I wrote and which was read into the Linux system, then a few notes made, and the document sent back to me, it takes me about 5 minutes to get it back to the point where I can read it. The ' have become little boxes, or don't will look like don' t and the " marks will be goofy. I can do search and replace operations to restore it to readability, but it is never easy.
And that is from really sophisticated users.
Then there are virtual machines:
Good article overall, well-balanced.
Joel Rosenberg is missing out on a really fun part of Linux though, especially having a family (like mine) who isn't ready to leave the "old" OS behind -- virtual machines. I have exclusively Macs in my house, one of which runs Linux about 80% of the time. I have a VM called "Mac-on-Linux" that lets me boot a MacOS environment inside a window on my Linux desktop. Quite handy when you need to run something like PageMaker.
For writing fiction (I'm working on a novel, and no I'm not going to ask you to look at it :-) I've been using LyX (www.lyx.org). It's a very different environment from Word or even OpenOffice -- no margin settings, for starters -- but it's rock solid, fast, and it uses LaTeX as a print engine so hardcopy is simply gorgeous.
As far as Aunt Minnie goes, she most likely has a nephew or family friend who is the "computer person" regardless of the OS. When the computer starts acting up, she calls her computer person to fix things.
Minnie is also one of those people who just wants to use email and look up recipes on the web, maybe write a letter on occasion. In other words, she wants an appliance to use instead of a universe to explore. A savvy computer person wouldn't bother with a heavyweight GUI like KDE or Gnome -- he'd install something lighter and simpler, perhaps AfterStep or WindowMaker. When she logs in, she sees a strip of largish, "I don't need my glasses to see them" icons along one side of her screen -- icons to start email, the web browser, word processor, Solitare or other games, and one to log her out.
The computer person has done a few things to make his life easier as well as Aunt Minnie's -- a cron script downloads her email at 3 a.m. so she can just sit down with her morning tea and start reading (with strict spam filters to keep those nasty porn ads out of sight). He's configured PPP (assuming she's on a dialup) to demand-dial so she can send her outgoing email or start browsing right away. He's set up the video and applications to give her nice large type that she doesn't have to squint at. He has his own account (and the root password) on the box, and an ssh server so he can log in and do basic maintenance (like adjusting the spam filters) from home. The grandson who comes to visit has his own account, perhaps a different window manager -- maybe even KDE. The computer person shows her how to log her grandson out, in case he forgets.
Minnie isn't concerned about viruses since "the computer guy said they don't work on my computer." On occasion, she might decide she wants to try something new -- in which case, she gives the computer guy a call and he downloads and configures it for her (or if he knows her well, he already has it ready to go and just adds the icon to her dock). See, he can do that because he isn't having to fix something that "just broke" -- he can be proactive. He has time for that.
So Aunt Minnie isn't the problem here, and neither is Linux. It's her computer person, who hasn't figured out that she doesn't need all the bells and whistles.
Later,
Larry "Dirt Road" Kollar
Well, that's one view.
Let this stand for about a hundred that say the same thing:
Dear Jerry,
A very interesting and even-handed look at Microsoft alternatives. I almost never respond to articles I read. Mostly, I nod my head and quietly mutter, "Uh-huh", etc.
On to Aunt Minnie and her lack of computer sophistication. I differ on one point. (By-the-way, I provide IT systems support to companies and individuals too small to justify an IT department.) Aunt Minnie is either going to buy a computer with the OS and applications installed or nephew Jerry is going to do it. In that context, Linux is a neither a better or worse choice, than Windows.
That brings me to my point, if I (the customer) were to have a PC delivered with all (or most) of the applications I need installed and configured, I doubt I would be looking at the OS. Kind of like a gasoline or diesel engine. One may be noisier, etc. but, if my vehicle goes, I don't care as much as I might let on.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting an thought provoking article.
Best regards,
Paul Konyk Calgary, Alberta
P.S. I've enjoyed reading most (I believe) of your books.
The point is that no one seems to want to sell Linux boxes with applications set up on them, all ready to run and set up for Aunt Minnie. Or, rather, some tried it and vanished.
It is very easy to say that there ought to be such. It's easy enough to say that companies ought to be required to make them available, although if IBM couldn't be induced to sell PC's with OS/2 on them it seems a cruel trick to play on Dell and Gateway.
And of course there are plenty of people floating about out there who could set up and maintain such systems from parts obtained from Fry's and sell boxes with Linux and applications cheaper than you could buy a Windows XP with Office XP box of comparable hardware.
It doesn't seem to happen, but perhaps that is coming.
Thanks for the kind words
And Joel's observation:
Yup. It might be different if people were selling machines that came preconfigured with Linux. Most of the . . . interesting moments I had in moving from Windows to Linux were configuration issues, and those could be obviated pretty easily by a figure-it-out once, deploy-it-many-times strategy, although there are some decisions that the manufacturer couldn't make for the user. (Give me a decent machine that's neither bleeding edge nor ancient hardware, and instructions to make it possible for Aunt Minnie to use it for web browsing, email, and such, and I'd still have to know if she's got dialup, cable, or DSL access; what kind of printer she's got and how it's going to be connected; and probably half a dozen other things that even a low-level power user can be expected to figure out, but Aunt Minnie can't be counted on to.)
Dell could, just for example, offer dual-boot in Linux for a small (or no) additional fee, or even offer a Linux-only machine, with the cost that Dell pays for the Microsoft license deducted. (Gateway, whose debts have just been downgraded to junk bond status, might be another choice.) I can see the problems for them of doing that as being fairly serious, though:
1. They'd either have to support it, or explain why they can't. Given the less than stellar abilities of most first-level tech support people, supporting Linux would mean a fairly serious commitment on Dell's part, and the margins aren't exactly huge as they are. Saying, "Hey, we put it on your machine but we don't know anything about it," isn't likely to make a lot of friends. (Yes, you and I know that there's ample support for Linux out there, on newsgroups and such, but you've got to be able to get online to access it, and know how and where to ask the right questions. Writing good user documentation isn't an easy thing, and the evidence, so far, is that volunteer documentation efforts don't scale up well the way that software does. While there's lots of good information in the Linux How-Tos and other docs, there's also a lot of outdate and badly written stuff, too. Take a look at the Linux Documentation project at http://www.linuxdoc.org. So far, Eric Raymond's Magic Cauldron does not, apparently, come with terribly useful, step-by-step spell books.)
2. Microsoft Wouldn't Like It. What would Microsoft *do* about not liking it? Microsoft might take the position that this was equivalent to selling a computer without an operating system, and that Dell was conspiring to sell computers that would soon be running on pirated copies of Windows. I'm not sure how that would play in court, but I can see how Dell wouldn't want to find out. There's also less formal ways that Microsoft might choose to punish an upstart, and some reason to believe that those weren't an utter impossibility, perhaps?
So: I dunno. But I'd love to see it. Linux penetration into the server market has been made possible by the techies running the servers, who, even if they're not Unix-heads (and a lot of them are), can be expected to make sense out of a man page, and/or get help from their fellow wizards when they're puzzled, and some of the reports I've read make it pretty clear that, in some office environments, the presence of somebody like that -- or, even, the availability of the equivalent of the geek squad (http://www.geeksquad.com) to set things up and handle problems -- does make it a reasonable possibility for many corporate environments, but Aunt Minnie still needs a nephew to set things up and fix stuff for her.
Well, most of my machines were assembled here and certainly had no operating system until I put one on...