Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: trouthead who wrote (21787)	10/26/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: Prognosticator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Installing Linux on any random box is slightly more difficult than installing Microsoft's OS's. Neither operation is easy, as I found out during my last-weeks NT SP4 debacle. The real impact will be when boxes come pre-installed with both Linux and Windows, and the user has an opportunity to delete one of them after taking delivery. Then, you'll find, that the package management in Linux is far superior to Microsofts Install/Uninstall manager. I have hundreds of applications that I've installed and removed over time on my NT box, and my system uninstalled is mostly confused about what software is where, etc. Plus every time I do an install, I have to reapply service-pack 3 (or should, mostly I forget, and pay for it with BSOD's). My experience with Linux and the Redhat Package Manager was so positive I was blown away. I was even able to upgrade a small piece of the kernel, to fix a problem with the automounter, and didn't have to install a huge service pack with who-knows-what ramifications. Regarding tradeoffs: yes companies make them. Its the ones that they make that we should judge them by. IMO trading stability for performance should be a criminal offense. If they really needed to improve performance, they should have tuned the slow parts of their code, not violated principle #1 of software development (namely abstract your interfaces and then respect those abstractions). I would have had immense respect for Microsoft had they chosen to offer an installation option to allow you to select from Performance -versus-Stability. Then those of us who care about stability (and our productivity) would have been satisfied, and I wouldn't wish Microsoft had died as a startup every day. And finally: the performance problems were back in the days of 16MB 66MHz systems. Microsoft haven't gone back and redone NT to improve stability now that we have 1 GB 700 MHz systems. They just don't care. P.

To: trouthead who wrote (21787)	10/26/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

I am not technical enough to debate low level software choices with specifics. There's a point to be made there. M$'s precept is shielding you (end user) from learning ANYTHING. Everything I learned before being liberated with free nix 2 years ago was prior to 1993 under DOS. Because these (PCs) are complex machines, the M$ promise of self administering OS and 'productivity' is (quite bluntly) a lie. What have you learned in all your hundreds or thousands of hours running a Windows PC? Also, in the age of Network computing and the internet, which we are undeniably into now, an OS kernel built into the GUI is a LOSER. It's a fundamental design issue and the reason that Windows will never be UNIX. It's the reason why the internet RUNS on Unix. Unix (services) IS the internet. But it seems to me that saying MSFT will do whatever they have to do to make money is not an indictment.* What? People get indicted every day of the week for that kind of thinking. Look at how many 'black entrepreneurs' there are in PRISON. It is what I want a company I have invested in to do. Look a little closer at this story and specifically at what happens to M$ 'partners'. Karma is coming If they produce a product that is so inferior and causes the user enough pain the user will switch. Just as many on this thread have done. This is a cop out in that in real life, it's about what comes loaded on the machine. It's resrictive monopoly licensing and power that keeps other OSs from going onto OEM hard drives. You deny that? I have also recently tried to set up a box running Linux. Fergeddabout it. Wasn't going to happen. And I am fairly adept with computers. I am a QA tester. But the learning curve to get it up and running for my purposes far outweighed any perceived stability advantage. I remember that. It was about a year ago. You know, given equal availability of drivers, Linux may very well be an EASIER install. In any case, it only needs to be installed once. I understood and understand your frustration with Linux. It may be time though to give it another whirl. Corel is coming out with a 'desktop' Linux that asks FOUR questions during the installation. Caldera is supposed to be a snap. In any case, you'll be amazed at the difference in installation complexity between then and now, and will be able to easily project what progress will come over the NEXT 12 months in that direction. And the 'direction' btw, is cheap-cheap-cheap PCs. It's quickly coming to the point where $50+ to the OEM for the M$ OS is going to have to go. Pretty soon, Linux will come loaded on the PCs and users who want Windows will need to install THAT themselves. Not possible? -JCJ