|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] Re: M$ SFU v3.5 vs Cygwin
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Robert wrote:
> > Just downloaded and installed M$ SFU (Services for Unix).
> > (Hey don't shoot me, it is now a free download after all...)
> > Firstly, I must say that I was impressed with the features it now
> > has - most importantly better NFS/NIS integration. I also see
> > they are now bundling what looks to be a complete X11 system
> > (this wasn't in the ancient version that I had)
>
> I won't shoot you in the first place.
> First off, do not refer to Microsoft as M$. That is unprofessional for
> someone who chose Unix/Linux over the norm.
I know a number of die hard Microsoft supporters/professionals who use the
refernece M$. Get a moderately sized company (60+ workstations) and the
cost of licensing becomes a real burden. BTW, I have often seen people
refer to Sun's OS as $olaris for the same reason.
As a "professional" who has had to support PHP/Perl/Linux/Apache/BSD/etc.
on hand and Windows/Exchange/Access/SQL Server/IIS/etc. on the other,
there are strengths (and weaknesses) to both sides. While I have seen pure
M$ shops, I have yet to see a pure OSS shop. With that being said, most of
my headaches come supporting the M$ side. Pardon me if this
"unprofessional", but I don't suffer foolish people or things gladly.
> As to what they're bundling, I'm hoping we don't see a Microsoft version of
> Linux any time soon. Given Microsoft's tendencies, it's highly possible IMO.
> I hope the open source people start filing restraining orders against
> Microsoft, or something. I don't hate microsoft, but I do hate how they
> steal something and make it their own, yet their version sucks. But people
> don't realize this, since it comes bundled with windows. Examples of this
> are realplayer/winamp versus media player (now people hardly remember those
> products), netscape versus internet explorer, etc. Us Linux/Unix people
> remember those products, as they've turned their attention to Linux/Unix. If
> not for that, no one would remember them unless they were around at the time.
> While Microsoft may be afraid of Linux/Unix now, I'm afraid they'll do
> something to squash their competition, as has happened many times before. I
> don't hate Microsoft -- I chose Linux for what it is and what I needed. But
> I hate Microsoft's history, and I'm surprised people are so blind to their
> actions in the past.
Mediocrity will always sell better. It's just not M$. Need examples?
* PC BIOS that start in 8086 mode, i.e. 1 MB of addressable memory, no
multitasking, having to setup a ton system stuff to get them into a state
that true work can be done.
* X Windows - A lot of stuff seems to "bolted on" which should be integral
to the system. Examples include Xinerama, DRI, fonts, etc. The current
paradigm for X seems dated. I had hoped that things like the GGI project
(remember that fiasco, long time Linux users), the framebuffer interface,
and who knows how many widget sets would be the ultimate answer.
People will either settle for or simply tolerate what is the norm. X
Windows is the normal GUI for *nix, therefore tolerated. M$ Word is the
lingua franca for word processing, therefore everyone (even the
OpenOffices and Abiwords) need to support it.
People need to demand better, but won't...
-dan
P.S. I just bid on a project for Medical transcription (bulk word
processing at its most basic). Their specs?
* Basic networking
* WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS (they provide this)
* Support for LaserJet 3's
* DOS no windows
I asked them about their simple requiremnts and why they opted for WP 5.1
DOS, especially. Their answer, they have yet to find a Windows system that
could keep up with their typists.
|
|
